Article Figures & Data
Tables
Variables Mean (std. dev) Should donate money 48 (50) Would donate money 34 (36) Annual income (in USD $1,000) 66 (33) Age 51 (13) Family size 2 (1) # of children < 18 years old 0.49 (0.93) Frequency (%) N = 476 Employee status Employed 60 Retired and unemployed 39 Education level ≤ high school 13 Some college 25 Bachelor’s or higher 61 Race African-American or others 14 White/Caucasian 85 Male 60 Frequency (%) Mean (std.dev) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very important 
not important Urban tree benefits and negative impact Benefits Appearance of the community 48.73 28.18 14.19 7.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 1.86 (1.08) Improvement in air quality 47.97 22.81 17.70 8.53 1.49 0.85 0.64 1.98 (1.20) Control runoff, soil erosion 44.68 22.77 21.06 8.09 2.13 0.64 0.64 2.05 (1.20) Creation of buffer zones 43.10 24.84 19.32 8.49 2.76 1.06 0.42 2.08 (1.22) Increase in property values 37.00 28.75 20.51 10.15 1.48 0.21 1.90 2.19 (1.26) Reduction of noise levels 40.89 24.58 18.86 7.63 4.87 2.12 1.06 2.22 (1.38) Decrease in energy costs 36.40 28.69 18.63 11.35 2.36 0.86 1.71 2.24 (1.31) Increase in community pride 33.90 27.51 22.39 11.09 2.99 1.28 0.85 2.29 (1.27) Creation of wildlife habitat 41.19 18.05 18.90 13.38 5.73 1.06 1.70 2.34 (1.46) Improvement in health 34.70 25.86 20.47 13.36 2.16 2.16 1.29 2.34 (1.36) Recreational opportunities 24.52 22.17 24.95 19.40 5.33 1.71 1.92 2.72 (1.41) Negative impacts Property damage 21.15 13.68 18.38 20.94 11.54 8.97 5.34 3.36 (1.79) Safety problem 19.57 12.34 17.66 21.49 13.62 9.57 5.74 3.49 (1.79) Costs planting & maintenance 12.31 10.83 20.17 25.05 14.23 9.13 8.28 3.79 (1.72) Importance of applying tree ordinances New construction site 50.00 21.70 9.57 10.64 2.34 1.91 3.83 2.15 (1.57) Public property 55.25 21.84 10.49 7.49 2.14 0.43 2.36 1.90 (1.34) Individually-owned yard 17.45 13.19 17.23 18.72 8.30 8.09 17.02 3.80 (2.04) Having tree on property 47.61 23.08 14.55 8.52 3.53 1.04 1.66 2.07 (1.36) Having tree on community 54.47 25.16 10.60 6.44 2.08 0.42 0.83 1.81 (1.16) - Table 3.
Ordered logistic results and marginal effect for having tree on property and community. Funds in U.S. dollars.
