Assessments of Citizen Willingness to Support Urban Forestry: An Empirical Study in Alabama

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Arrow, K.J.

   1951. Social choice and individual value. Yale University Press, New Haven.
2. ↵
   1. Austin, M.E.

   2002. Partnership opportunities in neighborhood tree planting initiatives: Building from local knowledge. Journal of Arboriculture 28:178–186.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Barro, S.C.,
   2. P.H. Gobster,
   3. H.W. Schroeder, and
   4. S.M. Bartram

   . 1997. What makes a big tree special? Insight from the Chicagoland Treemendous Trees program. Journal of Arboriculture 23:239–249.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Bradley, G.

   1995. Urban Forest Landscapes: Integrating Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
5. ↵
   1. Center for Urban Forest Research

   . 2003. Urban Forest Research Newsletter. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Spring, 2003.
6. ↵
   1. Clark, T.N.,
   2. R. Lloyd,
   3. K. Wong, and
   4. P. Jain

   . 2002. Amenities drive urban growth. Journal of Urban Affairs 24(5):493–515.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Deng, J.,
   2. K.G. Arano,
   3. C. Pierskalla,
   4. J. McNeel

   . 2010. Linking Urban Forests and Urban Tourism: A Case of Savannah, Georgia. Tourism Analysis 15(2):167–181.

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Dwyer, J.E.,
   2. D.J. Nowak, and
   3. G.W. Watson

   . 2002. Future directions for urban forestry research in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 28:231–236.

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   1. Dwyer, J.F.,
   2. E.G. McPherson,
   3. H.W. Schroeder, and
   4. R.A. Rowntree

   . 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5):227–234.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Dwyer, M.C., and
    2. R.W. Miller

    . 1999. Using GIS to assess urban tree canopy benefits and surrounding greenspace distributions. Journal of Arboriculture 30(1):102–106.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Gorman, J.

    2004. Residents’ opinions on the value of street trees depending on tree allocation. Journal of Arboriculture 30(1):36–43.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Greene, W.H.

    1993. Econometric Analysis, 2nd Edition. Macmillan, New York.
13. ↵
    1. Hauer, R.J., and
    2. G.R. Johnson

    . 2008. State urban and community forestry program funding, technical assistance, and financial assistance within the 50 United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:280–289.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Jim, C.Y., and
    2. W.Y. Chen

    . 2006. Recreation amenity use and contingent valuation of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 75:81–96.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
15. ↵
    1. Kelman, S.

    1981. Cost-benefit analysis: an ethical critique. Regulation 5:74–82.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Kim, J.

    2002. Assessing practical significance of the proportional odds assumption. Statistics & Probability letters 65:233–239.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Lohr, V.I.,
    2. C.H. Pearson-Mims,
    3. J. Tarnai, and
    4. D.A. Dillman

    . 2004. How urban resident rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboricultural 30(1):28–35.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Lorenzo, A.B.,
    2. C.A. Blanche,
    3. Y. Qi, and
    4. M.M. Guidry

    . 2000. Assessing residents’ willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: A small-city case study. Journal of Arboriculture 26(6):319–324.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Majumdar, S., and
    2. Y. Zhang

    . 2009. Market for green signaling. The Business Review, Cambridge 13(2):87–92.

    OpenUrl
20. ↵
    1. McCullagh, P.

    1980. Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 42:109–142.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
21. ↵
    1. McPherson, E.G.,
    2. J.R. Simpson,
    3. P.J. Peper, and
    4. Q. Xiao

    . 1999. Benefit-cost analysis of modesto’s municipal urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 25(5):235–248.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. Orland, B.,
    2. J. Vining, and
    3. A. Ebreo

    . 1992. The effect of street trees on perceived values of residential property. Environment and Behavior 24(3):298–325.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
23. ↵
    1. Sagoff, M.

    1988. The economy of the earth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
24. ↵
    1. Saz-Salazar, S., and
    2. L. Garcia-Menendez

    . 2001. Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in a large city. Environmental and Resource Economics 20:103–112.

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. Sen, A.

    1995. Environmental evaluation and social choice: contingent valuation and the market analogy. Japanese Economic Review 46:23–37.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Sommer, R.,
    2. F. Learey,
    3. J. Summit, and
    4. M. Tirrell

    . 1994. The social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting. Journal of Arboriculture 20:170–175.

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    1. Straka, T.J.,
    2. A.P. Marsinko, and
    3. C.J. Childers

    . 2005. Individual characteristics affecting participation in urban and community forestry programs in South Carolina, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 31:131–137.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. C. Kollin

    1. Studer, N.

    2003. Urban forest program development in Washington State municipalities. In: C. Kollin (Ed.). 2003 National Urban Forest Conference Proceedings, September 17–20, 2003, San Antonio, Texas. Washington, D.C.: American Forests, pp. 21–23.
29. ↵
    1. Thompson, R.,
    2. R. Hanna,
    3. J. Noel, and
    4. D. Piirto

    . 1999. Valuation of tree aesthetics on small urban-interface properties. Journal of Arboriculture 25(5):225–233.

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. Thompson, R.P., and
    2. J.J. Ahern

    . 2000. The state of urban and community forestry in California: status in 1997 and trends since 1988. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
31. 1. Tree Atlanta

    . Accessed May 1, 2010. <http://www.treesatlanta.org>
32. ↵
    1. Tyrvainen, L.

    2001. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 62:75–92.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
33. ↵
    1. Wang, X., and
    2. K.M. Kockelman

    . 2009. Application of the dynamic spatial ordered probit model: Patterns of land development change in Austin, Texas. Papers in Regional Science 88:345–365.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
34. ↵
    1. Wray, P.H., and
    2. D.R. Prestemon

    . 1983. Assessment of street trees in Iowa’s communities. Iowa State Journal of Research 58:261–268.

    OpenUrl
35. ↵
    1. Yen, S.T.,
    2. P.C. Boxall, and
    3. W.L. Adamowicz

    . 1997. An econometric analysis of donations for environmental conservation in Canada. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22(2):246–263.

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Zavoina, R., and
    2. W. McElvey

    . 1975. A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology pp. 103–120.
37. ↵
    1. Zhang, Y.,
    2. A. Hussain,
    3. J. Deng, and
    4. N. Letson

    . 2007. Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environment and Behavior 39:797–814.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
38. ↵
    1. Zhang, Y.,
    2. B. Zheng,
    3. B. Allen,
    4. N. Letson,
    5. J. Sibley

    . 2009. Tree ordinances as public policy and participation tools: Development in Alabama. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 35(3):166–172.

    OpenUrl
39. ↵
    1. Zheng, B.,
    2. Y. Zhang,
    3. J. Chen

    . 2011. Preferences to home landscape: wildness vs. neatness. Landscape and Urban Planning 99:1–8.

    OpenUrl