National Assessment of Tree City USA Participation According to Geography and Socioeconomic Characteristics

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Arbor Day Foundation

   . 2014. Tree City USA. Accessed 23 February 2015. <www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa>
2. ↵
   1. Benjamini, Y., and
   2. Y. Hochberg

   . 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 57:289–300.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
3. ↵
   1. Berland, A., and
   2. M.E. Hopton

   . 2014. Comparing street tree assemblages and associated stormwater benefits among communities in metropolitan Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13:734–741.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Berland, A.,
   2. K. Schwarz,
   3. D.L. Herrmann, and
   4. M.E. Hopton

   . 2015. How environmental justice patterns are shaped by place: Terrain and tree canopy in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. Cities and the Environment (CATE): 8:Article 1.
5. ↵
   1. Bivand, R.

   2014. Spatial dependence: Weighting schemes, statistics, and models. Accessed 23 February 2015. <http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spdep/spdep.pdf>
6. ↵
   1. Crain, R.L.

   1966. Fluoridation: The diffusion of an innovation among cities. Social Forces 44:467–476.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
7. ↵
   1. de Oliveira, G., and
   2. J.A.F. Diniz-Filho

   . 2010. Spatial patterns of terrestrial vertebrates richness in Brazilian semiarid, Northeastern Brazil: Selecting hypotheses and revealing constraints. Journal of Arid Environments 74:1418–1426.

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Diniz-Filho,
   2. J.A.F.,
   3. L.M. Bini,
   4. C.M. Vieira,
   5. D. Blamires,
   6. L.C. Terribile,
   7. R.P. Bastos,
   8. G. de Oliveira, and
   9. B. de Souza Barreto

   . 2008. Spatial patterns of terrestrial vertebrate species richness in the Brazilian Cerrado. Zoological Studies 47:146–157.

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   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
10. ↵
    1. Dormann, C.F.,
    2. J. Elith,
    3. S. Bacher,
    4. C. Buchmann,
    5. G. Carl,
    6. G. Carré,
    7. J.R.G. Marquéz, et al.

    2013. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36:27–46.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. ↵
    1. Dormann, C.F.,
    2. J.M. McPherson,
    3. M.B. Araújo,
    4. R. Bivand,
    5. J. Bolliger,
    6. G. Carl,
    7. R.G. Davies, et al.

    2007. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: A review. Ecography 30:609–628.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
12. ↵
    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 18:227–234.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Galvin, M.F., and
    2. D. Bleil

    . 2004. Relationship among tree canopy quantity, community demographics, and Tree City USA program participation in Maryland, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 30:321–327.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Grove, J.M.,
    2. A.R. Troy,
    3. J.P.M. O’Neil-Dunne,
    4. W.R. Burch, Jr.,
    5. M.L. Cadenasso, and
    6. S.T.A. Pickett

    . 2006. Characterization of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 9:578–597.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
15. ↵
    1. Heynen, N.C., and
    2. G. Lindsey

    . 2003. Correlates of urban forest canopy cover: Implications for local public works. Public Works Management & Policy 8:33–47.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
16. ↵
    1. Kuhns, M.R.,
    2. B. Lee, and
    3. D.K. Reiter

    . 2005. Characteristics of urban forestry programs in Utah, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 31:285–295.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Landry, S.M., and
    2. J. Chakraborty

    . 2009. Street trees and equity: Evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environment and Planning A 41:2651–2670.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
18. ↵
    1. Lohr, V.I.,
    2. C.H. Pearson-Mims,
    3. J. Tarnai, and
    4. D.A. Dillman

    . 2004. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture 30:28–35.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. D.A. Hensher and
    2. P.R. Stopher

    1. McFadden, D.

    1979. Quantitative model for analyzing travel behavior of individuals: Some recent developments. pp. 279–318. In: D.A. Hensher and P.R. Stopher (Eds.). Behavioural travel modelling. Groom Helm, London, UK.
20. ↵
    1. McPherson, E.G.,
    2. D. Nowak,
    3. G. Heisler,
    4. S. Grimmon,
    5. C. Souch,
    6. R. Grant, and
    7. R. Rowntree

    . 1997. Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: The Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban Ecosystems 1:49–61.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
21. ↵
    1. Perkins H.A.,
    2. N. Heynen, and
    3. J. Wilson

    . 2004. Inequitable access to urban reforestation: The impact of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests. Cities 21:291–299.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
22. ↵
    1. R Core Team

    . 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Accessed 23 February 2015. <www.R-project.org>
23. ↵
    1. Rangel, T.F.,
    2. J.A.F. Diniz-Filho, and
    3. L.M. Bini

    . 2010. SAM: A comprehensive application for Spatial Analysis in Macroecology. Ecography 33:46–50.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
24. ↵
    1. Ries, P.D.,
    2. A.S. Reed, and
    3. S.J. Kresse

    . 2007. The impact of statewide urban forestry programs: A survey of cities in Oregon, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33:168–175.

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. J.E. Kuser

    1. Rosenow, J., and
    2. M. Yager

    . 2007. Tree City USA. pp. 419–427. In: J.E. Kuser (Ed.). Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast. Springer, New York, New York, U.S.
26. ↵
    1. Schroeder, H.,
    2. J. Flannigan, and
    3. R. Coles

    . 2006. Residents’ attitudes toward street trees in the UK and U.S. communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32:236–246.

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    1. Schwarz, K.,
    2. M. Fragkias,
    3. C.G. Boone,
    4. W. Zhou,
    5. M. McHale,
    6. J.M. Grove,
    7. J. O’Neil-Dunne, et al.

    2015. Trees grow on money: Urban tree canopy cover and environmental justice. PLoS ONE 10: e0122051.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
28. ↵
    1. Stevenson, T.R.,
    2. H.D. Gerhold, and
    3. W.F. Elmendorf

    . 2008. Attitudes of municipal officials toward street tree programs in Pennsylvania, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:144–151.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. U.S. Census Bureau

    . 2014. TIGER/Line with Selected Demographic and Economic Data. Accessed 23 February 2015. <www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-data.html>.
30. ↵
    1. Zhang, Y., and
    2. B. Zheng

    . 2012. Urban trees programs from municipal officials’ perspective: Evidence from Alabama, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 38:160–167.

    OpenUrl