Variables Have tree on property (Y1) Have trees in community (Y2) Ordered logit Marginal effect % Ordered logit Marginal effect % Y1 = low Y1 = median Y1 = high Y2 = low Y2 = median Y2 = high Intercept 1 1.75z (0.13) 2.01z (0.15) Intercept 2 −0.44 (0.93) −0.37 (0.95) Benefit of tree −0.001 (0.01) 0. 03 −0. 01 −0. 02 −0.0004 (0.011) 0. 01 −0. 006 −0. 004 Negative impact −0.04 (0.03) 1.01 −0. 42 −0. 58 −0.07z (0.03) 1.78 −1.03 −0. 74 Awareness of tree service 0.004 (0.07) −0.10 0.04 0.06 −0.03 (0.07) 0.63 −0.37 −0. 27 Family size 0.21 (0.16) −5.07 2.14 2.93 0.25 (0.16) −6.06 3.51 2.54 Child < 18 yrs −0.15 (0.20) 3.72 −1.57 −2.15 −0.20 (0.21) 4.72 −2.74 −1.98 College 0.63y (0.33) −15.39 6.49 8.89 0.70z (0.34) −17.00 9.86 7.13 Bachelor 0.16 (0.31) −3.78 1.57 2.18 0.27 (0.32) −6.55 3.80 2.74 White 0.34 (0.29) −8.26 3.49 4.77 0.43 (0.29) −10.27 5.96 4.31 Male −0.09 (0.21) 2.10 −0. 89 −1.22 −0.21 (0.21) 5.15 −2.99 −2.16 Age −0.003 (0.008) −0. 08 0. 03 −0. 04 0.002 (0.008) −0. 05 0.03 0.02 Income (in thousand $) 0.001 (0.003) −0. 03 0. 01 0. 02 0.001 (0.003) −0. 04 0.02 0. 02 Employed −0.41y (0.23) 9.92 −4.18 −5.73 −0.32 (0.23) 7.56 −4.38 −3.17 χ2 15.22 15.94 Likelihood ratio 13.00 14.46 Frequency (%) Mean (std. dev) Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very important not important State sales tax 7.40 10.76 11.43 18.16 11.21 8.07 32.96 4.71 (2.03) Local property tax 14.32 14.54 14.99 15.88 8.50 7.38 24.38 4.09 (2.14) Estate tax 7.34 5.73 8.49 19.04 9.63 10.09 39.68 5.07 (1.98) Alcohol and tobacco tax 30.46 10.82 11.26 15.67 5.74 4.19 21.85 3.55 (2.30) State income tax 8.50 9.40 14.77 18.34 9.84 8.28 30.87 4.60 (2.04) Corporate income tax 23.45 12.83 14.82 15.49 5.53 6.19 21.68 3.72 (2.23) Private donations 42.64 22.86 13.85 11.87 2.86 1.10 4.84 2.32 (1.61) Others 38.37 10.47 6.98 9.30 2.33 3.49 29.07 3.35 (2.57) Variables Should donate ($ per family) Would donate ($ per family) Intercept 22.20 (16.32) −19.71 (12.04) Awareness of tree service 1.89 (1.71) 2.29z (1.19) Family size 0.55 (3.82) −3.91 (3.00) Child < 18 yrs −4.74 (4.99) −0.50 (3.61) College 6.10 (8.19) 6.06 (5.97) Bachelor’s degree 9.42 (7.86) −0.54 (5.73) White 18.08z (6.78) 2.07 (4.96) Male −14.01z (5.17) −6.58y (3.76) Age 0.07 (0.21) −0.01 (0.17) Income (in thousand $) 0.17z (0.08) 0.27z (0.06) Employed −2.26 (5.76) 5.30 (4.28) R2 0.10 0.13 F-value (χ2) 2.80 3.52 - Table 6.
Ordered logistic results and marginal effect for alcohol & tobacco tax. Funds in U.S. dollars.
Variables Alcohol & tobacco tax (Y3) Ordered logistic estimate Marginal effect % Y3 = low Y3 = median Y3 = high Intercept 1 0.99z (0.09) Intercept 2 −1.3ly (0.92) Awareness of tree service −0.06 (0.06) 1.36 −0.32 −1.04 Family size 0.05(0.16) −1.13 0.27 0.86 Child < 18 yrs −0.05 (0.20) 1.09 −0.26 −0.83 College 0.73y (0.34) −17.61 4.16 13.44 Bachelor’s degree 0.56z (0.33) −13.58 3.21 10.36 White 0.18 (0.28) −4.45 1.05 3.40 Male 0.29 (0.21) −7.02 1.66 5.36 Age 0.01 (0.008) −0.26 0.06 0.20 Income (in thousand $) 0.002 (0.003) −0.05 0.01 0.04 Employed −0.002 (0.23) 0.06 −0.01 −0.04 χ2 31.04 Likelihood Ratio 14.92
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.