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

Literature Cited

  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)
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  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
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  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
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  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
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
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
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords