Research ArticleArticles

Homeowner Interactions with Residential Trees in Urban Areas

Jana Dilley and Kathleen L. Wolf
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) November 2013, 39 (6) 267-277; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2013.034

LITERATURE CITED

  1. ↵
    1. Anders, S.,
    2. T. Day, and
    3. C.A. Kuduk
    . 2010. Hey, your tree is shading my solar panels: California’s Solar Shade Control Act. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 2:361–381.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Baker, R.L.
    2010. My tree versus your solar collector or your well versus my septic system? Exploring responses to beneficial but conflicting neighboring uses of land. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 37(1):Article 2.
  3. ↵
    1. Barringer, F.
    April 7, 2008a. Trees block solar panels, and a feud ends in court. The New York Times. <www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/science/earth/07redwood.html?scp=1&sq=trees%20block%20solar%20panels&st=cse>
  4. ↵
    1. Barringer, F.
    July 23, 2008b. In California neighbors’ dispute, officials find it’s time to speak for the trees. The New York Times. <www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23solar.html?scp=4&sq=trees%20block%20solar%20panels&st=cse>
  5. ↵
    1. Cadenasso, M.L.,
    2. S.T.A. Pickett, and
    3. K. Schwarz
    . 2007. Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: Reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(2):80–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Chaskin, J.
    1998. Neighborhood as a unit of planning and action: A heuristic approach. Journal of Planning Literature 13(1):11–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Church, A.H.
    1993. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 57:62–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. City of Seattle
    . 2007. Urban Forest Management Plan. <www.seattle.gov/trees/management.htm>
  9. ↵
    1. City of Seattle
    . 2010. 2010: The Year of Urban Agriculture: Promoting community agriculture efforts and increased access to locally grown food. <www.seattle.gov/urbanagriculture>
  10. ↵
    1. City of Seattle
    . 2013. Michael McGinn. Executive Order 2013-01.
  11. ↵
    1. Clark, J.R.,
    2. N.P. Matheny,
    3. G. Cross, and
    4. V. Wake
    . 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23(1):17–30.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Close, D.D.,
    2. J.W. Groninger,
    3. J.C. Mangun, and
    4. P.L. Roth
    . 2001. Homeowners’ opinions on the practice and effects of topping trees. Journal of Arboriculture 27(3):160–65.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Davey Resource Group
    . 2012. Pittsburgh Urban Forest Master Plan. <www.treepittsburgh.org/urban-forest-master-plan>
  14. ↵
    1. D.J. Decker,
    2. T.L. Brown, and
    3. W.F. Siemer
    1. Decker, D.J.,
    2. T.L. Brown, and
    3. W.F. Siemer
    . 2001. Evolution of people-wildlife relations. pp. 3–22. In: D.J. Decker, T.L. Brown, and W.F. Siemer (Eds.). Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
  15. ↵
    1. Dillman, D.A.,
    2. J.D. Smyth, and
    3. L.M. Christian
    . 2009. Internet, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, U.S. 499 pp.
  16. ↵
    1. Donovan, G.H., and
    2. D.T. Butry
    . 2010. Trees in the city: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning 94:77–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Donovan, G.H., and
    2. D.T. Butry
    . 2011. The Effect of urban trees on the rental price of single-family homes in Portland, Oregon. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10:163–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Donovan, G.H.,
    2. D.T. Butry,
    3. Y.L. Michael,
    4. J.P. Prestemon,
    5. A.M. Liebhold,
    6. D. Gatziolis, and
    7. M.Y. Mao
    . 2013. The relationship between trees and human health: Evidence from the spread of the emerald ash borer. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 44(2):139–145.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Donovan, G.H.,
    2. Y.L. Michael,
    3. D.T. Butry,
    4. A.D. Sullivan, and
    5. J.M. Chase
    . 2011. Urban trees and the risk of poor birth outcomes. Health & Place 17(1):390-93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Donovan, G.H., and
    2. J.P. Prestemon
    . 2012. The Effect of Trees on Crime in Portland, Oregon. Environment and Behavior 44(1):3–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. do Paço, A., and
    2. M. Raposo
    . 2009. Green segmentation: An application to the Portuguese consumer market. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 27(3):364–379.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Dwyer, J.F.,
    2. D.J. Nowak, and
    3. M.H. Noble
    . 2003. Sustaining urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture 29(1):49–55.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Dwyer, J.F.,
    2. D.J. Nowak,
    3. M.H. Noble, and
    4. S.M. Sisinni
    . 2000. Connecting People with ecosystems in the 21st Century: An Assessment of Our Nation’s Urban Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-490. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
  24. ↵
    1. Edwards, P.,
    2. I. Roberts,
    3. M. Clarke,
    4. C. DiGuiseppi,
    5. S. Pratap,
    6. R. Wentz, and
    7. I. Kwan
    . 2002. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. BMJ 324(7347):1183–1185.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Flannigan, J.
    2005. An evaluation of residents’ attitudes to street trees in southwest England. Arboricultural Journal 28(4):219–241.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Flint, C.G.,
    2. B. McFarlane, and
    3. M. Müller
    . 2009. Human dimensions of forest disturbance by insects: An international synthesis. Environmental Management 43(6):1174–186.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Fried, M.
    1984. The structure and significance of community satisfaction. Population & Environment 7(2):61–86.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F.
    2011. An Illustrated Guide to Pruning, 3rd Edition. Delmar, Clifton Park, New York, New York, U.S. 496 pp.
  29. ↵
    1. Gorman, J.
    2004. Residents’ opinions on the value of street trees depending on tree allocation. Journal of Arboriculture 30(1):36–43.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Grove, J.M.,
    2. M.L. Cadenasso,
    3. W.R. Burch, Jr.,
    4. S.T.A. Pickett,
    5. K. Schwarz,
    6. J. O’Neil-Dunne,
    7. M. Wilson,
    8. A. Troy, and
    9. C. Boone
    . 2006a. Data and methods comparing social structure and vegetation structure of urban neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. Society and Natural Resources 19(2):117–136.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Grove, J.M.,
    2. A.R. Troy,
    3. J.P.M. O’Neil-Dunne,
    4. W.R. Burch,
    5. M.L. Cadenasso, and
    6. S.T.A. Pickett
    . 2006b. Characterization of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 9(4):578–597.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Groves, R.M.
    2006. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70(5):646–675.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    1. Hamilton, M.B.
    2009. Online Survey Response Rates and Times: Background and Guidance for Industry. Super Survey: A Solution from Ipathia, Inc.
  34. ↵
    1. Heimlich, J.,
    2. T.D. Sydnor,
    3. M. Bumgardner, and
    4. P. O’Brien
    . 2008. Attitudes of residents toward street trees on four streets in Toledo, Ohio, US before removal of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) from emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(1):47–53.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Hull, R.B.
    1992. How the public values urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture 18(2):98–101.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Jorgensen, E.
    1974. Towards an urban forestry concept. Prepared for the 10th Commonwealth Forestry Conference, Ottawa, Canada.
  37. ↵
    1. Kaplan, R.
    1985. Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 2:115–127.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Kaplan, R.
    2001. The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior 33(4):507–542.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  39. ↵
    1. Kaplan, R., and
    2. M. Austin
    . 2004. Out in the country: Sprawl and the quest for nature nearby. Landscape and Urban Planning 69:235–243.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. Kaplowitz, M.D.,
    2. T.D. Hadlock, and
    3. R. Levine
    . 2004. A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly 68(1):94–101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Kenney, W.A.,
    2. P.J.E. van Wassenaer, and
    3. A.L. Satel
    . 2011. Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(3):108–117.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Kohut, A.,
    2. C. Doherty, and
    3. S. Keeter
    . 2004. Polls Face Growing Resistance, But Still Representative. Pew Center for Research on People and the Press, Washington, D.C. 37 pp.
  43. ↵
    1. Kweon, B.S.,
    2. C. Ellis,
    3. P.I. Leiva, and
    4. G.O. Rogers
    . 2010. Landscape components, land use, and neighborhood satisfaction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 37:500–517.
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Lacitis, E.
    September 18, 2009. Is there something fishy about Ivar’s latest stunt? Seattle Times. <www.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009889864_ivar18m.html>
  45. ↵
    1. Link, T.E.,
    2. M. Unsworth, and
    3. D. Marks
    . 2004. The dynamics of rainfall interception by a seasonal temperate rainforest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 124(3–4):171–191.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Logan, J.R., and
    2. H.L. Molotch
    . 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, U.S.
  47. ↵
    1. Lohr, V.I.,
    2. C.H. 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. Journal of Arboriculture 30(1):28–35.
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Martin, C.L.
    1994. The impact of topic interest on mail survey response behaviour. Journal of the Market Research Society 36(4):327–338.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  49. ↵
    1. Mass, C.
    July 29, 2009. One Record Down, One to Go? Update III. Cliff Mass Weather Blog. <www.cliffmass.blogspot.com/2009/07/updateiii.html>
  50. ↵
    1. McKenzie-Mohr, D.
    2011. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing, 3rd Edition. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, Canada. 192 pp.
  51. ↵
    1. McPherson, E.G.,
    2. S.E. Maco,
    3. J.R. Simpson,
    4. P.J. Peper,
    5. Q. Xiao,
    6. A.M. VanDerZanden, and
    7. N. Bell
    . 2002. Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. International Society of Arboriculture, Pacific Northwest Chapter, Silverton, Oregon, U.S.
  52. ↵
    1. McPherson, E.G.,
    2. J.R. Simpson,
    3. P.J. Peper,
    4. S.L. Gardner,
    5. K.E. Vargas, and
    6. Q. Xiao
    . 2007. Northeast Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-202. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany CA.
  53. ↵
    1. Nowak, D.J.,
    2. S.M. Stein
    , et al. 2010. Sustaining America’s Urban Trees and Forests: A Forests on the Edge Report. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report NRS-62. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
  54. ↵
    1. Parlin, M.
    2009. Seattle, Washington Urban Tree Canopy Analysis Project Report: Looking Back and Moving Forward. NCDC Imaging, Colorado Springs, Co. 15 pp.
  55. ↵
    1. Pickett, S.T.,
    2. M.L. Cadenasso,
    3. J.M. Grove,
    4. C.G. Boone,
    5. P.M. Groffman,
    6. E. Irwin,
    7. S.S. Kaushal,
    8. V. Marshall
    , et al. 2011. Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a decade of progress. Journal of Environmental Management 92(3):331–362.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. ↵
    1. Pickett, S.T.A., and
    2. M.L. Cadenasso
    . 2009. Altered resources, disturbance, and heterogeneity: A framework for comparing urban and non-urban soils. Urban Ecosystems 12(1):23–44.
    OpenUrlGeoRef
    1. RealtyTrac
    . March 2010. Seattle, WA Real Estate Trends. <www.realtytrac.com/trendcenter/wa/seattle-trend.html>
  58. ↵
    1. Rohe, W.M.
    2009. From local to global: One hundred years of neighborhood planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 75(2):209–230.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. ↵
    1. Rosenfeld, A.H.,
    2. H. Akbari,
    3. S. Bretz, and
    4. B.L. Fishman
    . 1995. Mitigation of urban heat islands: Materials, utility programs, updates. Energy and Buildings 22(3):255.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  60. ↵
    1. Salant, P., and
    2. D. Dillman
    . 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 232 pp.
  61. ↵
    1. Sander, H.,
    2. S. Polasky, and
    3. R.G. Haight
    . 2010. The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA. Ecological Economics 69(8):1646–656.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  62. ↵
    1. Schroeder, H.,
    2. J. Flannigan, and
    3. R. Coles
    . 2006. Residents’ attitudes toward street trees in the UK and US communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(5):236–246.
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Schroeder, H.W., and
    2. S.R. Ruffolo
    . 1996. Householder evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb. Journal of Arboriculture 22(1):35–43.
