Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 761–773 | Cite as

How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city

  • Morelia Camacho-Cervantes
  • Jorge E. Schondube
  • Alicia Castillo
  • Ian MacGregor-ForsEmail author


Cities are systems that include natural and human-created components. When a city grows without proper planning, it tends to have low environmental quality. If improving environmental quality is intended, people’s opinion should be taken into account for a better acceptance of urban management decisions. In this study, we assessed people’s perception of trees by conducting a survey with a controlled sample of citizens from the city of Morelia (west-central Mexico). Citizens liked both native and exotic tree species and rejected mainly exotic ones. Preference for trees were related to tree attributes; such as size. Trees that dropped leaves or tended to fall were not liked. The most-mentioned tree-related benefits were oxygen supply and shade; the most mentioned tree-related damages were accidents and infrastructure damage. The majority of respondents preferred trees near houses to increase tree density. Also, most respondents preferred trees in green areas as well as close to their houses, as they consider that trees provide oxygen. The majority of the respondents thought more trees were needed in the city. In general, our results show that although people perceive that trees in urban areas can cause damages, they often show more interest for the benefits related to trees and consider there should be more trees in cities. We strongly suggest the development of studies that broaden our knowledge of citizen preferences in relation to urban vegetation, and that further policy making takes their perception into account when considering creating new urban green areas, regardless of their type or size.


Social perception Urban planning Citizens benefits Morelia México 



We are grateful to A. Ken Oyama Nakagawa, Antonio Vieyra Medrano, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. We also thank the kindergartens and people who participated in this study, who preferred to remain anonymous, and acknowledge the participation of Hugo Camacho and Tania Arroyo in data collection. Also, we want to thank Dr. Amy Deacon for language corrections and comments on the manuscript. Finally, we greatly thank Lupita Cervantes and Oracio Camacho for partially funding the project.


  1. Ardila A (1980) Psicología de la percepción (Psychology of perception). Trillas, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  2. Arizpe L, Paz F, Velazquez M (1993) Cultura y cambio global: Percepciones sociales sobre la deforestación en la selva Lacandona (Culture and global change: Social Perceptions on the deforestation of the Lacandona rainforest). Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias. Porrúa, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  3. Ávila García P (2006) Hacía la construcción de un marco conceptual para el estudio de la relación ciudad-medio ambiente (Towards the construction of a conceptual frame for the study of the city-environment relationship). In: Tapia CE, Vargas Uribe G (eds) El impacto del desarollo urbano en los recursos naturales. CIDEM UMSNH, Morelia, pp 17–31Google Scholar
  4. Ávila García P (2007) Agua, ciudad y medio ambiente: una visión histórica de Morelia, México (Water, city and environment: a historical vision of Morelia, México). CIDEM-UMSNH, MichoacánGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkowitz AR, Nilon CH, Hollweg KS (2003) Understanding urban ecosystems. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonaiuto M, Aiello A, Perugini M, Bonnes M, Ercolani AP (1999) Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. J Environ Psychol 19:331–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonnes M, Passafaro P, Carrus G (2011) The ambivalence of attitudes toward urban green areas: between proenvironmental worldviews and daily residential experience. Environ Behav 43:207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carranza Cárdenas JM (2006) El problema del crecimiento urbano y su impacto en los recursos naturales (The problem of urban growing and its impact in environmental resources). CIDEM-UMSNH, MichoacánGoogle Scholar
  9. Castillo A, Corral Verdugo V, Gonzáles Gaudiano E, Paré L, Paz MF, Reyes J, Schteingart M (2009) Conservación y sociedad (Concervation and society). In: CONABIO (ed) Capital Natural de México, Vol. II: Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio. CONABIO, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  10. Chace JF, Walsh JJ (2006) Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 74:46–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conejo M (2011) Análisis de la relación entre las características de los árboles y el daño que causan sobre las banquetas y camellones de la ciudad de Morelia, Michoacán, México (Analysis of the relation between the trees’ characteristics and their repercussion on sidewalks and boulevards in the city of Morelia, Michoacán, México). Dissertation, UMSNH, MoreliaGoogle Scholar
  12. Conway TM, Urbani L (2007) Variations in municipal urban forestry policies: a case study of Toronto, Canada. Urban For Urban Green 6:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costanza R, D'arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donovan GH, Butry DT (2010) Trees in the city: valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landsc Urban Plan 94:77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dwyer JF, Schroeder HW, Gobster PH (1991) The significance of urban trees and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. J Arboric 17:276–284Google Scholar
  17. Escobedo F, Chacalo A (2008) Descontaminación atmosférica por el arbolado urbano de la Ciudad de México (Reduction in atmosphere pollution due to the urban trees in Mexico City). Interciencia 33:29–33Google Scholar
  18. Ezcurra E (1990) De las chinampas a la megalópolis (From chinampas to the big city). Fondo de Cultura Económica, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  19. Frazonsi R, Doyle S, McClelland LE, Rankin CP, Vicari S (2013) Quantitative narrative analysis software options compared: PC-ACE and CAQDAS (ATLAS.ti, MAXqda, and NVivo). Qual Quant 47:3219–3247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3:390–394PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garza G (2002) Evolución de las ciudades mexicanas en el Siglo XX (Evolution of Mexican cities in the XX Century). Revista de Información y Análisis 19:7–16Google Scholar
  22. Gidlof-Gunnarsson A, Ohrstrom E (2007) Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: the potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landsc Urban Plan 83:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gobster PH (1995) Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landsc Urban Plan 33:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25:90–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grahn P, Stigsdotter UA (2003) Landscape planning and stress. Urban For Urban Green 2:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu JG, Bai XM, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamer AJ, McDonnell MJ (2008) Amphibian ecology and conservation in the urbanising world: a review. Biol Conserv 141:2432–2449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henwood K, Pidgeon N (2001) Talk about woods and trees: threat of urbanization, stability, and biodiversity. J Environ Psychol 21:125–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. (ICRAF) World Agroforestry Centre (2013) AgroForestryTree Database. World Agroforestry Centre Accessed 22 December 2013
  30. (ISSG) Invasive Species Specialist Group (2013) Global Invasive Species Database. Invasive Species Specialist Group Accessed 22 December 2013
  31. Joye Y, Willems K, Brengman M, Wolf K (2010) The effects of urban retail greenery on consumer experience: reviewing the evidence from a restorative perspective. Urban For Urban Green 9:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kinzig AP, Warren P, Martin C, Hope D, Katti M (2005) The effects of human socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecol Soc 10(1):23Google Scholar
  33. Lazos E, Paré L (2000) Miradas indígenas sobre una naturaleza “entristecida”: Percepciones del deterioro ambiental entre Nahuas del sur de Veracruz (Indigenous insights about a “saddened” nature: perceptions of the environmental detriment by Nahuas from the south of Veracruz). Plaza y Valdés Editores – IIS-UNAM, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  34. Leslie E, Sugiyama T, Ierodiaconou D, Kremer P (2010) Perceived and objectively measured greenness of neighbourhoods: are they measuring the same thing? Landsc Urban Plan 95:28–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lyytimaki J, Sipila M (2009) Hopping on one leg—the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban For Urban Green 8:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lyytimäki J, Petersen LK, Normander B, Bezák P (2008) Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ Sci 5:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacGregor-Fors I, Ortega-Alvarez R (2011) Fading from the forest: bird community shifts related to urban park site-specific and landscape traits. Urban For Urban Green 10:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacGregor-Fors I, Ortega-Álvarez R, Schondube JE (2009) On the ecological quality of urban systems: an ornithological perspective. In: Graber DS, Birmingham KA (eds) Urban planing in the 21st century. Nova, HaupageGoogle Scholar
  39. MacGregor-Fors I, Morales-Perez L, Schondube JE (2011) Does size really matter? Species-area relationships in human settlements. Divers Distrib 17:112–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnely R (2001) A historical perspective on urban bird research: trends, terms and approaches. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman JM, Donnely R (eds) Avian conservation and ecology in an urbanizing world. Kluwer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maxwell JA (2013) Qualitative research design: an interactive approach 3rd Edition. Sage, U.S.AGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayring P (2000) Qualitative content analysis. Qual Social Res 1(2):20Google Scholar
  44. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis 2nd Edition. Sage, NewburyGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller JR, Fraterrigo JM, Hobbs NT, Theobald DN, Wiens JA (2001) Urbanization, avian communities and landscape ecology. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman JM, Donnely R (eds) Avian conservation and ecology in an urbanizing world. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  46. Montgomery MR (2008) The urban transformation of the developing world. Science 319:761–764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mooney HA (2000) Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  48. Nali C, Lorenzini G (2009) Residents’ perception of tree diseases in the urban environment. Arboricult Urban For 35:87–93Google Scholar
  49. Nassauer JI, Wang ZF, Dayrell E (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc Urban Plan 92:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Brien J, Kollock P (2001) Essay: meaning is negotiated through interaction. In: O’Brien J, Kollock P (eds) The production of reality. Essays and readings on social interaction. Pine Forge Press, Boston, pp 189–205Google Scholar
  51. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Zipperer RV, Costanza R (2001) Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:127–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pisanty I, Mazari M, Ezcurra E (2009) El reto de la conservación de la biodiversidad en zonas urbanas y periurbanas. In: CONABIO (ed) Capital natural de México, Vol. II: Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio. CONABIO, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  53. Pluhar ZF, Piko BF, Uzzoli A, Page RM, Dull A (2010) Representations of the relationship among physical activity, health and perceived living environment in Hungarian urban children’s images. Landsc Urban Plan 95:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sanesi G, Chiarello F (2006) Residents and urban green spaces: the case of Bari. Urban For Urban Green 4:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sanesi G, Lafortezza R, Bonnes M, Carrus G (2006) Comparison of two different approaches for assessing the psychological and social dimensions of green spaces. Urban For Urban Green 5:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schipperijn J, Stigsdotter UK, Randrup TB, Troelsen J (2010) Influences on the use of urban green space—a case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban For Urban Green 9:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schroeder H, Flannigan J, Coles R (2006) Residents’ attitudes toward street trees in the UK and U.S. communities. Arboricult Urban For 32:236–246Google Scholar
  58. Solecki WD, Welch JM (1995) Urban parks: green spaces or green walls? Landsc Urban Plan 32:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tapia CE, Vargas Uribe G (2006) El impacto del desarrollo urbano en los recursos naturales (The impact of the urban development in natural resources). CIDEM-UMSNH, MoreliaGoogle Scholar
  60. Turner WR, Nakamura T, Dinetti M (2004) Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. Bioscience 54:585–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. United Nations (2005) World urbanization prospects: the 2003 revision. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Vargas Uribe G (2006) Cambios del entorno ecológico de Valladolid-Morelia, una perspectiva desde la historia ambiental (Changes in the ecological surounding of Valladolid-Morelia, a perspective from its environmental history). In: Tapia CE, Vargas Uribe G (eds) El impacto del desarollo urbano en los recursos naturales (The impact of the urban development in natural resources). CIDEM-UMSNH, MoreliaGoogle Scholar
  63. Vargas Uribe G (2008) Urbanización y configuración territorial en la región Valladolid-Morelia 1541–1991 (Urbanization and teritorial configuration of the Valladolid-Morelia region 1541–1991). Morevallado Editores, MoreliaGoogle Scholar
  64. Whyte A (1985) Guidelines for field studies in environmental perception. MAB Technical Notes 5. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  65. Zheng B, Zhang YQ, Chen JQ (2011) Preference to home landscape: wildness or neatness? Landsc Urban Plan 99:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morelia Camacho-Cervantes
    • 1
  • Jorge E. Schondube
    • 2
  • Alicia Castillo
    • 2
  • Ian MacGregor-Fors
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre for Biological DiversityUniversity of St AndrewsFifeUK
  2. 2.Centro de Investigaciones en EcosistemasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MexicoMoreliaMexico
  3. 3.Red de Ambiente y Sustentabilidad, Instituto de EcologíaXalapaMexico

Personalised recommendations