What do People want from their Community Forests? Results of A Public Attitude Survey in Missouri, U.S.

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Baker, F.

   1993. Monitoring the urban forest—Case studies and evaluations. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 26(2–3): 153–163.

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Baruch, Y.

   1999. Response rate in academic studies—A comparative analysis. Hum. Relat. 52(4): 421438.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Champ, P.,
   2. K. Boyle, and
   3. T. Brown

   1. Boyle, K.

   2003. Contingent valuation in practice, pp. 111–169. In Champ, P., K. Boyle, and T. Brown (Eds.). A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordecht, The Netherlands.
4. ↵
   1. Connelly, N,
   2. T.L. Brown, and
   3. D.J. Decker

   . 2003 Factors affecting response rates to natural resource-focused mail surveys: Empirical evidence of declining rates over time. Soc. Nat. Resour. 16: 541–549.

   OpenUrl
5. ↵
   1. Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CLTA)

   . 1992. Guide for Plant Appraisal (8th ed). International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL. 41 pp.
6. ↵
   1. Dickerson, S.,
   2. J. Groninger, and
   3. J. Mangun

   . 2001. Influences of community characteristics on municipal tree ordinances in Illinois, U.S. J. Arboric. 27(6): 318–325.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Dillman, Don A.

   2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
8. ↵
   1. Dwyer, J.,
   2. H. Schroeder,
   3. J. Louviere, and
   4. D. Anderson

   . 1989. Urbanites willingness to pay for trees and forests in recreation areas. J. Arboric. 15(10): 247–252.

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   1. Elmendorf, W., and
   2. A. Luloff

   . 2001. Using qualitative data collection methods when planning for community forests. J. Arboric. 27(3): 139–151.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Gartner, J.,
    2. T. Treiman, and
    3. T. Frevert

    . 2002. Missouri urban forest—A ten-year comparison. J. Arboric. 28(2): 76-83.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Groninger, J.,
    2. D. Close, and
    3. C. Basman

    . 2002. Can small, rural communities practice urban forestry? J. For. 100(1): 23–28.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Kwak, S.,
    2. S. Yoo, and
    3. S. Han

    . 2003. Estimating the public’s value for urban forest in the Seoul metropolitan area of Korea: A contingent valuation study. Urban Stud. 40(11): 2207–2221.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
13. ↵
    1. Lohr, V.,
    2. C. Pearson-Mims,
    3. J. Tarnai, and
    4. D. Dillman

    . 2004. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. J. Arboric. 26(6): 319–325.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Lorenzo, A.,
    2. C. Blanche,
    3. Y. Qi, and
    4. M. Guidry

    . 2000. Assessing residents’ willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: A small-city case study. J. Arboric. 30(1): 28–35.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Mitchell, R., and
    2. R. Carson

    . 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
16. ↵
    1. National Arbor Day Foundation

    . 2005. Tree City USA. www.arborday.org/programs/TreeCityUSA.cfm (accessed 7/28/05).
17. ↵
    1. Nowak D.J.,
    2. M. Noble,
    3. S. Sisinni, and
    4. J. Dwyer

    . 2001. People & trees—Assessing the U.S. urban forest resource. J. For. 99(3): 37–42.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Rocca, J.P.

    1992. Survey shows need for city trees. Missouri Municipal Review. 57(4): 20–21.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Treiman, T., and
    2. J. Gartner

    . 2004. Community forestry in Missouri, U.S.: Attitudes and knowledge of local officials. J. Arboric. 30(4): 205–213.

    OpenUrl
20. ↵
    1. Treiman, T., and
    2. J. Gartner

    . 2005. Urban Forestry in Missouri Communities: Attitudes and Knowledge of Missouri Citizens. An Attitude Survey and Analysis for the Missouri Department of Conservation. Missouri Department of Conservation Jefferson City, MO. 55 pp.
21. ↵
    1. Tyrväinen, L., and
    2. H. Väänänen

    . 1998. The economic value of urban forest amenities: An application of the contingent valuation method. Landsc. Urban Plann. 43: 105–118.

    OpenUrl