    OpenUrl
  64. ↵
    1. Seattle Department of Neighborhoods
    . 2012. Accessed 10/18/2012. <www.seattle.gov/neighborhoodcouncil>
  65. ↵
    1. Silver, C.
    1985. Neighborhood planning in historical perspective. Journal of the American Planning Association 51(2):161–174.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  66. ↵
    1. Singer, E.
    2002. The Use of Incentives to Reduce Nonresponse in Household Surveys (No. 051). The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research Survey Research Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S. 34 pp.
  67. ↵
    1. Sirianni, C.
    2007. Neighborhood planning as collaborative democratic design: The case of Seattle. Journal of the American Planning Association 73(4):373–387.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. ↵
    1. Sommer, R.,
    2. P.A. Barker,
    3. H. Guenther, and
    4. K. Kurani
    . 1989. Householder evaluation of two street tree species. Journal of Arboriculture 15(4):99–103.
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. Sommer, R., and
    2. B.A. Sommer
    . 1989. The factor structure of street tree attributes. Journal of Arboriculture 15(10):243–246.
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    1. Sommer, R.,
    2. H. Guenther, and
    3. P.A. Barker
    . 1990. Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal 9(2):79–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Summit, J., and
    2. E.G. McPherson
    . 1998. Residential tree planting and care: A study of attitudes and behavior in Sacramento, California. Journal of Arboriculture 24(2):89–96.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Sydnor, T.D., and
    2. S.K. Subburayalu
    . 2011. Should we consider expected environmental benefits when planting larger or smaller tree species? Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(4):167–172.
    OpenUrl
  73. ↵
    1. Troy, A.R.,
    2. J.M. Grove,
    3. J.P. O’Neil-Dunne,
    4. S.T. Pickett, and
    5. M.L. Cadenasso
    . 2007. Predicting opportunities for greening and patterns of vegetation on private urban lands. Environmental Management 40(3):394–412.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  74. ↵
    1. Van Kenhove, P.,
    2. K. Wijnen, and
    3. K. De Wulf
    . 2002. The influence of topic involvement on mail-survey response behavior. Psychology and Marketing 19(3):293–301.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. ↵
    1. Vercruyssen, A.,
    2. H. Roose, and
    3. B.V. Putte
    . 2011. Underestimating busyness: Indications of nonresponse bias due to work-family conflict and time pressure. Social Science Research 40(6):1691–1701.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. ↵
    1. Wedel, M., and
    2. W.A. Kamakura
    . 2000. Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations. Kluwer, Norwell, Massachusetts, U.S. 382 pp.
  77. ↵
    1. Wolf, K.L., and
    2. L.E. Kruger
    . 2010. Urban forestry research needs: A participatory assessment process. Journal of Forestry 108(1):39–44.
    OpenUrl
    1. Wolf, K.L.,
    2. D.J. Blahna,
    3. W. Brinkley, and
    4. M. Romolini
    . 2013. Environmental stewardship footprint research: Linking human agency and ecosystem health in the Puget Sound region. Urban Ecosystems 16:13–32.
    OpenUrl
  79. ↵
    1. Wolf, K.L.
    2005. Business district streetscapes, trees, and consumer response. Journal of Forestry 103(8):396–400.
    OpenUrl
  80. ↵
    1. Xiao, Q., and
    2. E.G. McPherson
    . 2011. Rainfall interception of three trees in Oakland, California. Urban Ecosystems 14:755–769.
    OpenUrl
  81. ↵
    1. Xiao, Q.,
    2. E.G. McPherson,
    3. J.R Simpson, and
    4. S.L. Ustin
    . 1998. Rainfall interception by Sacramento’s urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 24(4):235–244.
    OpenUrl
  82. ↵
    1. Xiao, Q.,
    2. E.G. McPherson,
    3. S.L. Ustin,
    4. M.E. Grismer, and
    5. J.R. Simpson
    . 2000. Winter rainfall interception by two mature open-grown trees in Davis, California. Hydrological Processes 14:763–784.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. ↵
    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(6):797–814.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Homeowner Interactions with Residential Trees in Urban Areas
Jana Dilley, Kathleen L. Wolf
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 2013, 39 (6) 267-277; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2013.034
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords