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

Inner City Preferences for Trees and Urban Forestry Programs

Dale A. Getz, Alexander Karow and J. James Kielbaso
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) October 1982, 8 (10) 258-263; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1982.059
Dale A. Getz
Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander Karow
Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
J. James Kielbaso
Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

A survey questionnaire of 250 residents of the city of Detroit was taken in 1979. Its purpose was to identify inner city attitudes regarding urban forestry and tree programs. The respondents demonstrate a high regard for tree programs as compared to other municipal services. Within parks, the specific attributes which respondents would like to see more of, show preference to more passive activities associated with trees and shade. Differences do exist across several characteristics such as age and race. Tree lined streets rank highest as important places for government to provide trees. Providing trees in parking lots, in industrial areas and in downtown areas ranked surprisingly low. Respondents state that trees would influence their choice of a place to live. When viewing color pictures and several scenes, responses to bipolar word pairs indicate strong positive feelings to trees. Specific tree programs favored most, are to plant more trees in their neighborhood.

The scarcity of municipal resources poses significant challenges for the management of urban trees. Tightening budgets and rapidly rising operating costs put strains on existing programs and necessitate a careful re-evaluation of current efforts. At the same time, urbanites faced with rising costs of gasoline and other goods and services are spending an increasing share of their leisure time close to home. This has brought mounting calls for increased enhancement of the urban environment —including trees and forests. Managers are subsequently faced with “doing more with less” and must be certain their programs are on target with the highest priority public needs. If programs are not properly targeted, inefficiency will follow, public support will erode, and the programs will fail.

Studies of urban preferences and priorities can help target urban tree programs in relation to high priority urban needs. However, past studies have focused primarily on the needs of suburbanites and residents of small towns, rather than the residents of inner portions of large cities where critical urban tree and forest issues are to be faced in the years ahead. To start to fill that void, this study focuses on residents of inner city areas of Detroit; a random sample was drawn from the area within the Detroit city boundary.

A survey questionnaire was designed in cooperation with urban forest managers. After extensive pretesting, a market research firm conducted face to face interviews with 250 Detroit residents. The socio-demographic characteristics of respondents are summarized in Table 1. The sample is roughly comparable to the Detroit population, although there is some over-sampling of individuals who were middle age, had a higher than average educational attainment, and were female. The heavy female component may be explained by the fact that surveys were taken during the day and early evening hours when males are more often away. The questionnaire elicited information on (1) the importance of trees and tree care programs to urbanites, (2) the values and benefits that urbanites attribute to trees, and (3) recommendations for urban forestry programs.

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

Socio-demographic characteristics of Detroit respondents.

The Importance of Trees and Tree Care Programs

Listen

In the municipal budgeting process, important tradeoffs must be made between tree programs and other urban services. Within the tree programs there are important tradeoffs to be made between activities, as well as the locations where they will be concentrated. This section summarizes the relative importance of tree programs in general, as well as particular tree care activities and locations within the urban forest, as rated by the respondents to the survey.

Municipal services

Park and street trees ranked high among municipal services. When presented with a list of six typical municipal services and asked to indicate whether, under present tax levels, each service should be given more tax dollars, the same tax dollars, or less tax dollars, respondents ranked park and street trees second only to education programs in terms of receiving more funds, and substantially above other services (Table 2). Nearly two-thirds indicated that more funds should be spent on park and street trees, and less than six percent indicated that less should be spent on trees. This also demonstrates that respondents, when given a free choice, usually disregard the fact that with constant budget, any increase must be accompanied by a decrease. Much more is preferred than the amount willing to be sacrificed.

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

Public preferences for redistribution of tax dollars for specific municipal services Detroit, 1979

Interest in trees and forests in the city

When asked how interested they were in the management, care and use of trees and forests in the city, respondents generally ranked their interest midway between somewhat interested and very interested. Fifty percent are very interested or very much interested. Eight percent are not at all interested. Even though overall interest is high, interest intensifies with higher income and education levels.

When responses were analyzed in terms of the subgroups indicated on Table 1 (age, income, education, sex, race), a clear majority of each group favored increased spending on park and street trees, with the highest levels of support among high income individuals and whites.

Park attributes

Trees ranked high among park attributes. Respondents were asked to indicate from a list of eleven items, the ones they would like to see more of in their parks (Table 3). Trees and the shade they provide ranked at the top of the list, with two-thirds of the respondents indicating that they wanted more. This high level of support for trees was unchanged across population subgroups. The relative importance of the more passive attributes should be noted since the top four are decidedly more passive than the lower-rated items.

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

Percent of respondents preferring more of specific attributes in urban parks.

Urban forest areas

The respondents indicated that urban forest areas, particularly tree-lined streets, were important to them. When asked to assess the importance of government providing wooded areas, tree-lined streets, and open park areas, respondents rated tree-lined streets highest, followed by open park lands, and then wooded areas. Note in Table 4 that the mean ratings ranged from somewhat important to almost greatly important. The categories greatly important and very greatly important show substantial differences in support of the options, at high levels.

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

Relative importance of local government provision of three types of tree areas.

Importance of trees in particular areas

Of prime importance to managers of urban trees and forests is knowledge of those areas where residents believe that trees are particularly important. With this information, efforts can be chaneled in appropriate directions. Respondents rated the relative importance of trees in seven parts of the city on the basis of a five-point scale from “not important (1),” to “very greatly important (5).” The response frequencies and means are presented, by location, in Table 5.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Relative importance of trees in various location

Residential streets and city parks had the highest mean importance ratings as locations for trees. This was not surprising, as these are areas where urbanites spend a great deal of their time. More than three-quarters of the respondents consider trees in these areas to be either greatly important or of very great importance. However, the quite low importance ratings of trees in parking lots and industrial areas are somewhat surprising. These traditionally treeless areas have been targets of municipal planting programs to improve the monotonous landscapes and screen out unpleasant sights. Respondents ranked such efforts as the lowest priority among the choices presented.

Different population groups generally ranked the same areas in the top five. Whites, more educated, and higher income persons placed higher values on trees in parking lots and industrial areas than did others. The importance of trees in backyard situations is generally higher for upper income and more educated persons.

Summary

Detroit residents indicated strong support for programs aimed at providing street and park trees in their neighborhoods. These programs compared favorably with other municipal services. Trees ranked very high among the attributes of urban parks that respondents would like to see increased. While the highest priority for public tree programs was for street trees, substantial support was also indicated for open park areas, and moderate support for wooded areas. From a different perspective, there was surprisingly limited support for tree programs in industrial areas and parking lots. Support for urban tree programs was generally greater among the higher educated, the higher income, and white respondents although still strong among the other groups.

The Value of Trees

Listen

Respondents indicated that they place high values on trees in terms of (1) the influence of trees on their choice of a place to live, (2) the influence that they perceive trees to have on property values, and (3) the advantages that they attribute to having trees.

Choice of residence

Eight out of ten respondents indicated that trees would have an influence on the choice of a place to live. More than half of those indicated that the effect would be great or very great. Individuals with high levels of income and education were the most likely to report that trees would have a strong influence on their choice of a place to live.

Contribution to property values

Nearly ninety percent of the respondents indicated that trees increased property values in excess of ten percent, with twenty-five percent attributing a property value increase in excess of twenty-five percent to trees. Respondents with a high level of education were most likely to attribute high increases in property values to trees.

Attributes

Respondents placed considerable importance on the esthetic attributes of trees. When asked to rate the importance of thirteen attributes of trees on a scale of 1 to 5 (no advantage to very great advantage), esthetic attributes received high ratings (pleasing to the eye, fall color, flowers in spring, and screens unpleasant sights), as did shade, increased property values, and increased privacy and reduced noise (Table 6).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 6.

Mean ratings of selected attributes of trees.

To more fully understand attitudes toward urban trees and forests, four 5″ × 7″ color photographs, either depicting a woodland, a single tree, a tree-lined residential street, or a treeless business district were shown to respondents. After viewing each scene, the respondent was asked to record his or her feelings on a five-point scale between bipolar word pairs (Table 7).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 7.

Semantic differential comparing mean responses of a treeless business district, a tree-lined residential street, a tree growing alone in an open area, and a woodland scene.

Nine of the polar adjectives can be directly interpreted as positive attributes of an urban setting (beautiful, interesting, pleasant, exhilarating, satisfying, peaceful, clean, inviting, and calming). In each of these instances, the tree standing alone on a lawn received the highest rating, generally followed by the woodland and tree-lined residential street (narrowly divided), with the treeless business district always last. The overall pattern of ratings across the adjective pairs was similar for the three scenes with trees, with the exception that the woodland scene was rated as more mysterious than the others, and the tree standing alone was rated as more public than the others.

Summary

Respondents placed high values on trees in urban environments. A very high proportion indicated that trees would influence their choice of a residence, and that trees make a significant contribution to property values. Esthetics ranked high among the value of urban trees, as did shade, increased property values, and increased privacy and fall color. Scenes depicting urban trees and forests were seen as beautiful, interesting, pleasant, exhilarating, satisfying, peaceful, clean, inviting, and calming.

Neighborhood Tree Management Programs

Listen

Respondents were most likely to select tree planting from a list of tree management programs they would most like to see done in their neighborhood in the next year, followed by removal of dead and dangerous trees, and trimming and maintaining existing trees.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 8.

Respondent preferences for neighborhood tree programs.

When asked whether they would prefer to have their streets lined with large shade trees, small flowering trees, a combination of large shade trees and small flowering trees, or no trees, nearly 63% preferred a combination of large shade and smaller flowering trees. Only 11 % preferred the small flowering trees, whereas 24% preferred large shade trees. This is consistent with the results of earlier research by Kalmbach and Kielbaso (1). Only two percent preferred no trees along their streets.

Conclusions

Listen

The study indicates strong public support for municipal tree programs in an inner city area, and particularly for programs aimed at residential street and park trees. Respondents ranked park and street tree programs high in comparison with other city services. They also ranked trees and shrubs high among park attributes that they would like to see increased. Tree lined residential streets were ranked the highest among several urban forest environments.

Respondents indicated that trees were an important consideration in choosing a residence, and reported that trees contributed significantly to property values. Esthetic attributes ranked high among the attributes of urban trees, followed by shade, increased property values, and increased privacy. Scenes depicting trees were rated as beautiful, interesting, pleasant, exhilarating, satisfying, peaceful, clean, inviting and calming.

Respondents were most likely to select tree planting as the tree management program they would most like to see in their neighborhood next year, followed by removal of dead and dangerous trees, and trimming and maintaining existing trees. More preferred a combination of large shade and small flowering trees in their neighborhood, with their second choice being large shade trees.

Footnotes

Listen
  • ↵1 Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Article Number 10474. The research was supported in part by a grant from the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

  • ↵2 At the time of the research the authors were graduate research assistants and Professor of Forestry at Michigan State University. Getz is now employed with the City of South Bend, Indiana, and Karow is employed by Chemscape in Buffalo, New York. The authors appreciate the assistance of Dr. John F. Dwyer for his timely suggestions during the research and writing of this project.

  • © 1982, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

Listen
  1. 1.
    1. Kalmach, K., and
    2. J. Kielbaso
    . 1978. Resident attitudes toward selected characteristics of street tree plantings. J. Arboriculture 5(6): 124-129.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 8, Issue 10
October 1982
  • Table of Contents
  • 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.
Inner City Preferences for Trees and Urban Forestry Programs
(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
Inner City Preferences for Trees and Urban Forestry Programs
Dale A. Getz, Alexander Karow, J. James Kielbaso
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Oct 1982, 8 (10) 258-263; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1982.059

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Inner City Preferences for Trees and Urban Forestry Programs
Dale A. Getz, Alexander Karow, J. James Kielbaso
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Oct 1982, 8 (10) 258-263; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1982.059
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
    • The Importance of Trees and Tree Care Programs
    • The Value of Trees
    • Neighborhood Tree Management Programs
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • 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

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire