Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Using the 3-30-300 Rule to Assess Urban Forest Access and Preferences in Florida (United States)

Andrew K. Koeser, Richard J. Hauer, Michael G. Andreu, Robert Northrop, Mysha Clarke, John Diaz, Deborah R. Hilbert, Cecil C. Konijnendijk, Shawn M. Landry, Grant L. Thompson and Rebecca Zarger
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2024, 50 (3) 241-257; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2024.007
Andrew K. Koeser
University of Florida, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, Department of Environmental Horticulture, 14625 County Road 672, Wimauma, FL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard J. Hauer
University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources-Forestry, 800 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, WI, United States, Urban Forestry, Eocene Environmental Group, 5930 Grand Ave, West Des Moines, IA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael G. Andreu
University of Florida, School of Forests, Fisheries, and Geomatics Sciences, 351 Newins-Ziegler Hall, Gainesville, FL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Northrop
University of Florida, IFAS Extension, 5339 CR 579, Seffner, FL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Mysha Clarke
University of Florida, School of Forests, Fisheries, and Geomatics Sciences, 351 Newins-Ziegler Hall, Gainesville, FL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
John Diaz
University of Florida, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication 1200 N Park Road, Plant City, FL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Deborah R. Hilbert
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Department of Sustainable Resources Management, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Cecil C. Konijnendijk
Nature Based Solutions Institute, Nepveulaan 6B, 3705 LD Zeist, Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Shawn M. Landry
University of South Florida, School of Geosciences, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Grant L. Thompson
RDG Planning and Design, 301 Grand Ave, Des Moines, IA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebecca Zarger
University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology 4202 E. Fowler Ave. Tampa, FL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

Background Public engagement is needed to make sure urban forestry management efforts align with the values of the public being served. Noting this, we determined current and desired urban forest access of Florida (United States) residents using the criteria from the 3-30-300 rule (i.e., 3 trees visible from home, 30% urban tree canopy in neighborhood, and a green space within 300 meters of home).

Methods A survey of 1,716 Florida residents was conducted to assess canopy coverage and green space access. Respondents were then asked if this level of urban forest access was sufficient. We also asked their perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of urban trees and whether they had any negative interactions with trees in the past.

Results We found that 37.3% of Florida residents met all 3 criteria of the 3-30-300 rule. Despite this, half the respondents would prefer more trees in their neighborhoods. When asked to name the top benefits provided by trees, the most common responses were shade, beauty, and attracting wildlife. The most common drawbacks to urban trees included the risk of damage to property, leaves/debris, and fears regarding storms and hurricanes.

Conclusions Florida residents largely value their urban forest and would like to see it maintained or enhanced. Improving access to greenspaces for recreation is the most pressing concern for urban forest managers in Florida looking to meet the requirements of the 3-30-300 rule. Results from this study can inform urban forest management efforts in Florida and beyond.

Keywords
  • Ecosystem Disservices
  • Ecosystem Services
  • Environmental Equity
  • Planning
  • Urban Forest Management

Introduction

Listen

A large and growing body of research has quantified the ecosystem services associated with urban trees as they relate to (among other things) storm water mitigation (Berland et al. 2017), urban heat reduction (Ko 2018; McDonald et al. 2020), carbon capture (Nowak and Crane 2002), and human health (Jennings and Gaither 2015; Wolf et al. 2020). Proximity to vegetation is an important driver for human health, with benefits including reduction of stress (Jiang et al. 2015; Turner-Skoff and Cavender 2019), improved school performance (Kuo et al. 2018; Turner-Skoff and Cavender 2019), and more normal childbirth weights (Donovan et al. 2011). Recognizing the importance of these benefits and the inequalities that exists across social-demographics (Gerrish and Watkins 2018; Watkins and Gerrish 2018), the 3-30-300 Rule has been proposed as a means of ensuring that individuals have sufficient tree cover and green space access at scales that are relevant, desirable, and/or beneficial to their well-being.

The 3-30-300 Rule draws on the large body of research documenting the benefits trees have on human health and well-being (Konijnendijk 2022). Each of the numbers in the 3-30-300 Rule is associated with specific performance criteria tied to individual access to urban trees and green spaces, and the need to bring trees and green space close to people to enhance their health, climate adaptation and other benefits. The “3” in 3-30-300 Rule captures urban forest access at a very local scale by asking the question, “Can you see 3 or more mature trees from your home (or workplace or school)?” (Konijnendijk 2022). Its inclusion is rooted in past research which has demonstrated (among other things) the benefits a green outside view provides to hospital patients (Jimenez et al. 2021), school children (Norwood et al. 2019), workers (Lottrup et al. 2015), and, more recently, people isolating as part of the COVID-19 pandemic (Zhang et al. 2022).

The “30” in the 3-30-300 Rule relates to neighborhood canopy cover. Individuals should have at least 30% canopy coverage in their neighborhood (Konijnendijk 2022). Often canopy goals are established city-wide as part of an urban forest management plan (Kenney et al. 2011; Hauer and Peterson 2016). However, scale is also important when considering environmental equity (Locke et al. 2016). Past studies at scales smaller than an entire city (e.g., neighborhoods or census blocks) have shown urban canopy can vary given local demographics—particularly race (Grove et al. 2018; Watkins and Gerrish 2018; Nesbitt et al. 2019; Locke et al. 2021) and income level (Gerrish and Watkins 2018; Nesbitt et al. 2019). As such, the 3-30-300 Rule specifically calls on urban forest managers to strive for 30% canopy cover in every neighborhood they manage, thus aiming for greater environmental equity.

The 30% canopy threshold is derived from multiple studies that have shown that a minimum tree cover of this magnitude is necessary for significant benefits to be realized (Konijnendijk 2022). For example, researchers in Europe found that 30% canopy coverage was associated with one-third less mortality during heatwaves (Barboza et al. 2021). Additionally, Astell-Burt and Feng found that 30% canopy cover was associated with more restful sleep (2020a) and reduced stress (2019). The authors also found that at least 30% canopy coverage served as a preventative for heart disease (Astell-Burt and Feng 2020b). While canopy coverage beyond 30% was associated with greater benefit in these studies, Konijnendijk (2022) adopted the threshold (30%) to account for urban greening challenges cities might face such as rapid development and changing climates.

The last criterion of the 3-30-300 rule is for individuals to be within 300 m of the nearest public park or green space (Konijnendijk 2022). This distance represents an approximate five-minute walk at a leisurely pace. People located 300 m from a green space visited these areas more frequently and were less likely to be obese than respondents located more than 1 km from a green space (Toftager et al. 2011). Beyond body weight, increased activity in green spaces can also help reduce the effects from health ailments such as heart disease and diabetes (Astell-Burt et al. 2014; De la Fuente et al. 2021). Although having easy access to larger green spaces (1 ha or more) is recommended by institutions such as the World Health Organization, smaller green spaces, such as pocket parks or community gardens, may be a necessary compromise in densely developed urban areas (Konijnendijk 2022).

While there is no shortage of research documenting the benefits of trees, including those directly associated with human health, management decisions regarding urban forests must reflect public values if they are to be successful (Sklar and Ames 1985; Carmichael and McDonough 2018a; Northrop et al. 2022; Landry et al. 2023). Given this, there is a large body of research that clarifies public perceptions as they relate to urban trees and forests (Ordonez Barona et al. 2022). In a recent review, Ordóñez Barona et al. (2022) identified 178 studies that investigated people’s perceptions of urban trees. The majority of these works were focused on respondents from a single community, often framed within the context of trees in gardens/yards, in urban woodlands, along streets, or in parks. Most works (47.2%) focused on trees and their functions in landscapes, but research also focused on public perception regarding the inherent value of trees themselves (40.4%) or the benefits or drawbacks of certain tree traits (12.4%)(Ordóñez Barona et al. 2022). One finding by Ordóñez Barona et al. (2022) is that the majority of studies did not allow for open ended responses, rather they asked questions which provided limited options for respondents to choose from when sharing their views. Moreover, respondents were typically only asked to offer their perceptions on tree benefits (Ordóñez Barona et al. 2022).

While much research has been conducted to assess the positive perceptions individuals hold regarding trees and urban forests, few studies have investigated how the public views the drawbacks oftrees (Ordóñez Barona et al. 2022). Failing to consider both the full range of views on trees including perceived ecosystem disservices can erode public trust and support for urban forest efforts. Furthermore, neglecting ecosystem disservices in decision-making processes can diminish the impact of management endeavors aimed at enhancing human well-being (Roman et al. 2021). The few studies that have examined negative perceptions of trees highlight ways for managers to address or account for these concerns (Su et al. 2022; Landry et al. 2023).

In working towards urban forest management goals, policy makers, managers, and practitioners must consider these competing values and determine which strategies are generally acceptable to their constituents. If management efforts do not align with the needs and wants of the public, their long-term success is questionable (Lockwood et al. 2010). Understanding how constituents value trees and the reasons for these attitudes is a critical guiding step when creating strategic plans, urban forestry programs, and educational efforts.

To address this research gap, this work represents a statewide assessment of values related to urban forest access and governance in Florida (United States). We ascertained how proximity to tree cover and green space access affected people’s perceptions using the 3-30-300 Rule as our main performance metric, as this rule makes an evidence-based connection between different types of access to trees and green space. In addition, we asked respondents if the tree cover and green space access they currently experienced was sufficient or whether it should be increased or decreased. Lastly, we asked our respondents to note their thoughts on trees regarding the services and disservices they provide and any negative experiences they had with trees in the past. This work is intended to assist urban forest managers and non-profits in their efforts, especially with regard to strategic planning, regulation/ordinance revision, and public engagement/education. Results can further inform research and practical applications beyond the study location.

Methods

Listen

Study Rationale, Study Area, and Participant Selection

The study assessed if and how residents within the state of Florida, United States value their urban forest. An online survey employed a contracted panel service (Centiment, Denver, Colorado, United States). Our survey sample was selected to be representative of the state population regarding gender, race, and age according to the United State Census Bureau (2022) estimates for 2022. Only urban residents were included, excluding potential candidates located in rural areas as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural-Urban Continuum Coding (RUCC) system (USDA 2020). Specifically, we sampled from counties with RUCC codes of 1 (i.e., counties in metro areas of 1 million population or more), 2 (i.e., counties in metro areas of 250,000 to 1 million population), or 3 (i.e., counties in metro areas of fewer than 250,000 population).

A minimum 1,600 respondent sample was selected for a projected margin of error of +/- 3% at a 95% level of confidence. In order to minimize incomplete responses and respondent fatigue, we limited our survey to 23 questions. Twelve of these questions that focus on urban forest access and perception are featured in this article (Appendix). The remaining 12 questions, which focused specifically on urban forest policy, were published separately (Koeser et al. 2023). Included in our full question set was an attention check question which asked the following, “We would like to ensure you are reading each question and responding thoughtfully. Please select green as your answer.” This was followed by the options “red,” “orange,” “green,” “blue,” and “purple.” Selecting anything other than “green” resulted in the respondent being disqualified from the study.

Study Questions

Our questionnaire was designed to assess what level of green space residents currently have, what level of canopy is desired, benefits and drawbacks with trees, negative experiences, and desired tree protection (Appendix). In particular, the following topical areas were ascertained:

  • What access to urban tree cover and green space do they currently have?

  • What access to urban tree cover and green space do they want?

  • What level of tree cover do they currently have along with how many trees can they see from a viewing point at their home (Figure 1)?

  • How much time does it take to access green space?

  • What benefits and also drawbacks are associated with trees?

  • What types (if any) of negative experiences have you had with trees?

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Street level rendering of a residential neighborhood with 30% canopy coverage. Respondents were shown similar images for 10%, 50%, 70%, and 90% canopy coverage and asked to select the scene that best represented their neighborhood.

In addition to the 3 themes above, we asked our respondents 2 open-ended questions. The first was “What are the top 3 benefits you associate with trees in your community or neighborhood?” The second was “What are the 3 biggest drawbacks associated with the trees in your community or neighborhood?”

Finally, to determine if past negative experiences with trees influenced their responses, we asked if they had had issues with trees damaging property, causing injury, requiring costly maintenance, preventing development, or causing issues with obtaining a new homeowners’ insurance policy.

Our last question was pertinent only to homeowners (Appendix). Respondents who selected “rent” when asked “Do you rent or own your home?” bypassed our last question (Appendix).

As our respondents had registered to participate as panelists through the panel service as described above, we had access to demographic (e.g., age, race, Hispanic status, gender) and location (i.e., postal code) information and did not need to ask these questions directly in our survey.

The study was approved by the University of Florida Internal Review Board (IRB) to collect data from human subjects. A soft launch (distributed to approximately 50 respondents) was conducted on 2022 October 5, to assess the performance of our questions prior to the full launch. We did not observe any issues and were able to release the survey as drafted. All responses were collected by 2022 October 17.

Data Analysis

The majority of questions were summarized by descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, median, mode, range, and various measures of dispersion). Comparisons between or among the different demographic groups were assessed using a chi-square based test of equal proportions in R (R Core Team 2022). All comparisons were made at a 0.05 level of statistical significance. Experiment wise error rate was controlled using the p.adjust() function in R (R Core Team 2022), specifying a false discovery rate (fdr) correction (Benjamini and Yekutieli 2001). For our open-ended questions on tree benefits and drawbacks, we coded the responses using the list of benefits and annoyances noted in Shroeder and Ruffolo (1996).

Results

Listen

Respondent Demographics

In total, 1,716 respondents participated in this survey. Of these, 45.0% (n = 773) identified as male and 55.0% (n = 943) reported as female. The ages of respondents ranged from 18 to 91 years, with a mean age of 47.6 and a median age of 47. With regard to race and ethnicity, 70.6% (n = 1,212) of respondents identified as White, 16.2% (n = 278) identified as Black or African American, 2.0% (n = 35) identified as Asian, 0.5% (n = 8) identified as American Indian or Native Alaskan, 0.3% (n = 5) identified as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 9.1% (n = 157) identified as other. The remaining 1.2% (n = 21) of respondents chose “prefer not to say” when asked about their race. Additionally, 22.2% (n = 381) of respondents identified as Hispanic. Finally, respondents were asked about their status as either homeowners or renters. The majority of respondents owned their home (57.4%; n = 985). Our sample demographics were well aligned with the overall demographics of the state of Florida (Appendix).

What Proportion of Floridians Live in Areas that Meet or Exceed the 3-30-300 Rule?

A little more than a third (37.3%; n = 640) of respondents indicated that they felt their neighborhoods met or exceeded all 3 of the thresholds outlined in the 3-30-300 rule. Of the criteria considered, a distance exceeding 300 m to the nearest park or green space was the most limiting factor. Slightly more than half (57.7%; n = 990) of respondents noted that they could reach a nearby park or green space within 5 minutes while walking, which is a typical time to walk 300 m. Of the remaining respondents, 37.5% (n = 644) noted it would take them longer than 5 minutes to access a park or green space while walking, and the remaining 4.8% (n = 82) were unsure of the time required.

In contrast, 72.9% (n = 1,252) of our respondents felt that their neighborhood had canopy coverage of 30% or more (Table 1). A quarter of respondents (25.0%; n = 429) noted their neighborhood had 10% canopy coverage. Only 35 respondents (2.0%) stated their neighborhood didn’t have any trees (Table 1). Similarly, 71.9% (n = 1,233) of our respondents were able to view 3 or more trees from their home. Of those who did not reach this threshold, 18.6% (n = 320) were able to see 2 trees from their homes, 6.7% (n = 115) were able to see 1 tree from their homes, and 2.8% (n = 48) had no trees visible from their homes.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Reported neighborhood canopy coverage by respondent race and homeowner status.

In looking at who believed their neighborhood fell below the 30% canopy threshold set by the 3-30-300 rule, differences related to race (P-value = 0.120) (Table 1) were not detected. Similarly, when looking at who believed they had less than 30% canopy in their neighborhoods, significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic respondents (P-value = 0.328) or home owning and renting respondents (P-value = 0.452)(Table 1) were not visible.

In assessing which factors predicted park or green space usage, we found proximity to a respondent’s home was the most significant factor (P-value < 0.001). Respondents who were within a 5-minute walk of a park or green space were 4.3 times more likely to select one of the more intensive options to the question, “How frequently do you visit/recreate in this park, green space, or natural area?” This is reflected in Table 2. Daily and weekly green space users are most likely to answer “yes” to the question, “Are you able to walk from your home to the nearest park, green space, or natural area in less than 5 minutes?” More sporadic users (i.e., those who selected “several times a year,” “once a year,” or “never”) were generally those who had to walk further than our stated 5-minute-threshold (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

The percentage of daily, weekly, and more sporadic park/green space users in comparison to their ability to reach a green space within 5 minutes. Results are separated by whether or not the respondent was within a 5-minute walk (average time to walk approximately 300 m) of their nearest park/green space (n = 1,633).

Beyond proximity, the impacts of age, gender, race, and Hispanic ethnicity on park or green space usage were analyzed. Neither race (P-value = 0.679) nor Hispanic ethnicity (P-value = 0.365) was a significant predictor. Age was a significant predictor of park use (P-value < 0.001), with older respondents less likely to select the more-frequent-use categories. Additionally, male respondents noted that they used parks and green spaces more frequently than female respondents (P-value = 0.020).

Are Floridians Satisfied with Their Urban Forest Canopy Distribution?

Slightly more than half (51.5%; n = 883) of respondents indicated that they would prefer more trees in their neighborhoods. Of the remaining respondents, most preferred the current number of trees in their neighborhoods (42.2%; n = 724). Only 6.4% (n = 109) of respondents indicated they would like fewer trees in their neighborhood.

Existing canopy cover did not influence who selected that they would prefer fewer trees in their neighborhood (P-value = 0.002)(Table 3). In contrast, those who selected that they would prefer the current amount of trees in their neighborhood were more likely to note that they lived in 50%, 70%, or 90% canopy coverage (P-value < 0.001)(Table 3). Those respondents who selected that they would prefer more trees in their neighborhood were more likely to note that they lived in 0%, 10%, or 30% canopy coverage (P-value < 0.001)(Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Comparison of current neighborhood canopy coverage to current tree preferences. A test of equal proportions was used to assess if responses to the question, “I would prefer ______ trees in my neighborhood” differed given current canopy coverage (n = 1,716).

When looking at how race and ethnicity influenced these preferences, we observed that a smaller proportion of Black/African American respondents (40.6%; n = 113) desired more trees compared to White respondents (53.4%; n = 647). This difference was statistically significant (P-value < 0.001). More than half (54.3%; n = 19) of the Asian respondents indicated that they would prefer more trees. Similarly, half (50.0%; n = 4) of the American Indian/Native Alaskan respondents and 60.0% (n = 3) of the Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander respondents indicated they desired more trees in their neighborhoods. None of these proportions were significantly different from the proportion of white respondents that preferred more trees (minimum P-value = 0.999). Of the 381 Hispanic respondents, 208 (54.6%) noted they would prefer more trees in their neighborhood. This was not statistically different from the 50.6% (n = 675) of non-Hispanics who stated they would prefer more trees.

A similar trend was noted among the respondents who indicated they would prefer fewer trees in their neighborhood. While 5.8% (n = 71) of White respondents noted they would prefer fewer trees, this nearly doubled to 10.4% (n = 29) among Back/African American respondents (P-value = 0.009). One American Indian/Native Alaskan respondent (12.5%) and one Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander respondent (20%) indicated they would prefer fewer trees, though neither proportion was significantly different than what was observed with the White respondents given low sample size (minimum P-value = 0.967). None of the 35 Asian respondents indicated they wanted fewer trees in their neighborhood, preventing statistical comparison with the test of equal proportions. Among the Hispanic respondents, 6% (n = 23) noted they would prefer fewer trees in their neighborhood. This was not statistically different from what was observed among the non-Hispanic participants (6.4%; n = 86; P-value = 0.867).

What Benefits and Disservices Do Floridians Associate with Urban Trees?

In looking at the coded benefits, “gives shade” was by far the most common benefit listed. This was followed by “pleasing to the eye,” “brings nature closer,” and “filters pollutants from the air.” The remaining 11 coded benefits were less commonly listed by respondents (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Coded responses from our open-ended survey question, “What are the top 3 benefits associated with the trees in your community or neighborhood?” (n = 1,716). Responses were coded using the list of benefits offered to survey respondents in Schroeder and Ruffolo (1996).

In matching respondents’ stated drawbacks to Shroeder and Ruffulo’s (1996) original list of annoyances, we found that seasonal leaf drop was the most common complaint (Figure 3). This was followed by “falling limbs,” “attracts annoying insects,” and “fruit, nuts, or pods fall from the tree.” The remaining 13 annoyances from Shroeder and Ruffulo (1996) were not commonly listed by respondents (Figure 3). In general, respondents were more forthcoming with benefits than they were with drawbacks (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Coded responses from our open-ended survey question, “What are the 3 biggest drawbacks associated with the trees in your community or neighborhood?” (n = 1,716). Responses were coded using the list of drawbacks offered to survey respondents in Schroeder and Ruffolo (1996).

What Experiences Might Shape Floridian’s Preferences for Trees?

Observed changes in canopy cover did not influence who selected that they would prefer fewer trees in their neighborhood (P-value = 0.735)(Table 4). In contrast, those respondents who selected that they would prefer the current amount of trees in their neighborhood were less likely to have observed a decrease in tree cover in their neighborhood (P-value < 0.001)(Table 4). Those respondents who selected that they would prefer more trees in their neighborhood were more likely to have observed a decrease in tree cover in their neighborhood (P-value < 0.001) (Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Comparison of past canopy changes in respondents’ neighborhoods to their current tree preferences. A test of equal proportions was used to assess if responses to the question, “I would prefer ______ trees in my neighborhood” differed given observed changes in neighborhood canopy (n = 1,716).

In assessing ecosystem disservices, 54.9% (n = 943) of our participants selected the response “I have never had a negative experience with a tree.” The most common negative experience expressed by respondents was a tree “causing property damage after losing a branch or tipping over.” This was reported by more than 1 in 5 respondents (23.3%; n = 399)(Figure 4). Other relatively common negative experiences included a tree “growing into and damaging your property” (18.6%; n = 319) and “requiring costly maintenance or removal” (19.0%; n = 326). The 2 least common of our predefined negative experiences were “causing issues when obtaining a new home insurance policy” (5.1%; n = 87) and “preventing you from developing your property given local protections” (3.7%; n = 64).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Responses (n = 1,715) to the question, “Have you ever had a negative experience with a tree?” The gray bars labeled “Fewer Trees Only” shows the results associated with respondents who noted they would like fewer trees in their neighborhood or community. This is contrasted with the results from the entire sample (“Overall Average”). Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences between paired bars, with * = P-value < 0.05, ** = P-value < 0.01, and *** = P-value < 0.001.

In addition to the negative experiences noted above, we included an “other” option. Of the 26 (1.5%) respondents that replied “other,” 7 described issues where tree parts grew into and damaged their property or neighboring infrastructure—specifically in an in-ground pool (n = 1), a nearby electrical transformer (n = 1), and septic or sewer systems (n = 5). Others noted damage to vehicles (n = 2) from limb drop and slipping issues given flower drop. Most of these examples could have been included in 2 of our pre-defined categories (i.e., “growing into or damaging your property” or “causing property damage after losing a branch or tipping over”) but were left as is for analysis. Four respondents noted losing trees after hurricanes or lightning strikes. One respondent was nearly hit when a tree fell near them in a park. Others noted negative experiences included trees attracting nuisance wildlife (n = 2), trees exacerbating allergies (n = 1), trees blocking sunlight (n = 1), and invasive trees taking over their property (n = 1).

Across the board, respondents who noted they would like fewer trees in their neighborhood or community were more likely to have had a negative experience with a tree in their past as compared to the total survey sample (minimum P-value = 0.015)(Figure 4). Respondents who indicated they would like fewer trees in their neighborhood or community were approximately twice as likely to have experiences with a local tree protection regulation preventing them from developing their property (2.5:1; P-value = 0.011) or have issues with getting a new homeowners’ insurance policy (2.2:1; P-value = 0.015)(Figure 4). This same subset of our sample were approximately 1.5 times more likely of have experienced a branch falling on their property (1.7:1; P-value < 0.001), a tree growing into their property (1.7:1; P-value = 0.002), or a costly maintenance or removal bill (1.6:1; P-value = 0.003) in the past (Figure 4).

Discussion

Listen

Our results offer early insights into what proportion of urban inhabitants live in a home and neighborhood which meets the criteria outlined by the 3-30-300 rule (Konijnendijk 2022). Our survey results indicate that more than a third (37.3%) of Floridians met or exceeded all 3 of the thresholds outlined in the 3-30-300 rule, with 71.9% able to view 3 trees from their home, 72.9% living in a neighborhood with 30% (or greater) canopy coverage, and 57.7% living within 300 m of a park or green space. By comparison, one of the first published studies to assess how a city fares with regard to the 3-30-300 rule was conducted in Barcelona, Spain (Nieuwenhuijsen et al. 2022). In this work, the authors found that 4.7% percent of respondents met all 3 criteria. In looking at the individual metrics, 62.1% of respondents were located near a major green space, 43% of respondents were able to view 3 trees from their home, and 8.7% lived in neighborhoods with 30% or more canopy coverage (Nieuwenhuijsen et al. 2022).

Looking beyond research in academic journals, a master’s thesis from the University of Toronto looked at entry-level home real estate listings in Toronto and Mississauga (Canada) to determine if their associated asking price was influenced by the criteria assessed in the 3-30-300 rule (Ling 2021). They found that 12% of the listings met all 3 criteria and that these tended to be the more expensive properties. Of these, 62% of properties had a view of 3 trees, 29% had 30% canopy coverage, and 32% were located within 300 m of a green space (Ling 2021).

Additionally, a geospatial analysis of 9 Swedish cities estimated that the percent of buildings with views of 3 trees ranged from (approximately) 31% (Kristianstad) to 61% (Lund)(Skåne Région 2023). In this same assessment, the research team found that, on average, 3% of the homes found within these 9 cities had 30% canopy coverage. In 3 of the cities assessed, Malmo, Lund, and Trelleborg, none of the homes met the 30% canopy coverage criterion (Skåne Region 2023). The best performing city, Ystad, by this criterion had 13% of homes located in 30% canopy coverage (Skåne Region 2023). Finally, the research found that 87% of homes were within 300 m of a 0.5-hectare green space. This ranged from 77% in Malmo to 95% in Lund (Skåne Region 2023).

Unlike Florida (where green space/park access was the most limiting factor), canopy coverage was the key limiting factor determining what percentage of Skåne Region households met the 3 criteria of the 3-30-300 rule. A testable reason outside the scope of this paper is addressing how history, landform, and urban design standards may influence access and barriers to greenspaces (Hauer et al. 2017). As United States park designs historically range from 2 ha (playgrounds) to 20 ha (community parks)(American Planning Association 1965), it may be that respondents did not consider these smaller green spaces when responding to the question, “Are you able to walk from your home to the nearest park, green space, or natural area in less than 5 minutes?” The within a 5-minute walking distance trip to places like a park is a normative standard, with up to 10 minutes also presented as a maximum threshold (Atash 1994). However, only 35% of respondents to a United States study took walking trips of up to 5 minutes (Yang and Diez-Roux 2012). Regardless of a places’ history, landform and urban design size, and a personal perception of what is a green space, our results are consistent with Yang and Diez-Roux (2012) that a 5 minute walking distance is an important reason for daily or weekly visits to a greenspace. As a walk approaches and exceeds 5 minutes the likelihood of visiting the location on foot greatly diminishes.

In addition to assessing current access to urban greening, our survey indicates that the majority of Floridians (51.5%) would prefer to have more trees in their neighborhood. This question was pulled from a similar survey administered by Landry et al. (2023) to Tampa, Florida residents. In the Tampa survey, 83% of respondents noted they would like more trees within the city and 72.4% of respondents noted they would like more trees in their neighborhood. As with our findings, only a small fraction (5.9%) of the Tampa respondents desired fewer trees in their neighborhood (Landry et al. 2023).

While the proportion of Florida residents looking for fewer trees in their neighborhood was low (6.4%), this group included a disproportionate number of Black/African American respondents (10.4%). In looking at other factors that might relate to someone’s desire to have fewer trees, things like high existing canopy coverage or recent changes in canopy coverage were not statistically significant (Tables 3 and 4). Respondents who desired fewer trees were more likely to have had a negative past experience with a tree (e.g., causing property damage or requiring costly maintenance) compared to the overall population (Figure 4). Negative past experiences were also a key factor in residents’ lack of support of urban greening efforts in the city of Detroit, United States (Carmichael and McDonough 2018b). However, in our study, Black/African American respondents were less likely to report experiences with trees growing into and damaging their property (13.3%), causing injury after losing a branch or tipping over (22.3%), or requiring costly maintenance or removal (9.4%) compared to our overall average. In contrast, Black/African American respondents were more likely to report trees preventing them from developing their property given local protections (5.4%) and causing issues when obtaining a new home insurance policy (8.9%).

As noted, relatively few studies have looked at both the benefits and drawbacks of urban trees. When asked in an open-ended question to name 3 drawbacks associated with urban trees, respondents focused primarily on safety (e.g., damage, falling, storm(s) such as hurricanes) and debris (e.g., leaves, branches, limbs, acorns, etc.).

In a 2004 study by Lohr et al., residents from across the United States were asked if they agreed with eight statements regarding problems associated with trees. None of the prompts used by Lohr et al. (2004) directly captured the two concerns raised by our respondents. Moreover, none of the statements provided by Lohr et al. (2004) were supported by their respondents (ranging from 1.30 to 1.64 on a 4-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree). This may highlight a limitation of surveys where specific scenarios are given when trying to assess values (e.g., trees should not be planted along streets because they drip sap or sticky residue on parked cars)(Lohr et al. 2004). Respondents may agree with statements they have never experienced in real life as they may sound like plausible nuisances. Moreover, the more universal and pressing issues to a given population of interest may be missed by the research team. That said, open-ended questions do require more labor-intensive qualitative analysis techniques like inductive coding in order to draw conclusions.

A more recent assessment of positive and negative beliefs surrounding urban trees was conducted by Su et al. (2022). In this study, the authors surveyed residents of the Toronto, Canada metro area and found that the highest rated positive beliefs were “produces oxygen,” “cleans the air,” and “provides shade” (4.53, 4.52, and 4.46, respectively—as rated on a 5-point scale). Interestingly, despite listing shade as a top positive belief, the most supported negative belief was “block the sun” (3.35). Similar to our findings, Su et al. (2022) found that dropped branches were a concern among their respondents (the second most supported in their list). Damage to property and infrastructure was more of a mid-level concern (rated 2.52 on a 5-point scale). This was rated lower than “cause allergies” (2.90)—a disservice that was barely mentioned by our respondents.

Tree safety is a top concern among our respondents (Figure 3). Tree safety concerns are noteworthy because hurricanes and tropical storms shape Florida’s urban forests and are a significant part of living in the state (Salisbury et al. 2022). These storms can topple even strong and healthy trees once they reach Category 3 and above (Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale [date unknown]). Other researchers have found similar safety concerns among their urban respondents. In a 2015 study, Shackleton et al. found over 72% of residents in 2 South African towns expressed concern that trees may influence crime rates by making it difficult to detect criminal behavior. This was by far the most important concern in both communities they assessed (Shackleton et al. 2015).

Urban trees can have various benefits and drawbacks. Our respondents highlighted various benefits, key of which are “gives shade” or “pleasing to the eye”. This result is aligned with research in the suburbs of Chicago (United States) which also found that the aesthetics of trees was the most significant benefit identified by respondents, along with providing shade (Shroeder and Ruffalo 1996). That said, the difference between our less reported benefits and our most common benefits was much more pronounced than was noted in the data by Shroeder and Ruffolo (1996). This may reflect the differences in the method used to assess their values (open-ended questions versus questions with close-ended options), though it is difficult to gauge if this is truly the case from the older paper’s methods.

In looking at our coded drawbacks (Figure 3), “fallen leaves in autumn” was the most common complaint. This mirrors the results from Shroeder and Ruffolo (1996). That said, respondents were more likely to point to “falling limbs” as a key drawback. The respondents from Shroeder and Ruffolo appeared more concerned with “roots too close to the surface,” “sap drips from the tree,” and “sidewalk damaged by roots” than our respondents (Figure 3). This may reflect species (surface rooting, sap), climate (spring sap rise), and urban form (sidewalk damage) differences between the 2 regions assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Listen

This paper provides one of the first public assessments of urban forest access through the lens of the 3-30-300 Rule. Our respondents, who come from a range of subtropical and tropical urban communities in Florida, United States had greater access to urban greening than those surveyed from other cities and countries. Of the 3 criteria, access to urban green spaces within 300 m was the most limiting. Overall, respondents valued their urban trees and would like to maintain or enhance the tree cover in their neighborhood despite complaints about debris and fears regarding storm-related failures. When making the case for trees to the general public, Florida urban forest managers will likely make the strongest connections when highlighting potential gains in shade, benefits to wildlife, and impacts to the overall beauty of their communities. Urban forest managers can use our results when developing management plans or replicate our survey efforts in their own communities in an effort to justify expenditures on maintenance and planting projects.

Conflicts of Interest

Listen

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

Listen

This research was funded through the Wells Fargo Term Extension Professorship, a University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Extension Professional Enhancement Award.

Appendix.

Listen

Select Survey Tool Questions

Having trees in my community or neighborhood is __________.

  • not important

  • somewhat important

  • moderately important

  • very important

  • extremely important

Which of the following images best represents the tree cover/shade in your neighborhood?

  • 10% image

  • 30% image

  • 50% image

  • 70% image

  • 90% image

  • My neighborhood doesn’t have trees

Compared to most other neighborhoods in my city, my neighborhood has __________ trees.

  • fewer

  • the same amount of

  • more

I would prefer __________ trees in my neighborhood.

  • fewer

  • the current amount of

  • more

Since moving to my neighborhood, the tree cover/shade has __________.

  • decreased

  • stayed the same

  • increased

When I look out of the windows of my home, I see __________ trees.

  • 0

  • 1 to 2

  • 3 or more

Are you able to walk from your home to the nearest park, green space, or natural area in less than 5 minutes?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Unsure

How frequently do you visit/recreate in this park, green space, or natural area?

  • Daily

  • Weekly

  • Once a month

  • Several times a year

  • Once a year

  • Never

What are the top 3 benefits you associate with trees in your community or neighborhood?

What are the 3 biggest drawbacks associated with the trees in your community or neighborhood?

Do you rent or own your home?

  • Rent

  • Own

Have you ever had a negative experience with a tree? (Check any that apply)

  • Growing into and damaging your property

  • Causing injury after losing a branch or tipping over

  • Requiring costly maintenance or removal

  • Preventing you from developing your property given local protections

  • Causing issues when obtaining a new home insurance policy

  • Other __________

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table S1.

Comparison of sample demographics to state of Florida demographics (United States Census Bureau 2022).

Validity of Canopy Coverage Self-Assessment

In this study, we asked respondents to assess the level of canopy present in their neighborhoods. To accomplish this, we presented them with ground-level views of streetscapes featuring canopy cover percentages of 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90%, and we asked them to choose the one that best represented the tree cover in their neighborhood.

Upon reviewing the study, questions were raised regarding the validity of this approach. Since we did not have information about the specific addresses of our respondents, we were unable to directly verify the accuracy of their estimates through aerial assessments or other means. In lieu of this, we offer the following comparison.

Figure S1A depicts a histogram of our responses, with a smoothing function applied to illustrate the distribution of responses to our second question on neighborhood canopy coverage. Figure S1B displays the distribution of canopy estimates for the 300 largest cities in Florida (Salisbury et al. 2022). It is evident that both distributions exhibit similarities; they both peak at around 30% canopy cover and exhibit a rightward skew.

However, there are also differences worth noting. It is plausible that some of our respondents reported canopy cover as high as 90% (Figure S1A), even though citywide averages typically do not reach such levels (Figure S1B). In every city, there are areas with high canopy cover and areas with lower canopy cover. Furthermore, citywide estimates of canopy coverage often encompass commercial and industrial land uses, which tend to have fewer trees compared to residential areas.

Figure S1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure S1.

(A) Distribution of self-reported canopy coverage from participants compared to (B) the distribution of actual canopy in Florida’s 300 largest cities as reported by Salisbury et al. (2022)(reprinted with notice under CC BY 4.0 Deed).

  • © 2024 International Society of Arboriculture

Literature Cited

Listen
  1. ↵
    American Planning Association. 1965. Standards for outdoor recreational areas. Chicago (IL, USA): American Society of Planning Officials. PAS Report 194. https://www.planning.org/pas/reports/report194.htm
  2. ↵
    1. Astell-Burt T,
    2. Feng X.
    2019. Association of urban green space with mental health and general health among adults in Australia. JAMA Network Open. 2(7):e198209. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8209
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Astell-Burt T,
    2. Feng X.
    2020a. Does sleep grow on trees? A longitudinal study to investigate potential prevention of insufficient sleep with different types of urban green space. SSM Population Health. 10:100497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100497
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Astell-Burt T,
    2. Feng X.
    2020b. Urban green space, tree canopy and prevention of cardiometabolic diseases: A multilevel longitudinal study of 46,786 Australians. International Journal of Epidemiology. 49(3):926–933. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz239
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Astell-Burt T,
    2. Feng X,
    3. Kolt GS.
    2014. Is neighborhood green space associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes? Evidence from 267,072 Australians. Diabetes Care. 37(1):197–201. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-1325
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Atash F.
    1994. Redesigning suburbia for walking and transit: Emerging concepts. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 120(1):48–57. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(1994)120:1(48)
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Barboza EP,
    2. Cirach M,
    3. Khomenko S,
    4. Lungman T,
    5. Mueller N,
    6. Barrera-Gômez J,
    7. Rojas-Rueda D,
    8. Kondo M,
    9. Nieuwenhuijsen M.
    2021. Green space and mortality in European cities: A health impact assessment study. The Lancet Planet Health. 5(10):e718–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00229-1
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Benjamini Y,
    2. Yekutieli D.
    2001. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. The Annals of Statistics. 29(4):1165–1188. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013699998
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Berland A,
    2. Shiflett SA,
    3. Shuster WD,
    4. Garmestani AS,
    5. Goddard HC,
    6. Herrmann DL,
    7. Hopton ME.
    2017. The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape and Urban Planning. 162:167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.02.017
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Carmichael CE,
    2. McDonough MH.
    2018a. Community stories: Explaining resistance to street tree-planting programs in Detroit, Michigan, USA. Society & Natural Resources. 32(5): 588–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1550229
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Carmichael CE,
    2. McDonough MH.
    2018b. The trouble with trees? Social and political dynamics of street tree-planting efforts in Detroit, Michigan, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 31:221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.009
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. De la Fuente F,
    2. Saluas MA,
    3. Cubillos C,
    4. Mery G,
    5. Carvajal D,
    6. Bowen M,
    7. Bertoglia MP.
    2021. Green space exposure association with type 2 diabetes mellitus, physical activity, and obesity: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 18(1):97. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010097
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Donovan GH,
    2. Michael YL,
    3. Butry DT,
    4. Sullivan AD,
    5. Chase JM.
    2011. Urban trees and the risk of poor birth outcomes. Health & Place. 17(1):390–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.11.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Gerrish E,
    2. Watkins SL.
    2018. The relationship between urban forests and income: A meta-analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning. 170:293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.005
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Grove M,
    2. Ogden L,
    3. Pickett S,
    4. Boone C,
    5. Buckley G,
    6. Locke DH,
    7. Lord C,
    8. Hall B.
    2018. The legacy effect: Understanding how segregation and environmental injustice unfold over time in Baltimore. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 108(2):524–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1365585
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Hauer RJ,
    2. Miller RW,
    3. Werner LP,
    4. Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC.
    2017. The history of trees in the city. In: Ferrini F, Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC, Fini A, editors. Routledge hand-book of urban forestry. Abingdon (UK): Routledge. p. 17–32. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627106
  17. ↵
    1. Hauer RJ,
    2. Peterson WD.
    2016. Municipal tree care and management in the United States: A 2014 urban and community forestry census of tree activities. Special Publication 16-1. Stevens Point (WI, USA): College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. 71 p. https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr/Pages/Forestry---MTCUS.aspx
  18. ↵
    1. Jennings V,
    2. Gaither CJ.
    2015. Approaching environmental health disparities and green spaces: An ecosystem services perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 12(2):1952–1968. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120201952
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Jiang B,
    2. Larsen L,
    3. Deal B,
    4. Sullivan WC.
    2015. A dose-response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landscape and Urban Planning. 139:16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.018
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Jimenez MP,
    2. DeVille NV,
    3. Elliott EG,
    4. Schiff JE,
    5. Wilt GE,
    6. Hart JE,
    7. James P.
    2021. Associations between nature exposure and health: A review of the evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 18(9):4790. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094790
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Kenney WA,
    2. van Wassenaer PJE,
    3. Satel AL.
    2011. Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 37(3):108–117. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2011.015
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Ko Y.
    2018. Trees and vegetation for residential energy conservation: A critical review for evidence-based urban greening in North America. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 34:318–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.021
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Koeser AK,
    2. Hauer RJ,
    3. Andreu M,
    4. Northrop R,
    5. Hilbert DR.
    2023. Attitudes towards tree protections, development, and urban forest incentives among Florida (United States) residents. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 86:128032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128032
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Konijnendijk CC.
    2022. Evidence-based guidelines for greener, healthier, more resilient neighbourhoods: Introducing the 3-30-300 rule. Journal of Forestry Research. 34(3):821–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01523-z
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Kuo M,
    2. Browning MHEM,
    3. Sachdeva S,
    4. Lee K,
    5. Westphal L.
    2018. Might school performance grow on trees? Examining the link between “greenness” and academic achievement in urban, high-poverty schools. Frontiers in Psychology. 9:1669. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01669
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Landry SM,
    2. Koeser AK,
    3. Zarger R,
    4. Rib K,
    5. Salisbury A,
    6. Northrop RJ,
    7. Andreu MG,
    8. Bednar A,
    9. Freeman Z.
    2023. City of Tampa tree canopy and urban forest analysis 2021. School of Geosciences Faculty and Staff Publications. Tampa (FL, USA): City of Tampa. Report No: 2368. https://doi.org/10.5038/IKWH6934
  27. ↵
    1. Ling K.
    2021. A look at access to green space in Toronto using the 3-30-300 rule for greener cities [thesis]. Toronto (ON, Canada): University of Toronto. 25 p. https://hdl.handle.net/1807/109858
  28. ↵
    1. Locke DH,
    2. Hall B,
    3. Grove JM,
    4. Pickett STA,
    5. Ogden LA,
    6. Aoki C,
    7. Boone CG,
    8. O’Neil-Dunne JPM.
    2021. Residential housing segregation and urban tree canopy in 37 US cities. NPJ Urban Sustainability. 1:15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00022-0
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Locke DH,
    2. Landry SM,
    3. Grove JM,
    4. Chowdhury RR.
    2016. What’s scale got to do with it? Models for urban tree canopy. Journal of Urban Ecology. 2(1):juw006. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juw006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Lockwood M,
    2. Davidson J,
    3. Curtis A,
    4. Stratford E,
    5. Griffith R.
    2010. Governance principles for natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources. 23(10):986–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802178214
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Lohr VI,
    2. Pearson-Mims CH, TarnaiJ,
    3. Dillman DA.
    2004. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture. 30(1): 28–35. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2004.004
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Lottrup L,
    2. Stigsdotter UK,
    3. Meilby H,
    4. Claudi AG.
    2015. The workplace window view: A determinant of office workers’ work ability and job satisfaction. Landscape Research. 40(1):57–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.829806
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    1. McDonald RI,
    2. Kroeger T,
    3. Zhang P,
    4. Hamel P.
    2020. The value of US urban tree cover for reducing heat-related health impacts and electricity consumption. Ecosystems. 23(1):137–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00395-5
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Nesbitt L,
    2. Meitner MJ,
    3. Girling C,
    4. Sheppard SRJ,
    5. Lu Y.
    2019. Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities. Landscape and Urban Planning. 181:51–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.007
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ,
    2. Dadvand P,
    3. Marquez S,
    4. Bartoll X,
    5. Barboza EP,
    6. Cirach M,
    7. Borrell C,
    8. Zijlema WL.
    2022. The evaluation of the 3-30-300 green space rule and mental health. Environmental Research. 215(2):114387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114387
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Northrop RJ,
    2. Andreu MG,
    3. Zipperer WC.
    2022. Urban forest management: A primer to strategic planning for municipal governments. Gainesville (FL, USA): University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Southern Research Station. 147 p. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/books/book_2022_zipperer_001.pdf
  37. ↵
    1. Norwood MF,
    2. Lakhani A,
    3. Fullagar S,
    4. Maujean A,
    5. Downes M,
    6. Byrne J,
    7. Stewart A,
    8. Barber B,
    9. Kendall E.
    2019. A narrative and systematic review of the behavioural, cognitive and emotional effects of passive nature exposure on young people: Evidence for prescribing change. Landscape and Urban Planning. 189:71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.007
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Crane DE.
    2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution. 116(3): 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00214-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Ordonez Barona C,
    2. Wolf K,
    3. Kowalski JM,
    4. Kendal D,
    5. Byrne JA,
    6. Conway TM.
    2022. Diversity in public perceptions of urban forests and urban trees: A critical review. Landscape and Urban Planning. 226:104466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104466
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [computer software]. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org
  41. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Conway TM,
    3. Eisenman TS,
    4. Koeser AK,
    5. Ordonez Barona C,
    6. Locke DH,
    7. Jenerette GD,
    8. Ostberg J,
    9. Vogt J.
    2021. Beyond ‘trees are good’: Disservices, management costs, and tradeoffs in urban forestry. Ambio. 50(3):615–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01396-8
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. [date unknown]. Miami (FL, USA): National Weather Service. [Accessed 2023 September 12]. https://www.weather.gov/mfl/saffirsimpson
  43. ↵
    1. Salisbury AB,
    2. Koeser AK,
    3. Hauer RJ,
    4. Hilbert DR,
    5. Abd-Elrahman AH,
    6. Andreu MG,
    7. Britt K,
    8. Landry SM,
    9. Lusk MG,
    10. Miesbauer JW,
    11. Thorn H.
    2022. The legacy of hurricanes, historic land cover, and municipal ordinances on urban tree canopy in Florida (United States). Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. 5:1. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.742157
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Schroeder HW,
    2. Ruffolo SR.
    1996. Household evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb. Journal of Arboriculture. 22(1):35–43. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1996.005
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Shackleton S,
    2. Chinyimba A,
    3. Hebinck P,
    4. Shackleton C,
    5. Kaoma H.
    2015. Multiple benefits and values of trees in urban landscapes in two towns in northern South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning. 136:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.004
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    Skåne Région. 2023. 3-30-300 i Skâne: Analysmodell for gronare och halsosammare stader Skâne (Sweden): Skâne Region. 78 p. https://www.spacescape.se/project/3-30-300-i-skane
  47. ↵
    1. Sklar F,
    2. Ames RG.
    1985. Staying alive: Street tree survival in the inner-city. Journal of Urban Affairs. 7(1):55–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.1985.tb00077.x
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Su K,
    2. Ordônez C,
    3. Regier K,
    4. Conway TM.
    2022. Values and beliefs about urban forests from diverse urban contexts and populations in the Greater Toronto area. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 72:127589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127589
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Toftager M,
    2. Ekholm O,
    3. Schipperijn J,
    4. Stigsdotter U,
    5. Bentsen P,
    6. Gronbæk M,
    7. Randrup TB,
    8. Kamper-.lorgensen F.
    2011. Distance to green space and physical activity: A Danish national representative survey. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 8(6):741–749. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.8.6.741
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Turner-Skoff JB,
    2. Cavender N.
    2019. The benefits of trees for livable and sustainable communities. Plants, People, Planet. 1(4):323–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.39
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    United States Census Bureau. 2022. QuickFacts: Florida. [Accessed 2023 April 11]. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/FL
  52. ↵
    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2020. Rural-urban continuum codes. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (Updated 2023 December 20; Accessed 2023 April 7). https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes.aspx
  53. ↵
    1. Watkins SL,
    2. Gerrish E.
    2018. The relationship between urban forests and race: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management. 209:152–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Wolf KL,
    2. Lam ST,
    3. McKeen JK,
    4. Richardson GRA,
    5. van den Bosch M,
    6. Bardekjian AC.
    2020. Urban trees and human health: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 17(12):4371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124371
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Yang Y,
    2. Diez-Roux AV.
    2012. Walking distance by trip purpose and population subgroups. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 43(1):11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.03.015
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Zhang C,
    2. Wang C,
    3. Chen C,
    4. Tao L,
    5. Jin J,
    6. Wang Z,
    7. Jia B.
    2022. Effects of tree canopy on psychological distress: A repeated cross-sectional study before and during the COVID-19 epidemic. Environmental Research. 203:111795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111795
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry: 50 (3)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 50, Issue 3
May 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Using the 3-30-300 Rule to Assess Urban Forest Access and Preferences in Florida (United States)
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Using the 3-30-300 Rule to Assess Urban Forest Access and Preferences in Florida (United States)
Andrew K. Koeser, Richard J. Hauer, Michael G. Andreu, Robert Northrop, Mysha Clarke, John Diaz, Deborah R. Hilbert, Cecil C. Konijnendijk, Shawn M. Landry, Grant L. Thompson, Rebecca Zarger
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2024, 50 (3) 241-257; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2024.007

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Using the 3-30-300 Rule to Assess Urban Forest Access and Preferences in Florida (United States)
Andrew K. Koeser, Richard J. Hauer, Michael G. Andreu, Robert Northrop, Mysha Clarke, John Diaz, Deborah R. Hilbert, Cecil C. Konijnendijk, Shawn M. Landry, Grant L. Thompson, Rebecca Zarger
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2024, 50 (3) 241-257; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2024.007
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Conflicts of Interest
    • Acknowledgments
    • Appendix.
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
  • Thiabendazole as a Therapeutic Root Flare Injection for Beech Leaf Disease Management
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Ecosystem Disservices
  • Ecosystem Services
  • Environmental Equity
  • planning
  • Urban Forest Management

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire