Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding preferences for tree attributes: the relative effects of socio-economic and local environmental factors

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Urban plant biodiversity is influenced by both the physical environment and attitudes and preferences of urban residents for specific plant types. Urban residents are assumed to be disconnected from their immediate environment, and cultural and societal factors have been emphasized over environmental factors in studies of landscaping choices. However, we postulate that local climatic and environmental factors can also affect preferences for plant attributes. Therefore, spatial and temporal patterns in urban tree biodiversity may be driven not only by the direct effect of environmental variables on plant function, but also by the effect of environmental variables on attitudes toward trees and associated choices about which types of trees to plant. Here, we tested the relative effects of socio-economic and local environmental factors on preferences toward tree attributes in five counties in southern California in and surrounding Los Angeles, based on 1,029 household surveys. We found that local environmental factors have as strong an effect on preferences for tree attributes as socio-economic factors. Specifically, people located in hotter climates (average maximum temperature 25.1 °C) were more likely to value shade trees than those located in cooler regions (23.1 °C). Additionally, people located in desert areas were less likely to consider trees to be important in their city compared with people located in naturally forested areas. Overall, our research demonstrates the inherent connections between local environmental factors and perceptions of nature, even in large modern cities. Accounting for these factors can contribute to the growing interest in understanding patterns of urban biodiversity.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beckley TM, Stedman RC, Wallace SM, Ambard M (2007) Snapshots of what matters most: using resident-employed photograph to articulate attachemtn to place. Soci Nat Res: An Int J 20:913–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark JK, Stein TV (2003) Incorporating the natural landscape within an assessment of community attachment. For Sci 49:867–876

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke LW, Jenerette D, Davila A (2013) The luxury of vegetation and the legacy of tree biodiversity in Los Angeles, CA. Landsc Urban Plan 116:48–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap RE, Catton WRJ (1994) Struggling with human exemptionalism: the rise, decline, and revitalization fo environmental sociology. Am Sociol 25:5–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer JF, Schroeder HW, Gobster PH (1991) The significance of urban trees and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. J Arboric 17(10):276–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Flannigan J (2005) An evaluation of residents’attitudes to street trees in southwest England. Arboricult J 28:219–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg WR (2008) Thirty years of scholarship and science on environment-society relationships. Organi Environ 21:449–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman J (2004) Residents’ opinions on the value of street trees depending on tree location. J Arboric 30:36–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace J (2006) Structural equation modeling and natural systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greider T, Garkovich L (1994) Landscapes: the social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociol 59(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitchmough J, Bonugli A (1997) Attitudes of residents of a medium sized town in south west Scotland to street trees. Landsc Res 22:327–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope D, Gries C, Zhu W, Fagan W, Redman CL, Grimm N, Nelson AL, Martin C, Kinzig AP (2003) Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. P Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8788–8792

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hull RBI (1992) How the public values urban forests. J Arboric 18:98–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendal D, Williams NSG, Williams KJH (2011) A cultivated environment: exploring the global distribution of plants in gardens, parks and streetscapes. Urban Ecosyst 15:637–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendal D, Williams NSG, Williams KJH (2012a) Drivers of diversity and tree cover in gardens, parks and streetscapes in an Australian City. Urban For Urban Green 11:257–265

  • Kendal D, Williams KJH, Williams NSG (2012b) Plant traits link people’s plant preferences to the composition of their gardens. Landsc Urban Plan 105:34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(2):147–158. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson K, Santelmann M (2007) An analysis of the relationship between residents’ proximity to water and attitudes about resource protection. The Proffessional Geogr 59:316–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson K, Casagrande D, Harlan S, Yabiku S (2009) Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environ Manag 44:921–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann-Matthies P, Junge X, Matties D (2010) The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol Conserv 143:195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo A, Jim CY (2010) Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong. Urban For Urban Green 9:113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohr VI, Pearson-Mims CH, Tarnai J, Dillman DA (2004) How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. J Arboric 30:28–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo AB, Blanche CA, Qi Y, Guidry MM (2000) Assessing residents’ willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: a small-city case study. J Arboric 26:319–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck GW, Smallbone LT, O'Brien R (2009) Socio-economics and vegetation change in urban ecosystems: patterns in space and time. Ecosystems 12:604–620

  • Martin C, Warren P, Kinzig AP (2004) Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc Urban Plan 69:355–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson G (2000) Expenditures associated with conflicts between street tree root growth and hardcapce in California, United States. J Arboric 26:289–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ (2010) Assessing urban forest effects and values: Los Angeles’ urban forest. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, US Department of Agriculture

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DJ, Noble MH, Sisinni SM, Dwyer JF (2001) People and trees: assessing the US urban forest resource. J For 99:37–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Pataki DE, McCarthy HR, Gillespie T, Jenerette GD, Pincetl S (2013) A trait based ecology of the Los Angeles urban forest. Ecosphere 4:art72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pincetl S (2010) Implementing municipal tree planting: Los Angeles million-tree initiative. Environ Manag 45:227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramage BS, Roman LA, Dukes JS (2013) Relationships between urban tree communities and the biomes in which they reside. Appl Veg Sci 16:8–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder H, Ruffolo S (1996) Householder evaluations of street trees in a chicago suburb. J Arboric 22:35–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder H, Flannigan J, Coles R (2006) Residents’ attitudes toward street trees in the UK and U.S. communities. Arboricult Urban For 32:236–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker R, Lomax R (2004) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. The Inquiry and Pedagogy Across Diverse Contexts, 2nd edn. Psychology Press, New Jeresy

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer R, Guenther H, Barker P (1990) Surveying householder resonse to street trees. Landsc J 9:79–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Stedman RC (2003) Is it really just social construction? the contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc Nat Res: An Inte J 16:671–685. doi:10.1080/08941920309189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todorova A, Asakawa S, Aikoh T (2004) Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landsc Urban Plan 69:403–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treiman T, Gartner J (2005) What do people want from their community forests? results of a public attitude survey in Missouri, U.S. J Arboric 31:243–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams K (2002) Exploring resident preferences for street trees in Melbourne, Australia. J Arboric 28:161–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Yabiku S, Casagrande D, Farley-Metzger E (2007) Preferences for landscape choice in a southwestern Desert City. Environ Behav 40:382–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Hussain A, Deng J, Letson N (2007) Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environ Behav 39(6):797–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank La’Shaye Ervin and Tara Trammell for their assistance with ArcGIS and comments on our manuscript as well as Victoria Basolo and George Gonzalez for comments on the survey instrument. David Bowling, Chalita Sriladda, Carolina Gomez-Navarro, Greg Maurer, and Allison Chan provided helpful comments on the manuscript as well as two anonymous reviewers. This research was funded by NSF grants DEB 0919381, BCS 0948914, and EAR 1204442.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Utah, 257 S 1400 E, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA

    Meghan L. Avolio & Diane E. Pataki

  2. Institute of Environment and Sustainability, University of California Los Angeles, La Kretz Hall, 619 Charles E. Young Drive E., Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    Stephanie Pincetl

  3. Department of Geography, University of California Los Angeles, 1255 Bunche Hall, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    Thomas W. Gillespie

  4. Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California Riverside, 3203 Batchelor Hall, Riverside, CA, 92521, USA

    G. Darrel Jenerette

  5. Microbiology and Plant Biology, University of Oklahoma, 770 Van Vleet Oval, Norman, OK, 73019, USA

    Heather R. McCarthy

Authors
  1. Meghan L. Avolio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diane E. Pataki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephanie Pincetl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas W. Gillespie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Darrel Jenerette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Heather R. McCarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meghan L. Avolio.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 20368 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 20365 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 20365 kb)

ESM 4

(DOCX 20365 kb)

ESM 5

(DOCX 20368 kb)

ESM 6

(DOCX 20365 kb)

ESM 7

(DOCX 20365 kb)

ESM 8

(DOCX 20365 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Avolio, M.L., Pataki, D.E., Pincetl, S. et al. Understanding preferences for tree attributes: the relative effects of socio-economic and local environmental factors. Urban Ecosyst 18, 73–86 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0388-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0388-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation