Abstract
Context
For the roadside forest, utility vegetation management is a driver of landscape change involving tradeoffs between reliable electric power and preservation of trees. However, little is known about public perceptions of vegetation management in the landscape context.
Objectives
Our objective was to evaluate social and residential context characteristics associated with resident attitudes toward roadside utility vegetation management across Connecticut.
Methods
We used a mail survey to collect social science data from residents in two study areas in Connecticut. We measured landscape characteristics associated with tree cover and development density at multiple scales around each respondent household. Random forest predictive models were used to assess attitudes toward vegetation management as explained by social and residential context variables.
Results
Respondents generally had positive attitudes toward vegetation management, agreeing that it improves public safety and minimizes power outages. Social variables revealed that residents were more likely to have favorable attitudes if they had greater knowledge about trees, believed that trees should be used for human benefits, prioritized reduced power outages over forest aesthetics, and considered changes in the roadside forest to be acceptable. Residential context variables were not as strongly associated with attitudes as social variables, but did rank as important for two out of three attitudes variables.
Conclusions
Attitudes toward vegetation management may be influenced by residential context, yet likely are formed independently of it. Spatial heterogeneity of exurban land use and social characteristics suggest encompassing variability in approaches to roadside forest management policy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdi H, Williams LJ (2010) Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2:433–459
Abrams J, Kelly E, Shindler B, Wilton J (2005) Value orientation and forest management: the forest health debate. Environ Manag 36:495–505
Akbar KF, Hale WHG, Headley AD (2003) Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landsc Urban Plan 63:139–144
Andrade R, Larson KL, Hondula DM, Franklin J (2019) Social-spatial analyses of attitudes toward the desert in a southwestern U.S. City Ann Am Assoc Geogr 109:1845–1864
Andrew C, Slater D (2014) Why some UK homeowners reduce the size of their front garden trees and the consequences for urban forest benefits as assessed by i-Tree ECO. Arboric J 36:197–215
Appelt PJ, Beard A (2006) Components of an effective vegetation management program (2006 IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference). In: 2006 IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference. pp 1–8
Bartlett JEI, Kotrlik JW, Higgins CC (2001) Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Inf Technol Learn Perform J 19:43–50
Belaire JA, Westphal LM, Minor ES (2016) Different social drivers, including perceptions of urban wildlife, explain the ecological resources in residential landscapes. Landsc Ecol 31:401–413
Berenguer J, Corraliza JA, Martin R (2005) Rural-urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions. Eur J Psychol Assess 21:128–138
Berninger K, Kneeshaw D (2009) Forest value orientations of interest groups in three regions varying in importance of commercial forestry. Int J Sustain Soc 1:391–408
Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32
Brown DG, Johnson KM, Loveland TR, Theobald DM (2005) Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecol Appl 15:1851–1863
Bunce A, Volin JC, Miller DR, Parent J, Rudnicki M (2019) Determinants of tree sway frequency in temperate deciduous forests of the Northeast United States. Agric For Meteorol 266–267:87–96
Campbell RJ (2012) Weather-related power outages and electric system resiliency. Congressional Research Service Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Cieslewicz SR, Novembri RR (2004) Utility vegetation management final report. In: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission U.S. Government. https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/reliability/blackout/uvm-final-report.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2017
Colgan C, Hunter ML, McGill B, Weiskittel A (2014) Managing the middle ground: forests in the transition zone between cities and remote areas. Landsc Ecol 29:1133–1143
Conway TM (2016) Tending their urban forest: residents’ motivation for tree planting and removal. Urban For Urban Green 17:23–32
Cook EM, Hall SJ, Larson KL (2012) Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosyst 15:19–52
Cortina JM (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78:98–104
Cutler A, Cutler DR, Stevens JR (2011) Random forests. Ensemble Mach Learn 45:156–157
Cutler DR, Edwards TC Jr, Beard KH, Cutler A, Hess KT, Gibson J, Lawler JJ (2007) Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88:2783–2792
Davis KL, Jones RE (2014) Modeling environmental concern for urban tree protection using biophysical and social psychological indicators. Soc Nat Resour 27:372–388
Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2009) Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York, NY
Dixon KK, Wolf KL (2007) Benefits and risks of an urban roadside landscape: finding a livable, balanced response. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Urban Street Symposium. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science, Seattle, WA
Donovan GH, Butry DT (2010) Trees in the city: valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landsc Urban Plan 94:77–83
Dowling B (2014) Final review of tree trimming requires utilities to be more flexible. In: Hartford Courant. https://www.courant.com/business/hc-tree-trimming-connecticut-utilities-final-20140625-story.html. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
Egan AF, Luloff AE (2000) The exurbanization of America’s forests: research in rural social science. J For 98:26–30
Eversource (2016) Understanding vegetation management. In: Eversource. https://www.eversource.com/content/docs/default-source/nh---pdfs/eversource-veg-mgmt-guide_final_web.pdf. Accessed 8 Dec 2017
Flowers DE, Gerhold HD (2000) Replacement of trees under utility wires: impacts attitudes and community tree programs. J Arboric 26:309–318
Forman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:207–231
Friedman JH (2001) Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Stat 29:1189–1232
Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Hum Dimens Wildl 1:24–47
Garre S, Meeus S, Gulinck H (2009) The dual role of roads in the visual landscape: a case study in the area around Mechelen (Belgium). Landsc Urban Plan 92:125–135
Gianotti AGS, Getson JM, Hutyra LR, Kittredge DB (2016) Defining urban, suburban, and rural: a method to link perceptual definitions with geospatial measures of urbanization in central and eastern Massachusetts. Urban Ecosyst 19:823–833
Guo T, Morgenroth J, Conway T (2019) To plant, remove, or retain: understanding property owner decisions about trees during redevelopment. Landsc Urban Plan 190:103601
Hammerling E (2012) State vegetation management task force final report. In: Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. https://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2697&q=503040&deepNav_GID=1631
Hollister JW, Milstead WB, Kreakie BJ (2016) Modeling lake trophic state: a random forest approach. Ecosphere 7:e01321
Huddart-Kennedy E, Beckley TM, McFarlane BL, Nadeau S (2009) Rural–urban differences in environmental concern in Canada. Rural Sociol 74:309–329
Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ, Cordell HK (1987) Psychophysical models: an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests. Landsc J 6:113–122
Hull RB, Robertson DP (2001) Public understandings of nature: a case study of local knowledge about “natural” forest conditions. Soc Nat Resour 14:325–340
Jiang B, Larsen L, Deal B, Sullivan WC (2015) A dose–response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landsc Urban Plan 139:16–25
Johnson AM (2008) Best practices handbook for roadside vegetation management. In: Minnesota Department of Transportation. https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200820.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2018
Jones RE, Fly JM, Talley J, Cordell HK (2003) Green migration into rural America the new frontier of environmentalism. Soc Nat Resour 16:221–238
Keener-Eck LS, Morzillo AT, Christoffel RA (2020) Resident attitudes toward timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus). Soc Nat Resour 33(9). https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1695989
Kirkpatrick JB, Davison A, Daniels GD (2012) Resident attitudes towards trees influence the planting and removal of different types of trees in eastern Australian cities. Landsc Urban Plan 107:147–158
Kloster D (2020) Human dimensions of roadside forest management to reduce utility infrastructure vulnerability. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut
Kreakie BJ, Hollister JW, Nojavan F, Milstead WB, Mattas-Curry L (2015) Computational ecology & open science: tools to help manage cyanobacteria in lakes. Lakeline. N Am Lake Manag Soc 35:24–27
Kuhns MR, Reiter DK (2007) Knowledge of and attitudes about utility pruning and how education can help. Arboric Urban For 33:264
Lee BA, Reardon SF, Firebaugh G, Farrell CR, Matthews SA, O'Sullivan D (2008b) Beyond the census tract: patterns and determinants of racial segregation at multiple geographic scales. Am Sociol Rev 73:766–791
Lee S-W, Ellis CD, Kweon B-S, Hong S-K (2008a) Relationship between landscape structure and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landsc Urban Plan 85:60–70
Martinuzzi S, Stewart SI, Helmers DP, Mockrin MH, Hammer RB, Radeloff VC (2015) The 2010 wildland-urban interface of the conterminous United States. U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA
Massie MH, Wilson TM, Morzillo AT, Henderson EB (2016) Natural areas as a basis for assessing ecosystem vulnerability to climate change. Ecosphere 7:1–17
McDonald PM, Litton RB Jr (1998) Combining silviculture and landscape architecture to enhance the roadside view. U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Berkeley, CA
Mok J-H, Landphair HC, Naderi JR (2006) Landscape improvement impacts on roadside safety in Texas. Landsc Urban Plan 78:263–274
Morzillo AT, Kreakie BJ, Netusil NR, Yeakley JA, Ozawa CP, Duncan SL (2016) Resident perceptions of natural resources between cities and across scales in the Pacific Northwest. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08478-210314
Morzillo AT, Mertig AG (2011) Urban resident attitudes toward rodents, rodent control products, and environmental effects. Urban Ecosyst 14:243–260
Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Hollister JW, Garner N, Liu J (2010) Socioeconomic factors affecting local support for black bear recovery strategies. Environ Manag 45:1299–1311
Netusil NR, Chattopadhyay S, Kovacs KF (2010) Estimating the demand for tree canopy: a second stage hedonic price analysis in Portland, Oregon. Land Econ 86:281–293
Tele Atlas North America, Inc (2010) Street Centerline used for geocoding 9-1-1 wireline telephone calls (Version 6.2) [Shapefile]. State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety
Nowak DJ, Greenfield EJ (2012) Tree and impervious cover in the United States. Landsc Urban Plan 107:21–30
Paquette S, Domon G (2003) Changing ruralities, changing landscapes: exploring social recomposition using a multi-scale approach. J Rural Stud 19:425–444
Parent J, Volin J, Civco D (2015) A fully-automated approach to land cover mapping with airborne LiDAR and high resolution multispectral imagery in a forested suburban landscape. J Photogramm Remote Sens 104:18–29
Parker K, Horowitz J, Brown A, Fry R, Cohn D, Igielnik R (2018) What Unites and Divides Urban, Suburban, and Rural Communities. In: Pew Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/what-unites-and-divides-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/. Accessed 12 Dec 2018
Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (2014) PURA calls for suspension of enhanced tree trimming. In: Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. https://www.ct.gov/pura/cwp/view.asp?Q=541516&A=4144. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
Racevskis LA, Lupi F (2006) Comparing urban and rural perceptions of and familiarity with the management of forest ecosystems. Soc Nat Resour 19:479–495
Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Fried JS, Holcomb SS, McKeefry JF (2005) The wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecol Appl 15:799–805
Ritter E (2011) Forest landscapes in Europe—visual characteristics and the role of arboriculture. New Perspect People For 9:221–229
Ryan RL (2002) Preserving rural character in New England: local residents’ perceptions of alternative residential development. Landsc Urban Plan 61:19–35
Salmond JA, Tadaki M, Vardoulakis S, Arbuthnott K, Coutts A, Demuzere M, Dirks KN, Heaviside C, Lim S, Macintyre H, McInnes RN (2016) Health and climate related ecosystem services provided by street trees in the urban environment. Environ Health 15:S36
Sander HA, Polasky S (2009) The value of views and open space: estimates from a hedonic pricing model for Ramsey County, Minnesota, USA. Land Use Policy 26:837–845
Schroeder HW (1989) Esthetic perceptions of the urban forest: a utility perspective. J Arboric 15:292–294
Shakeel T, Conway TM (2014) Individual households and their trees: fine-scale characteristics shaping urban forests. Urban For Urban Green 13:136–144
Silvera Seamans G (2013) Mainstreaming the environmental benefits of street trees. Urban For Urban Green 12:2–11
Skahill P (2014) For tree-trimming opponents, a victory, at least for now. In: Connecticut Public Radio. https://wnpr.org/post/tree-trimming-opponents-victory-least-now. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
Smith JW, Leahy JE, Anderson DH, Davenport MA (2013) Community/agency trust and public involvement in resource planning. Soc Nat Resour 26:452–471
Soini K, Vaarala H, Pouta E (2012) Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landsc Urban Plan 104:124–134
Spooner PG (2015) Minor rural road networks: values, challenges, and opportunities for biodiversity conservation. Nat Conserv 11:129–142
State of Connecticut (2014) Public Act No. 14-151. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/ACT/pa/pdf/2014PA-00151-R00HB-05408-PA.pdf. Accessed 2 Nov 2017
Strobl C, Boulesteix A-L, Kneib T, Augustin T, Zeileis A (2008) Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinform 9:11
Suppakittpaisarn P, Jiang B, Slavenas M, Sullivan WC (2019) Does density of green infrastructure predict preference? Urban For Urban Green 40:236–244
Tahvanainen L, Tyrväinen L, Ihalainen M, Vuorela N, Kolehmainen O (2001) Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information. Landsc Urban Plan 53:53–70
Theobald DM (2004) Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework. Front Ecol Environ 2:139–144
Theobald DM (2005) Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01390-100132
US Department of Commerce (USDC) (2011) Urban area criteria for the 2010 census. Fed Reg 76:53030–53043
US Department of Commerce (USDC) (2013) U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census 2010, Summary File 1. In: US Department of Commerce Census Bureau Geographical Division, Washington DC. https://www2.census.gov/census_2010/04-Summary_File_1/. Accessed 5 May 2017
US Department of Commerce (USDC) (2016) U.S. Census Bureau/American FactFinder. 2011–2015 American Community Survey. In: US Census Bur. Am. Community Surv. Off. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t. Accessed 20 Jul 2017
Vaske JJ (2002) Communicating judgments about practical significance: effect size, confidence intervals and odds ratios. Hum Dimens Wildl 7:287–300
Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Sponarski CC (2017) Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach’s alpha. Leis Sci 39:163–173
Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP, Williams DR, Jonker S (2001) Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management. Soc Nat Resour 14:761–776
Weber F, Kowarik I, Säumel I (2014) A walk on the wild side: perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban For Urban Green 13:205–212
Wolf KL, Bratton N (2006) Urban trees and traffic safety: considering the U.S. roadside policy and crash data. Arboric Urban For 32:170–179
Zabik MJ, Prytherch DL (2013) Challenges to planning for rural character: a case study from exurban southern New England. Cities 31:186–196
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Eversource Energy Center, the University of Connecticut, and the USDA McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program. Thank you to A. Aguiar, T. Armijo, A. Bunce, A. Carey, S. DiFalco, R. Fahey, R. French, J. Hollister, H. Ives, L. Keener-Eck, D. Kloster, B. Kreakie, N. Marek, W. McIntosh, T. Meyer, J. Parent, T.J. Powell, K. Raymond, S. Redding, K. Riitters, Z. Smiarowski, J. Volin, C. Witharana, T. Worthley, N. Yarmey, and all survey respondents.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hale, D.C., Morzillo, A.T. Landscape characteristics and social factors influencing attitudes toward roadside vegetation management. Landscape Ecol 35, 2029–2044 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01078-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01078-6