Assessing Residents’ Willingness to Pay to Preserve the Community Urban Forest: A Small-City Case Study

Response Rate

Of the 3,009 questionnaires mailed, 800 were returned for an overall response rate of 26.6%, but only 648 were completed, reducing the effective response rate to 22%. This response rate is relatively low compared to the established average of 40% in similar studies (Mitchell and Carson 1989). The use of only one follow-up letter might have contributed to the low response rate. Also, the relatively long questionnaire might have discouraged many of the respondents. In addition, the survey was done in the middle of the summer when many families are preoccupied with family vacations and recreational programs. Despite the moderately low response, there were statistically significant trends indicated.

Respondents’ Characteristics

Socioeconomic questions included sex, age, education, occupation, size of household, income, and location of neighborhood. This information was used to determine whether the survey respondents came from the same population and whether this was the same as the population from which the respondents were drawn. It was also used to determine if any particular characteristics were associated with willingness to pay for urban forestry programs.

The respondents were about evenly distributed between male (51.2%) and female (48.8%), with an average age of 47 years and a median household income of $65,000 (U.S. dollars). Most respondents (92.9%) had attended college, with over 26% having graduate degrees. The average household size was three, with at least one adult employed full-time. The average length of residence occupancy was nine years, with more than 90% owning their homes.

Socioeconomic Comparison of Respondents

The socioeconomic characteristics of the survey respondents (i.e., sex, age, and income) were compared to corresponding information from the 1990 census data for Mandeville using chi-square analysis. The gender and income characteristics of the respondents were not significantly different from those of the resident population (Table 1). However, the age of the respondents was significantly different from those of the resident population. The distribution of respondents by age was left-skewed, with a mean of 47. The pattern could be attributed to the low response rate from the younger age group because of the fact that this group remained at about 47% of the total population in 1999 (CACI 1999). The distribution of respondents’ income was left-skewed, with a mean of $65,000. The income questions had the highest nonresponse rate, which might have contributed to this pattern.

Association of Beneficial Roles of Trees with Willingness to Pay

The benefits of trees ranked as most important reasons for protecting and preserving neighborhood/urban trees were “aesthetic/visual,” “gives shade, reducing glare/reflection and energy consumption” (Figure 1). Other very important benefits included “trees attract birds and other wildlife,” “enhance city/urban climate,” “increases privacy,” and “increases property value.”

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1.

Mean ranking of beneficial role of trees.

The benefits ranked least important were “fall color marking change in season” and “flowers in tree.” These findings probably reflect the fact that most tree species on public property do not have showy flowers (based on tree inventory of the city). Other benefits that were ranked low included “stormwater control,” “control of dust/particulate matter,” and “wind control.” The low ranking of these benefits might be because they are not readily observable and there may be a lack of clear public understanding of the role of trees on these physical phenomena.

All of the tree benefits used in this study are positively correlated with willingness to pay additional amounts for the protection and preservation of trees. This finding implies that respondents who assigned high importance to the individual benefits of trees also tended to be willing to pay additional amounts for the protection and preservation of trees and forests. “Aesthetic/visual,” “increases sense of community,” “trees attract birds and other wildlife,” and “increases property value,” “enhance city/urban climate,” “gives shade, reducing glare/reflection and energy consumption,” “reduces noise,” “fall color marking change in season,” “flowers in tree,” “wind control,” “increases privacy,” and “control of dust/particulate matter” were the benefits highly correlated with willingness to pay. On the other hand, “stormwater control” was the only tree benefit weakly correlated with willingness to pay It appears from the results that respondents’ willingness to pay increased with more readily recognizable benefits of urban trees. Thus, the less commonly known benefits should be emphasized in outreach and educational programs to enhance the public’s perception and therefore increase their willingness to support urban forestry programs.

Association of Annoying Features of Trees with Willingness to Pay

The annoyances of trees ranked important involved “falling limbs,” “roots clog sewers,” and “disease in trees.” (Figure 2). The lowest-ranked annoyances as reasons for not protecting and preserving neighborhood/urban trees were those involving “mistletoe in the tree,” “leaves falling continuously throughout summer,” “branches or suckers grow around base of the tree,” and “fallen leaves, flowers, fruit, or seed pods from the tree.” The relatively minor importance of these annoyances may be attributed, in part, to the dominance of pine trees in the area and the relative scarcity of hardwoods and flowering tree species (seasonal falling of leaves).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 2.

Mean ranking of annoying features of trees.

Overall, the annoyances were rated as less important than the benefits. Even the strongest annoyance was rated on average between “slightly important” and “moderately important.” This suggests that, although noticeable problems may occur with public trees, the annoyances from these trees generally are less prominent in people’s minds than the benefits. As a result, residents appear to tolerate what generally are perceived as annoyances associated with urban trees.

A majority of the individual tree annoyances is negatively correlated with the willingness to pay for the protection and preservation of trees. The annoyances negatively associated with willingness to pay are “leaves fall continuously,” “fallen leaves, flowers, fruits,” “trees attract bees and squirrels,” “roots too close to surface,” and “sap drips from tree.” “Roots send up suckers in yard,” “roots clog sewers,” and “causes allergies” are the only annoyances that do not appear to be associated with willingness to pay. These results imply that the presence of what are commonly considered annoying tree properties did not actually reduce residents’ willingness to pay

Association of Socioeconomic Factors with Willingness to Pay

The association between willingness to pay and basic socioeconomic variables such as ownership, gender, income, age, and education were tested using Pearson chi-square analysis (Table 2). The amounts residents are willing to pay were significantly different between gender and among income levels. More than 42% of female respondents are willing to pay between $6 and $12 per year, as opposed to 31% for male (χ² = 9.600, ρ = 0.02). However, more males (25%) than females (18%) are willing to pay more than $12 per year in additional taxes for the protection and preservation of trees and community forests. Approximately the same percentage (39%) of respondents are willing to pay between $6 and $12 per year across income levels (χ² = 46.117, ρ = 0.001). Interestingly, the willingness to pay more than $12 per year increases with income level. Type of ownership, age, and level of education did not have a significant association with the amount residents stated that they were willing to pay (Table 2).

Perceptions of the Urban Forestry Program

On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being very poor and 5 being excellent), respondents were asked to rate the city’s overall performance in tree maintenance and protection. More than 88% of respondents rated the city’s overall performance in maintaining and protecting their trees between good and excellent. However, the high rating for the city’s performance was not significantly associated with willingness to pay for protecting and preserving neighborhood/urban trees. A majority also does not know of any additional maintenance services the city can provide trees.

Respondents also were asked “Has your opinion of neighborhood/urban trees changed over time?” More than 75% of respondents indicated that their opinion of trees in their neighborhood has not changed over time. On the question “How important to you is the protection of neighborhood/urban trees?”, 86% indicated that protecting their neighborhood/urban trees is very important. Of this group, more than 80% (which represents 70% of total respondents) were willing to pay additional taxes for the purpose of protecting and preserving trees. The 30% who were not willing to pay any additional amount for the protection and preservation of trees selected the following reasons from a list that was presented to them.