Article Figures & Data
Tables
- Table 1.
Coding examples for the verbatim responses related to occupation and what respondents considered important about the urban forest, based on the survey results from Fredericton, Halifax, and Winnipeg.
Item Verbatim response Code Occupation “Administrative assistant” Management “Full-time mom” Home parent “Clerk at local store” Customer service “Dancer” Artist “Pensioner” Retired “Priest” Faith professional Values “Gives a better look to the city” Aesthetics “Improves the environment” Environmental quality “Filters the air” Air quality “Creates a buffer zone for animals” Biodiversity “Create oxygen” Oxygenz “Takes away from the concrete feeling” Naturalness “Makes me feel good to see greenspace” Personal well-being “Makes me feel at home” Sense of place “Because of David Suzuki” Other ↵z Oxygen code becomes air quality (see DISCUSSION).
- Table 2.
Ratings of importance for urban forests indicating sampling and demographic characteristic, and relevant statistics, based on the survey results from Fredericton, Halifax, and Winnipeg.
Sampling and demographic characteristics Mean of Rating (± margin of error)z % of total responsesy Statistics (P-value) One-way ANOVAx Two-tailed t-testx Mann-Whitney testx City Fredericton 4.6 (±0.04) 38% 0.018 n/a n/a Halifax 4.6 (±0.03) 37% Winnipeg 4.7 (±0.03) 24% Weather Cold 4.3 (±0.15) 60% <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Hot 4.8 (±0.03) 40% Sex Female 4.7 (±0.02) 53% 0.001 0.006 <0.0001 Male 4.6 (±0.03) 47% Age (decade born) 1920s 5.0 (±0.00) 01% <0.0001 n/a n/a 1930s 4.9 (±0.02) 04% 1940s 4.9 (±0.03) 09% 1950s 4.9 (±0.02) 14% 1960s 4.8 (±0.05) 14% 1970s 4.6 (±0.07) 14% 1980s 4.5 (±0.05) 28% 1990s 4.5 (±0.06) 16% Occupation Student 4.5 (±0.04) 30% <0.0001 <0.0001 0.02 Non-student 4.7 (±0.02) 70% Environmental group membership Yes 4.7 (±0.06) 10% 0.229 0.244 0.128 No 4.6 (±0.02) 90% - Table 3.
Value themes derived from what respondents in Fredericton, Halifax, and Winnipeg considered important about the urban forest, indicating percentages of first and second mentions according to city and weather.
Value themes codesz Cities Weather Fredericton 1st–2nd mention Halifax 1st–2nd mention Winnipeg 1st–2nd mention Hot 1st–2nd mention Cold 1st–2nd mention Aesthetics 11%–6% 11%–6% 6%–4% 10%–6% 18%–9% Air 10%–5% 10%–4% 3%–5% 8%–7% 16%–7% Shade 4%–3% 2%–1% 6%–3% 8%–4% 3%–3% Naturalness 2%–1% 3%–1% 4%–2% 4%–2% 5%–2% Environmental quality 3%–2% 3%–2% 2%–2% 3%–3% 4%–3% Sense of place 1%–1% 3%–1% 1%–1% 1%–1% 3%–2% Personal well-being 2%–1% 1%–1% 0%–0% 1%–1% 2%–2% Biodiversity 2%–2% 1%–1% 0%–1% 1%–2% 2%–2% Recreation 0%–0% 1%–0% 1%–0% 0%–0% 1%–1% Spiritual 0%- 0% 1%–0% 0%–0% 0%–0% 1%–1% Carbon 0%- 0% 1%–0% 0%- 0% 0%–0% 1%–1% Othery 2%–1% 2%–1% 1%–2% 2%–2% 3%–2% ↵z The “no responses” code is not included. This accounts for 1.2% of all first mentions and 40% of all second mentions of the total responses (n = 1077).
↵y The “other” code includes themes that are difficult to categorize (see example in Table 1) and themes with less than 10 mentions, chiefly health, shelter, timber, and property values.
- Table 4.
χ2 statistics for the proportion of value themes according to city and weather, indicating values for first and second mention, based on the survey results from Fredericton, Halifax, and Winnipeg.
Sampling characteristics χ2 z Degrees of freedom P-valuey Cities Fredericton 132.16 (1st mention) 22 <0.0001 Halifax Winnipeg 58.88 (2nd mention) 22 <0.0001 Weather Cold 68.25 11 <0.0001 Hot 18.51 11 0.071