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...

Full description

Autores:
Tipo de recurso:
Fecha de publicación:
2018
Institución:
Universidad del Rosario
Repositorio:
Repositorio EdocUR - U. Rosario
Idioma:
eng
OAI Identifier:
oai:repository.urosario.edu.co:10336/23412
Acceso en línea:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0760-z
https://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/23412
Palabra clave:
Adaptive governance
Best-worst-choice
Environmental justice
Functional traits
Urban ecosystems
Urban forests
Rights
License
Abierto (Texto Completo)
id EDOCUR2_c6ec9455f399993c777a8f1900c7f019
oai_identifier_str oai:repository.urosario.edu.co:10336/23412
network_acronym_str EDOCUR2
network_name_str Repositorio EdocUR - U. Rosario
repository_id_str
spelling 32f339d8-7d5d-413f-a927-0feb4b109212-18679a020-9a01-4d62-a8c8-d6380460e1c0-1368d04f3-0ee7-4522-b98a-584e22667c6f-1884b0e87-52ce-466d-b505-73d1de23130c-12020-05-26T00:01:49Z2020-05-26T00:01:49Z2018Tree 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. © 2018, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.application/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0760-z10838155https://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/23412engSpringer New York LLC671No. 4657Urban EcosystemsVol. 21Urban Ecosystems, ISSN:10838155, Vol.21, No.4 (2018); pp. 657-671https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85045419746&doi=10.1007%2fs11252-018-0760-z&partnerID=40&md5=a399652c3ced4903f715a193e68ea783Abierto (Texto Completo)http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2instname:Universidad del Rosarioreponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocURAdaptive governanceBest-worst-choiceEnvironmental justiceFunctional traitsUrban ecosystemsUrban forestsSocioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programsarticleArtículohttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501Dawes L.C.Adams A.E.Escobedo F.J.Soto J.R.10336/23412oai:repository.urosario.edu.co:10336/234122022-05-02 07:37:14.594896https://repository.urosario.edu.coRepositorio institucional EdocURedocur@urosario.edu.co
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs
title Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs
spellingShingle Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs
Adaptive governance
Best-worst-choice
Environmental justice
Functional traits
Urban ecosystems
Urban forests
title_short Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs
title_full Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs
title_fullStr Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs
title_full_unstemmed Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs
title_sort Socioeconomic and ecological perceptions and barriers to urban tree distribution and reforestation programs
dc.subject.keyword.spa.fl_str_mv Adaptive governance
Best-worst-choice
Environmental justice
Functional traits
Urban ecosystems
Urban forests
topic Adaptive governance
Best-worst-choice
Environmental justice
Functional traits
Urban ecosystems
Urban forests
description 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. © 2018, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.created.spa.fl_str_mv 2018
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2020-05-26T00:01:49Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2020-05-26T00:01:49Z
dc.type.eng.fl_str_mv article
dc.type.coarversion.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.spa.spa.fl_str_mv Artículo
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0760-z
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv 10838155
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv https://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/23412
url https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0760-z
https://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/23412
identifier_str_mv 10838155
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.citationEndPage.none.fl_str_mv 671
dc.relation.citationIssue.none.fl_str_mv No. 4
dc.relation.citationStartPage.none.fl_str_mv 657
dc.relation.citationTitle.none.fl_str_mv Urban Ecosystems
dc.relation.citationVolume.none.fl_str_mv Vol. 21
dc.relation.ispartof.spa.fl_str_mv Urban Ecosystems, ISSN:10838155, Vol.21, No.4 (2018); pp. 657-671
dc.relation.uri.spa.fl_str_mv https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85045419746&doi=10.1007%2fs11252-018-0760-z&partnerID=40&md5=a399652c3ced4903f715a193e68ea783
dc.rights.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.acceso.spa.fl_str_mv Abierto (Texto Completo)
rights_invalid_str_mv Abierto (Texto Completo)
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.format.mimetype.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv Springer New York LLC
institution Universidad del Rosario
dc.source.instname.spa.fl_str_mv instname:Universidad del Rosario
dc.source.reponame.spa.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio institucional EdocUR
repository.mail.fl_str_mv edocur@urosario.edu.co
_version_ 1814167444301807616