Social and Educational Benefits of a Community Shade Tree Program: a Replication

Procedures

The procedures were similar to those of the earlier studies (3, 4) using a mail survey to compare satisfaction levels in households whose trees had been planted as part of the STF program with those whose trees had been planted independent of the program. The return rate for the survey was 50.2% of delivered questionnaires and there was no indication of nonrespondent bias.

Results

Households whose trees had been planted by a developer were least satisfied with the outcome, specifically in such areas as the staking and support of the tree, location in the yard, perceived improvement to the yard, and had a lower overall opinion of the tree. Those with developer-planted trees also showed more desire to have the tree replaced. Half of the STF households and none of the non-STF households became better acquainted with their neighbors during the planting, and 87% of the STF households received maintenance information compared to only 12% of non-STF households.

These results provide further confirmation of the benefits of community planting in terms of user satisfaction, neighborhood interaction, and access to tree maintenance information and consultation, all of which have been linked to tree survival (1,2). Participation in the STF program appeared highly susceptible to cost considerations. If the goal of a community shade tree program is the widest possible access, some type of subsidy is probably necessary for low income households. The potential loss of involvement if trees are obtained without charge can be offset through investments of time and effort instead of money.