Perception of Citizens toward Implementation of Urban Forestry: Case of a Local City in the Philippines

  • Nonillon M. Aspe
  • Jhonamie A. Mabuhay-Omar
  • Nobukazu Nakagoshi


This study sought to understand how the constituents of Iligan City, a local city in Mindanao, Philippines, perceive the concept of urban forestry as necessary, beneficial and practical to be implemented. Specific objectives were to determine if there is any difference in the perception among the social types of respondents, to determine what demographic factors may have influenced their perception, to understand the reasons for such differences in perception, and to determine current constraints to urban forestry implementation. This study used a combination of qualitative and quantitative data gathering using validated structured questionnaire and visualization method. The respondents were 15 years old and above, coming from four social groups, namely students, professionals, policy makers, and other citizens. The results showed that the students, professionals, and the policy makers differ in perception of urban forestry and the general importance of trees, support the implementation of the program and the materialization of urban forestry from the other citizens (include sidewalk vendors, drivers, and unemployed citizens). With regards to gender, both male and female respondents are strongly aware of urban forestry and the general importance of trees, but their perception on the materialization of urban forestry and support in its implementation in the city differs. On the support of implementation and perception on the materialization of urban forestry, there are significant differences among age groups where 26–50 years old respondents perceived urban forestry weaker than those 15–25 years old, while 51 and above years old are uncertain. Both resident and transient respondents strongly agree on the awareness, support, and materialization of urban forestry in Iligan City.



We are grateful to the Iligan City Government for allowing us to conduct this study in their jurisdiction, and to the city officials who took time to answer the questionnaires. We are also indebted to Dr. Mark Anthony Torres for helping us with the statistical analysis and Mr. Otto Jali for his help on the figures for visualization method. We thank the Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation of Hiroshima University for giving us a platform and necessary resources to write this manuscript. This study was partially funded by the GELs Programme of the Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima University, Japan.


  1. Acar C, Kurdoglu BC, Kurdoglu O, Acar H (2006) Public preferences for visual quality and management in the Kackar Mountains National Park (Turkey). Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 13:499–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvey AA (2006) Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban For Urban Green 5:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnberger A, Eder R (2012) The influence of green space on community attachment of urban and suburban residents. Urban For Urban Green 11:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atmiş E, Daşdemir I, Lise W, Yıldıranc Ö (2007) Factors affecting women’s participation in forestry in Turkey. Ecol Econ 60:787–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell S, Thompson CW, Travlou P (2003) Contested views of freedom and control: children, teenagers and urban fringe woodlands in Central Scotland. Urban For Urban Green 2:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaschke T (2006) The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital. Landsc Urban Plan 75(3–4):198–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen WY (2006) Assessing the services and value of green spaces in urban ecosystem: a case of Guangzhou City. PhD Thesis, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: as cited by Jim CY, Chen WY (2009) Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities 26: 187–194Google Scholar
  8. Chung SS, Poon CS (1999) The attitudes of Guangzhou citizens on waste reduction and environmental issues. Resour Conserv Recycl 25:35–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conway TM, Bang E (2014) Willing partners? Residential support for municipal urban forestry policies. Urban For Urban Green 13:234–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Culp RH (1998) Adolescent girls and outdoor recreation: a case study examining constraints and effective programming. J Leisure Res 30:356–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dimoudi A, Zoras S, Kantziouraa A, Stogiannoua X, Kosmopoulos P, Pallas C (2014) Use of cool materials and other bioclimatic interventions in outdoor places in order to mitigate the urban heat island in a medium size city in Greece. Sustain Cities Soc 13:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Environment Agency (2005) Environment and health. EEA Report No. 10/2005. From:
  13. Gaffin SR, Rosenzweig C, Kong AYY (2012) Adapting to climate change through urban green infrastructure. Nat Clim Change 2:704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grimmond S, Souch C, Grant R, Heisler G (1994) Local scale energy and water exchange in a Chicago neighborhood. In McPherson EG, Nowak DJ, Rowntree RA (eds) Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago urban forest climate project. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-186, Radnor, PA, pp 41–62Google Scholar
  15. Jim CY, Shan X (2013) Socioeconomic effect on perception of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Cities 31:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jo HK (2002) Impacts of urban greenspace on offsetting carbon emissions for middle Korea. J Environ Manage 64:115–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson CY, Bowker JM, Cordell HK (2001) Outdoor recreation constraints: an examination of race, gender, and rural dwelling. South Rural Sociol 17:111–133Google Scholar
  18. Jones HP, Hole DG, Zavaleta ES (2012) Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nat Clim Change 2:504–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jorgensen E (1974) Towards an urban forestry concept. In: Prepared for the 10th commonwealth forestry conference, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. Karjalainen E, Tyrväinen L (2002) Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landsc Urban Plan 59:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Konijnendijk C (2000) Adapting forestry to urban demands Ð role of communication in urban forestry in Europe. Landsc Urban Plan 52:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Konijnendijk CC, Ricard RM, Kenney A, Randrup TB (2006) Defining urban forestry—a comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban For Urban Green 4:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lange E, Hehl-Lange S, Brewer MJ (2008) Scenario-visualization for the assessment of perceived green space qualities at the urban–rural fringe. J Environ Manage 89:245–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Larson KL, Cook E, Strawhacker C, Hall SJ (2011) The influence of diverse values, ecological structure, and geographic context on residents’ multifaceted landscaping decisions. Human Ecol 38(6):747–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis JL, Sheppard SRJ (2006) Culture and communication: can landscape visualization improve forest management consultation with indigenous communities? Landsc Urban Plan 77:291–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McPherson EG (2003) Urban forestry: the Final Frontier? J Forest 101:20–25Google Scholar
  27. McPherson EG, Nowak D, Heisler G, Grimmond S, Souch C, Grant R, Rowntree R (1997) Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: the Chicago urban forest project. Urban Ecosystems 1:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mihalakakou P, Flocas HA, Santamouris M, Helmis CG (2002) Application of neural networks to the simulation of the heat island over Athens, Greece, using synoptic types as a predictor. J Appl Meteorol 41(5):519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller RW (1997) Urban forestry: planning and managing urban green spaces, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  30. Nasar JL (2008) Assessing perception of environments for active living. Am J Prev Med 34:357–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. National Statistics Office (NSO) (2010) Census of population and housing. Retrieved 7 July 2014Google Scholar
  32. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Boone CG, Groffman PM, Irwin E, Kaushal SS, Marshall V, McGrath BP, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Szlavecz K, Troy A, Warren P (2011) Urban ecological systems: scientific foundations and a decade of progress. J Environ Manage 92:331–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Purcell AT (1992) Abstract and specific physical attributes and the experience of landscape. J Environ Manage 34:159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Santamouris M, Mihalakakou G, Papanikolaou N, Assimakopoulos DN (1999) A neural network approach for modeling the heat island phenomenon in urban areas during the summer period. Geophys Res Lett 26(3):337–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sebba R (1991) The landscapes of childhood: the reflection of childhood’s environment in adult memories and in children’s attitudes. Environ Behav 23:395–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shin WS, Jaakson R, Kim EI (2001) Benefits-based analysis of visitor use of Sorak-San national park in Korea. Environ Manage 28:413–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson CW (2002) Urban open space in 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan 60:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Velarde MD, Fry G, Tveit M (2007) Health effects of viewing landscapes—landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban For Urban Green 6:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang X, Wu R, Zhang H, Wang S (2006) Report of ecological environmental issues during urbanization in China. Jiangsu People Publishing, Nanjing, China (in Chinese). Jim, CY, Chen WY (2009) Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities 26:187–194Google Scholar
  40. Weber A (2012) Assessment of the Philippine social protection floor policies. Article No. 129601270
  41. World Bank (2012) Republic of the Philippines gender and development mainstreaming. Report No. ACS7985. pp 17Google Scholar
  42. Yabiku ST, Casagrande DG, Farley-Metzger E (2008) Preferences for landscape choice in a southwestern desert city. Environ Behav 40(3):382–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yuen B, Hien WN (2005) Resident perceptions and expectations of rooftop gardens in Singapore. Landsc Urban Plan 73:263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhou W, Troy A, Grove JM, Jenkins J (2009) Can money buy green? Demographic and socioeconomic predictors of lawn care expenditure and lawn greenness in urban residential areas. Soc Nat Res 22(8):744–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG (1982) Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landsc Plan 9:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nonillon M. Aspe
    • 1
  • Jhonamie A. Mabuhay-Omar
    • 1
  • Nobukazu Nakagoshi
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesWestern Philippines UniversityPuerto Princesa City, PalawanPhilippines
  2. 2.Graduate School for International Development and CooperationHiroshima UniversityHigashi-HiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations