Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs

Tree planting and reforestation initiatives in urban and peri-urban areas often use tree distribution or “giveaway” programs as a strategy to increase tree cover and subsequent benefits. However, the effectiveness of these programs in terms of increasing overall tree cover and providing benefits to low-income and disadvantaged communities has been little studied. We assess these programs by exploring community participation in, and barriers to, an urban tree distribution program in Fort Lauderdale, United States and the role socioeconomic background and tree functional types have on participation. We use a mixed-methods approach, panel data, choice experiments, and econometrics to quantitatively analyze respondent’s ranking of program options. High income, White respondents had the highest level of awareness and participation while low income, African Americans (AA) had the lowest level. Monetary rebates were perceived as positive and significant as the compensation value increased to US$8.00 - $12.00. Fruit-bearing and native tree functional types were more preferred than flowering or shade trees. Latinos, AA, and high income respondents preferred fruit trees, while White, high income preferred native trees. Overall, low income respondents perceived the greatest barriers towards participation. 20% of Broward County residents who participated in the survey were aware of the tree giveaway programs and 13% had previously participated. Findings indicate an adaptive governance mismatch between program objectives to equitably increase city tree cover via planting shade trees versus individual’s knowledge and preference for other tree types and functions. Results can be used for developing and evaluating reforestation initiatives to equitably increase tree cover and improve the governance of urban ecosystems.

[1]  T. Peters,et al.  Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. , 2007, Journal of health economics.

[2]  Dexter H. Locke,et al.  Branching out to residential lands: Missions and strategies of five tree distribution programs in the U.S , 2017 .

[3]  E. Mcpherson,et al.  Simulation of tree shade impacts on residential energy use for space conditioning in Sacramento , 1998 .

[4]  Zoltan Szantoi,et al.  Socioeconomic Factors and Urban Tree Cover Policies in a Subtropical Urban Forest , 2012 .

[5]  R. Wal,et al.  Public and professional views on invasive non-native species – A qualitative social scientific investigation , 2011 .

[6]  E. McPherson,et al.  Residential Tree Planting and Care: A Study of Attitudes and Behavior in Sacramento, California , 1998, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[7]  Damian C. Adams,et al.  Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA , 2016 .

[8]  V. Thomas,et al.  Enhancing the energy conservation benefits of shade trees in dense residential developments using an alternative tree placement strategy , 2017 .

[9]  David Barkin.  Book Review: The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United States , 2001 .

[10]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Best-Worst Scaling: Theory, Methods and Applications , 2015 .

[11]  Sebastian Varela,et al.  Analyzing the Natural Resource Extension Needs of Spanish-Speakers: A Perspective from Florida , 2011, Journal of Extension.

[12]  Jolene D. Smyth,et al.  Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed‐Mode Surveys , 2014 .

[13]  C.Y. Jim,et al.  Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method , 2015 .

[14]  Damian C. Adams,et al.  Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling , 2018 .

[15]  Lara A. Roman,et al.  Determinants of establishment survival for residential trees in Sacramento County, CA , 2014 .

[16]  S. Watkins,et al.  The Relationship Between Urban Forests and Race: A Meta-Analysis , 2017, Journal of environmental management.

[17]  Stephanie Pincetl,et al.  Implementing Municipal Tree Planting: Los Angeles Million-Tree Initiative , 2009, Environmental management.

[18]  Sarah K. Mincey,et al.  Is Planting Equitable? An Examination of the Spatial Distribution of Nonprofit Urban Tree-Planting Programs by Canopy Cover, Income, Race, and Ethnicity , 2017 .

[19]  F. Escobedo,et al.  Environmental Justice Implications of Urban Tree Cover in Miami-Dade County, Florida , 2011 .

[20]  J. E. Wagner,et al.  Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. , 2011, Environmental pollution.

[21]  B. Crabtree,et al.  The qualitative research interview , 2006, Medical education.

[22]  Jayajit Chakraborty,et al.  Street Trees and Equity: Evaluating the Spatial Distribution of an Urban Amenity , 2009 .

[23]  Jayajit Chakraborty,et al.  Evaluating the environmental justice impacts of transportation improvement projects in the US , 2006 .

[24]  Terry N Flynn,et al.  Using Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiments to Measure Public Perceptions and Preferences for Healthcare Reform in Australia , 2010, The patient.

[25]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[26]  Kathleen L Wolf,et al.  Homeowner Interactions with Residential Trees in Urban Areas , 2013, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[27]  R. van der Wal,et al.  The Public and Professionals Reason Similarly about the Management of Non-Native Invasive Species: A Quantitative Investigation of the Relationship between Beliefs and Attitudes , 2014, PloS one.

[28]  Dexter H. Locke,et al.  Why opt-in to a planting program? Long-term residents value street tree aesthetics , 2015 .

[29]  Tenley M. Conway,et al.  Tending their urban forest: Residents’ motivations for tree planting and removal , 2016 .

[30]  N. Heynen,et al.  Urban forest and environmental inequality in Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil , 2002, Urban Ecosystems.

[31]  Dexter H. Locke,et al.  Tree Canopy Change in Coastal Los Angeles, 2009 - 2014 , 2017 .

[32]  Christopher S. Greene,et al.  Who is likely to plant a tree? The use of public socio-demographic data to characterize client participants in a private urban forestation program , 2011 .

[33]  Neil Sipe,et al.  Evaluating Revealed Preferences for Street Tree Cover Targets: A Business Case for Collaborative Investment in Leafier Streetscapes in Brisbane, Australia , 2017 .

[34]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies , 2009 .

[35]  Dexter H. Locke,et al.  Doing the Hard Work Where it’s Easiest? Examining the Relationships Between Urban Greening Programs and Social and Ecological Characteristics , 2016 .

[36]  F. Escobedo,et al.  Spatial patterns of a subtropical, coastal urban forest: implications for land tenure, hurricanes, and invasives. , 2010 .

[37]  M. Loureiro,et al.  Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs , 2012 .

[38]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation , 2002 .

[39]  Andrew K. Koeser,et al.  Factors influencing urban tree planting program growth and survival in Florida, United States , 2014 .

[40]  D. Collins.  Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods , 2003, Quality of Life Research.

[41]  N. Heynen,et al.  Inequitable access to urban reforestation: the impact of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests , 2004 .

[42]  L. Gunderson,et al.  Adaptive governance to promote ecosystem services in urban green spaces , 2016, Urban Ecosystems.

[43]  Pei-te Lien.  Ethnicity and political participation: A comparison between Asian and Mexican Americans , 1994 .