Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Landscape characteristics and social factors influencing attitudes toward roadside vegetation management

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdi H, Williams LJ (2010) Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2:433–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrams J, Kelly E, Shindler B, Wilton J (2005) Value orientation and forest management: the forest health debate. Environ Manag 36:495–505

    Google Scholar 

  • Akbar KF, Hale WHG, Headley AD (2003) Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landsc Urban Plan 63:139–144

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Berenguer J, Corraliza JA, Martin R (2005) Rural-urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions. Eur J Psychol Assess 21:128–138

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell RJ (2012) Weather-related power outages and electric system resiliency. Congressional Research Service Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway TM (2016) Tending their urban forest: residents’ motivation for tree planting and removal. Urban For Urban Green 17:23–32

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina JM (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol 78:98–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler A, Cutler DR, Stevens JR (2011) Random forests. Ensemble Mach Learn 45:156–157

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis KL, Jones RE (2014) Modeling environmental concern for urban tree protection using biophysical and social psychological indicators. Soc Nat Resour 27:372–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2009) Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:207–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman JH (2001) Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Stat 29:1189–1232

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Hum Dimens Wildl 1:24–47

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddart-Kennedy E, Beckley TM, McFarlane BL, Nadeau S (2009) Rural–urban differences in environmental concern in Canada. Rural Sociol 74:309–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ, Cordell HK (1987) Psychophysical models: an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests. Landsc J 6:113–122

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhns MR, Reiter DK (2007) Knowledge of and attitudes about utility pruning and how education can help. Arboric Urban For 33:264

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mok J-H, Landphair HC, Naderi JR (2006) Landscape improvement impacts on roadside safety in Texas. Landsc Urban Plan 78:263–274

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morzillo AT, Mertig AG (2011) Urban resident attitudes toward rodents, rodent control products, and environmental effects. Urban Ecosyst 14:243–260

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Paquette S, Domon G (2003) Changing ruralities, changing landscapes: exploring social recomposition using a multi-scale approach. J Rural Stud 19:425–444

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter E (2011) Forest landscapes in Europe—visual characteristics and the role of arboriculture. New Perspect People For 9:221–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan RL (2002) Preserving rural character in New England: local residents’ perceptions of alternative residential development. Landsc Urban Plan 61:19–35

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder HW (1989) Esthetic perceptions of the urban forest: a utility perspective. J Arboric 15:292–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakeel T, Conway TM (2014) Individual households and their trees: fine-scale characteristics shaping urban forests. Urban For Urban Green 13:136–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvera Seamans G (2013) Mainstreaming the environmental benefits of street trees. Urban For Urban Green 12:2–11

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Spooner PG (2015) Minor rural road networks: values, challenges, and opportunities for biodiversity conservation. Nat Conserv 11:129–142

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppakittpaisarn P, Jiang B, Slavenas M, Sullivan WC (2019) Does density of green infrastructure predict preference? Urban For Urban Green 40:236–244

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Theobald DM (2004) Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework. Front Ecol Environ 2:139–144

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Commerce (USDC) (2011) Urban area criteria for the 2010 census. Fed Reg 76:53030–53043

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Sponarski CC (2017) Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach’s alpha. Leis Sci 39:163–173

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Zabik MJ, Prytherch DL (2013) Challenges to planning for rural character: a case study from exurban southern New England. Cities 31:186–196

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anita T. Morzillo.

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.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1855 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01078-6

Keywords

Navigation