Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

How Urban Residents Rate and Rank the Benefits and Problems Associated with Trees in Cities

Virginia I. Lohr, Caroline H. Pearson-Mims, John Tarnai and Don A. Dillman
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) January 2004, 30 (1) 28-35; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2004.004
Virginia I. Lohr
1Professor Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-6414, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Caroline H. Pearson-Mims
2Research Technologist Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-6414, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
John Tarnai
3Director The Social and Economic Sciences Research Center Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-4014, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Don A. Dillman
4Deputy Director for Research and Development The Social and Economic Sciences Research Center Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-4014, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Reasons to have trees in cities, ranked by urban residents’ level of agreement with each statement.

    Reasons to have treesRankzLevel of agreementy
    Trees are important in downtown areas because they shade and cool their surroundings13.69 ± 0.03
    Trees in cities help people feel calmer23.56 ± 0.03
    Trees should be planted in business districts to reduce smog and dust33.49 ± 0.03
    Trees should be used in cities because they reduce noise43.36 ± 0.04
    Trees in shopping areas make people think the stores care about the environment53.18 ± 0.04
    Trees should be used in cities because they make interesting sounds as their leaves rustle62.97 ± 0.04
    Trees should be planted in cities to attract wildlife72.93 ± 0.05
    • ↵zRanking based on the order of the means.

    • ↵yMean ± margin of error, based on a 95% confidence interval. Means are based on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Problems with trees in cities, ranked by urban residents’ level of agreement with each statement.

    Problems with treesRankzLevel of agreementy
    Trees are a problem in cities because they cause allergies11.64 ± 0.04
    Trees should not be used in business districts because they block store signs21.57 ± 0.03
    Trees should not be planted because their roots crack sidewalks31.50 ± 0.03
    Trees should be removed from cities because they can fall across power lines41.44 ± 0.03
    Trees should not be used in cities because they make it difficult to detect criminal behavior51.43 ± 0.03
    Trees should not be planted along streets because they drip sap or sticky residue on parked cars61.42 ± 0.03
    Trees should not be planted in cities because they are ugly when they are not maintained71.32 ± 0.03
    Trees should not be planted in cities because they cost the city too much81.30 ± 0.03
    • ↵zRanking based on the order of the means.

    • ↵yMean ± margin of error, based on a 95% confidence interval. Means are based on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Demographics of urban residents who strongly agree that trees are important to their quality of life compared to those who do not strongly agree.

    Demographic characteristicStrongly agree that trees are important to quality of lifeDon’t strongly agree that trees are important to quality of life
    Number%Number%
    Gender**
    Male70580.916719.1
    Female96185.016915.0
    Age***
    18–218069.63530.4
    22–3023579.46120.6
    31–4039283.67716.4
    41–5552885.39114.7
    Over 5540586.06614.0
    Educational attainment*
    High school or less44879.311720.7
    2-year degree or less51183.110416.9
    4-year degree38284.96815.1
    Some graduate school or more31687.54512.5
    Income (U.S. dollars)**
    $20,000 or less27775.39124.7
    More than $20,000 up to $30,00025483.05217.0
    More than $30,000 up to $50,00041984.77615.4
    More than $50,000 up to $75,00026887.04013.0
    More than $75,00023584.84215.2
    Ethnic background***
    African American/Black11566.15933.9
    Asian American/Pacific Islander3069.81330.2
    Hispanic/Latino8483.21716.8
    Multi-ethnic4379.61120.4
    Native American4386.0714.0
    White/European127885.821114.2
    Childhood community***
    In the city53279.114120.9
    In the suburbs56185.99214.1
    On a farm25090.3279.7
    Outside the city and suburbs31080.97319.1
    • ↵*, **, *** P ≤ 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001, respectively, based on a chi-square statistic.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Reasons to have trees in cities, ranked by level of agreement with each statement, for urban residents who strongly agree that trees are important to their quality of life compared to those who do not strongly agree.

    Reasons to have treesStrongly agree that trees are important to quality of life (n = 1,667)Don’t strongly agree that trees are important to quality of life (n = 336)
    RankzLevel of agreementyRankzLevel of agreementy
    Trees are important in downtown areas because they shade and cool their surroundings13.74 ± 0.0313.44 ± 0.07
    Trees in cities help people feel calmer23.64 ± 0.0323.11 ± 0.09
    Trees should be planted in business districts to reduce smog and dust33.59 ± 0.0333.00 ± 0.09
    Trees should be used in cities because they reduce noise43.45 ± 0.0442.92 ± 0.09
    Trees in shopping areas make people think the stores care about the environment53.27 ± 0.0452.73 ± 0.10
    Trees should be used in cities because they make interesting sounds as their leaves rustle63.06 ± 0.0472.50 ± 0.10
    Trees should be planted in cities to attract wildlife73.01 ± 0.0562.53 ± 0.11
    • ↵zRanking based on the order of the means.

    • ↵yMean ± margin of error, based on a 95% confidence interval. Means are based on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Problems with trees in cities, ranked by level of agreement with each statement, for urban residents who strongly agree that trees are important to their quality of life compared to those who do not strongly agree.

    Problems with treesStrongly agree that trees are important to quality of life (n = 1,667)Don’t strongly agree that trees are important to to quality of life (n = 336)
    RankzLevel of agreementyRankzLevel of agreementy
    Trees are a problem in cities because they cause allergies11.58 ± 0.0411.91 ± 0.09
    Trees should not be used in business districts because they block store signs21.52 ± 0.0421.83 ± 0.08
    Trees should not be planted because their roots crack sidewalks31.44 ± 0.0431.75 ± 0.09
    Trees should be removed from cities because they can fall across power lines41.39 ± 0.0441.69 ± 0.08
    Trees should not be used in cities because they make it difficult to detect criminal behavior51.38 ± 0.0351.67 ± 0.08
    Trees should not be planted along streets because they drip sap or sticky residue on parked cars61.37 ± 0.0361.65 ± 0.09
    Trees should not be planted in cities because they are ugly when they are not maintained71.27 ± 0.0381.57 ± 0.08
    Trees should not be planted in cities because they cost the city too much81.24 ± 0.0371.60 ± 0.08
    • ↵zRanking based on the order of the means.

    • ↵yMean ± margin of error, based on a 95% confidence interval. Means are based on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 30 (1)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 30, Issue 1
January 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How Urban Residents Rate and Rank the Benefits and Problems Associated with Trees in Cities
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
How Urban Residents Rate and Rank the Benefits and Problems Associated with Trees in Cities
Virginia I. Lohr, Caroline H. Pearson-Mims, John Tarnai, Don A. Dillman
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 2004, 30 (1) 28-35; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2004.004

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
How Urban Residents Rate and Rank the Benefits and Problems Associated with Trees in Cities
Virginia I. Lohr, Caroline H. Pearson-Mims, John Tarnai, Don A. Dillman
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 2004, 30 (1) 28-35; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2004.004
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • OTHER RESEARCH
    • OBJECTIVES
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    • SUMMARY
    • CONCLUSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • LITERATURE CITED
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Evaluation of Nature-Based and Traditional Solutions for Urban Soil Decompaction
  • Using the CSR Theory when Selecting Woody Plants for Urban Forests: Evaluation of 342 Trees and Shrubs
  • Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Benefits of trees
  • community forestry
  • survey
  • urban forest

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire