Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tree planting and reforestation initiatives in urban and peri-urban areas often use tree distribution or “giveaway” programs as a strategy to increase tree cover and subsequent benefits. However, the effectiveness of these programs in terms of increasing overall tree cover and providing benefits to low-income and disadvantaged communities has been little studied. We assess these programs by exploring community participation in, and barriers to, an urban tree distribution program in Fort Lauderdale, United States and the role socioeconomic background and tree functional types have on participation. We use a mixed-methods approach, panel data, choice experiments, and econometrics to quantitatively analyze respondent’s ranking of program options. High income, White respondents had the highest level of awareness and participation while low income, African Americans (AA) had the lowest level. Monetary rebates were perceived as positive and significant as the compensation value increased to US$8.00 - $12.00. Fruit-bearing and native tree functional types were more preferred than flowering or shade trees. Latinos, AA, and high income respondents preferred fruit trees, while White, high income preferred native trees. Overall, low income respondents perceived the greatest barriers towards participation. 20% of Broward County residents who participated in the survey were aware of the tree giveaway programs and 13% had previously participated. Findings indicate an adaptive governance mismatch between program objectives to equitably increase city tree cover via planting shade trees versus individual’s knowledge and preference for other tree types and functions. Results can be used for developing and evaluating reforestation initiatives to equitably increase tree cover and improve the governance of urban ecosystems.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bloomington Urban Forestry Research Group (BUFRG) (2014). Interview Script for Neighborhood Leaders and Tree Planting Project Leaders, originally developed for use with the “Evaluating the Ecological and Social Outcomes of Neighborhood and Nonprofit Urban Forestry: NUCFAC Grant” project. Bloomington, IN: Bloomington Urban Forest Research Group at the Center for the Study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change, Indiana University. 20 pp. Last updated May 22 2014. Retrieved from https://urbanforestry.indiana.edu/doc/projects/bufrg-resident-survey.pdf

  • Chakraborty J (2006) Evaluating the environmental justice impacts of transportation improvement projects in the US. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 11(5):315–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, (2016) Tree give-aways. Retrieved from http://gyr.fortlauderdale.gov/greener-government/natural-resources-preservation/growing-our-green-canopy/tree-give-a-ways-and-programs/quarterly-tree-give-aways

  • City of Orlando, Florida, (2016) One person, one tree. Retrieved from http://www.cityoforlando.net/trees/

  • City of Portland, Oregon, (2016) It's tree planting season: Apply for a Treebate! Retrieved from https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/51399

  • City Policy Associates, Washington D.C., (2008) Protecting and developing the urban tree canopy a 135-city study. U.S. Conference of Mayors

  • Collins D (2003) Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 12(3):229–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dicicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF (2006) Making sense of qualitative research, the qualitative research interview. Med Educ 40(4):314–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dilley J, Wolf KL (2013) Homeowner interactions with residential trees in urban areas. Arboricult Urban For 39(6):267–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Escobedo FJ, Kroeger T, Wagner JE (2011) Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ Pollut 159(8):2078–2087

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Faber D (1998) The struggle for ecological democracy: environmental justice movement in United States. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman LR, (2014) Press play Fort Lauderdale: our city, our strategic plan 2018 Retrieved from http://www.fortlauderdale.gov/home/showdocument?id=4642

  • Fischer A, Selge S, Van Der Wal R, Larson BM (2014) The public and professionals reason similarly about the management of non-native invasive species: a quantitative investigation of the relationship between beliefs and attitudes. PLoS One 9(8):e105495

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Flocks J, Escobedo FJ, Wade J, Varela S, Wald C (2011) Environmental justice implications of urban tree cover in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Environ Justice 4(2):125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J (2007) Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 26(1):171–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerrish E, Watkins SL (2018) The relationship between urban forests and income: a meta-analysis. Landsc Urban Plan 170:293–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green OO, Garmestani AS, Albro S, Ban NC, Berland A, Burkman CE, Gardiner M, Gunderson L, Hopton ME, Schoon ML, Shuster WD (2016) Adaptive governance to promote ecosystem services in urban green spaces. Urban Ecosyst 19(1):77–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene CS, Millward AA, Ceh B (2011) Who is likely to plant a tree? The use of public socio-demographic data to characterize client participants in a private urban forestation program. Urban For Urban Green 10(1):29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang WH, Wiseman PE, Thomas VA (2017) Enhancing the energy conservation benefits of shade trees in dense residential developments using an alternative tree placement strategy. Landsc Urban Plan 158:62–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koeser AK, Gilman EF, Paz M, Harchick C (2014) Factors influencing urban tree planting program growth and survival in Florida, United States. Urban For Urban Green 13(4):655–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry SM, Chakraborty J (2009) Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environ Plan 41:2651–2670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lien PT (1994) Ethnicity and political participation: a comparison between Asian and Mexican Americans. Polit Behav 16:237–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo AY, Jim CY (2015) Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: implications for contingent valuation method. Ecol Econ 114:58–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke DH, Grove JM (2016) Doing the hard work where it’s easiest? Examining the relationships between urban greening programs and social and ecological characteristics. Appl Spat Anal Policy 9(1):77–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke DH, Roman LA, Murphy-Dunning C (2015) Why opt-in to a planting program? Long-term residents value street tree aesthetics. Arboricult Urban For 41(6)

  • Locke DH, Romolini M, Galvin M, O'Neil-Dunne JP, Strauss EG (2017) Tree canopy change in coastal Los Angeles, 2009-2014. Cities Environ 10(2):3

    Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro ML, Arcos FD (2012) Applying best–worst scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs. J For Econ 18(4):381–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Flynn TN (2010) Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 3(4):275–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ (2015) Best-worst scaling: theory, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M, Brown TC (2009) Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Res Econ 44(3):307–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen VD, Roman LA, Locke DH, Mincey SK, Sanders JR, Smith Fichman E, Duran-Mitchell M, Tobing SL (2017) Branching out to residential lands: missions and strategies of five tree distribution programs in the U.S. Urban For Urban Green 22:24–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedlowski MA, Da Silva VA, Adell JC, Heynen NC (2002) Urban forest and environmental inequality in Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Urban Ecosyst 6:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins HA, Heynen N, Wilson J (2004) Inequitable access to urban reforestation: the impact of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests. Cities 21:291–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pincetl S (2010) Implementing municipal tree planting: Los Angeles million-tree initiative. Environ Manag 45(2):227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plant L, Rambaldi A, Sipe N (2017) Evaluating revealed preferences for street tree cover targets: a business case for collaborative investment in Leafier Streetscapes in Brisbane, Australia. Ecol Econ 134:238–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poe GL, Clark JE, Rondeau D, Schulze WD (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 23(1):105–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman LA, Battles JJ, McBride JR (2014) Determinants of establishment survival for residential trees in Sacramento County, CA. Landsc Urban Plan 129:22–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selge S, Fischer A, Van der Wal R (2011) Public and professional views on invasive non-native species–a qualitative social scientific investigation. Biol Conserv 144(12):3089–3097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson JR, McPherson EG (1998) Simulation of tree shade impacts on residential energy use for space conditioning in Sacramento. Atmos Environ 32(1):69–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soto JR, Adams DC, Escobedo FJ (2016) Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA. Forest Policy Econ 63:35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soto JR, Escobedo FJ, Khachatryan H, Adams DC (2018) Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling. Ecosyst Serv 29:31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summit J, McPherson EG (1998) Residential tree planting and care: a study of attitudes and behavior in Sacramento, California. J Arboric 24(2):89–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Szantoi Z, Escobedo F, Wagner J, Rodriguez JM, Smith S (2012) Socioeconomic factors and urban tree cover policies in a subtropical urban forest. GISci Remote Sens 49(3):428–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau, (2010) 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html

  • U.S. Census Bureau, (2015) Community Facts for Broward County, Florida-Demographic and Housing Estimates 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml

  • Watkins SL, Gerrish E (2018) The relationship between urban forests and race: a meta-analysis. J Environ Manag 209:152–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins SL, Mincey SK, Vogt J, Sweeney SP (2017) Is planting equitable? An examination of the spatial distribution of nonprofit urban tree-planting programs by canopy cover, income, race, and ethnicity. Environ Behav 49(4):452–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyman M, Escobedo F, Varela S, Asuaje C, Mayer H, Swisher M (2011) Analyzing the natural resource extension needs of Spanish-speakers: a perspective from Florida. J Ext 49(2):n2

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao M, Escobedo FJ, Staudhammer C (2010) Spatial patterns of a subtropical, coastal urban forest: implications for land tenure, hurricanes, and invasives. Urban For Urban Green 9(3):205–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, PO Box 110410, Gainesville, FL, 32611-0410, USA

    Leaundre C. Dawes & Alison E. Adams

  2. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Matemáticas, Programa de Biología, Universidad del Rosario, Kr 26 No 63B-48, Bogotá D.C., 111221492, Colombia

    Francisco J. Escobedo

  3. School of Natural Resources and the Environment, The University of Arizona, 1064 E. Lowell Street - ENR2 #N216, Tucson, AZ, 85721-0137, USA

    José R. Soto

Authors
  1. Leaundre C. Dawes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alison E. Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco J. Escobedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. José R. Soto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco J. Escobedo.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 11 Characteristics of survey respondents from Broward County, Florida vs U.S. Census (2015) estimates (n = 1,442,755) from Broward County, Florida
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 12 Description of effects coding for econometric analysis of best-worst data
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dawes, L.C., Adams, A.E., Escobedo, F.J. et al. Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs. Urban Ecosyst 21, 657–671 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0760-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0760-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation