RESIDENTS' OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF STREET TREES DEPENDING ON TREE LOCATION
By James Gorman
Abstract. This research sought to determine whether there was
a difference of opinion on the value of street trees among
urban residents depending on whether residents had a street tree
planted directly in front of their house. In response to a
structured questionnaire, 676 residents of State College, Pennsylvania,
U.S., gave their opinions of benefits and annoyances of street
trees. Demographic findings utilized descriptive statistics to list
the characteristics of the target population. This research showed
that there was a statistically significant difference in residents'
opinions depending on whether there was a street tree planted in front
of their residence. In developing public policies related to street
trees, it is recommended that further similar studies be conducted
for better understanding of residents' opinions on this issue.
Key Words. Street trees; residents' opinions and perceptions.
Prior research has documented opinions and
attitudes regarding the values of trees. Studies have been conducted
that focused on people's attitudes toward specific kinds of
trees (Sommer et al. 1990; Schroeder and Ruffolo 1996)
and residents' attitudes and behavior regarding tree planting
and care (Summit and McPherson 1998). Perceived
economic benefits (Daily 1997), social benefits (Coley et al.
1997), symbolic importance (Smardon 1988), and psychological
value (Ulrich 1984; Hull 1992) have been researched and
effectively documented. This research sought to determine if there is
a difference in State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.,
residents' opinions regarding street trees depending on whether
street trees were located directly in front of residents' homes
MATERIALS AND METHODS
State College, Pennsylvania
State College Borough is located in the Nittany Valley
of central Pennsylvania, being almost equidistant from
the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The borough,
incorporated in 1896, currently occupies an area of 128 ha
(316 ac), and has a general elevation of 300 m (984 ft) above
sea level. State College Borough is in the center of a
larger United States Census Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA), the Centre Region MSA, which includes five
surrounding townships. State College Borough currently is, and
historically has been, the most populous entity of the region
and included 38,981 residents in the 1990 United States
Census (U.S. Department of Commerce 1990).
The main part of the Pennsylvania State
University campus lies on 25 ha (62 ac), or 19% of the total land
area of State College Borough. The university is a driving
economic force and predominant employer in both
State College Borough and the region. Other major
components of the economy include high-technology industries,
tourism, and light manufacturing. During the early decades of
the past century, State College's total population had often
been nearly 50% students. The 1990 United States
Census identified 11,339 individuals as permanent full-time
residents of State College Borough (U.S. Department of
Commerce 1990). These people represented the targeted
study population to be used for the questionnaire survey of
this research.
State College Borough Street Trees
A complete street tree inventory prepared by the
borough arborist with technical assistance from Pennsylvania
State University's School of Forestry Resources was compiled
in 1977. The inventory identified more than 5,300 street
trees of 57 different species or varieties. Another
inventory, conducted in 1991, indicated an increase of about 700
trees over the 1977 number (State College Borough
Municipal Tree Plan 19931998.) In 1984, State College
received designation from The National Arbor Day Foundation as
a Tree City USA, an indication of the community's
commitment to manage their urban forest resource. In 1990,
the borough purchased a computerized inventory
program called "Tree Manager," developed by ACRT, Inc.
Information about all street trees has since been stored and accessed
by computer.
Methodology
The methodology was to deliver a survey questionnaire
to two groups of respondents selected from this
community's population. Residents with street trees planted directly
in front of their homes, identified from an up-to-date
street tree inventory, were tracked separately from
respondents without street trees planted directly in front of their
homes, thus increasing the validity of obtaining opinions
from residents that had street trees planted directly in front
of their homes. From the identified address base of
residents with a street tree planted directly in front of their
homes, survey questionnaires were mailed in a random
method,
securing the first data group. Using the remaining
town addresses, an additional mailing was randomly selected
to seek out the desired second group, residents without
street trees directly in front of their homes.
Procedures
By utilizing one aspect of the Tree Manager program,
all inventoried street trees were located relative to a
street address. Each address was further defined using a
rectangular grid template pattern containing 24 numbered
positions or "cells" surrounding said address. Seven cells were
located along the front of each address, seven cells were located
at the rear, and five cells were on either of two sides.
Accordingly, it was possible to search for and print a list of
trees found only in cells numbered one through seven, or
trees located directly in front of residences.
From all the trees found directly in front of residences,
a working list was composed of the ten predominant
species of street trees planted in State College. These ten
tree species listed in descending order are sugar maple
(Acer saccharum), red oak (Quercus
rubra), red maple (Acer rubrum), Norway maple
(Acer platanoides), pin oak (Quercus
palustris), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), littleleaf linden (Tilia
cordata), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), honeylocust (Gleditsia
triacanthos), and American elm (Ulmus
americana). Trees that had a diameter at breast height
(dbh) of less than 15 cm (6 in.) were not included in this
research, primarily to control for those residents not yet
having experienced a full-year cycle with a tree planted in front
of their residence and to allow for possible incomplete
data input of most recent plantings. It was discovered that
some addresses had more than one tree planted directly in
front of them on this listing. The list was prepared to note
each street address rather than each tree. In a random
selection method, 977 addresses were selected to receive
survey questionnaires. Surveys sent to these addresses
were printed on colored paper that would later identify
respondents known to have trees planted directly in front of
their residences. Each survey was accompanied by a cover
letter and a postage-paid, addressed return envelope. It
was believed that a higher respondent rate of return would
be achieved if the questionnaires were addressed to
individuals rather than sent to "Current Resident" at each
address. Accordingly, commercial mailing labels of residents of
State College were purchased for this purpose. Using
United States Postal Service ZIP code information, all
addresses within Pennsylvania State University property were
intentionally excluded with a goal of surveying only
off-campus, permanent full-time residents. From the remaining
mailing labels, 1,023 addresses were randomly selected in an
effort to obtain questionnaire responses from individuals
without a tree planted directly in front of their residence.
Identical survey questionnaires printed on white paper were
mailed,
along with identical cover letters and stamped
return envelopes, to these people. Sommer et al. (1990)
suggests that the return rate for this kind of survey is 20% to 25%,
if no follow-up post cards are used or telephone calls made.
Questionnaire Design
Using a questionnaire modeled after those developed
earlier by Sommer et al. (1990) and DeAraujo (1994),
participants were asked to respond regarding the street trees
growing directly in front of their residence or along the street
on which they live. The questionnaire included a list of
11 possible positive features (benefits) and 11 possible
negative features (annoyances) of street trees. Using simple
check- marks, benefits were to be rated: no benefit, little
benefit, moderate benefit, or great benefit. Annoyances
were determined using a similar rating scale. Respondents
were also asked for their opinions concerning how
important street trees are in State College: of great importance,
of moderate importance, not important, or no opinion.
"Yes" and "no" questions were used to gauge
respondents' willingness to volunteer to help maintain any street
trees along the street on which they live and their willingness
to contribute money toward a fund used to care for
street trees within State College. One question asked
whether there was a street tree planted directly in front of
their residence. An answer of "yes" to this question was
followed by questions regarding respondents' satisfaction with
the kind of tree planted and the level of
maintenance/care provided to the tree.
Demographic information regarding age, gender, education, race, length of residence, and type of
residence were included at the end of this survey questionnaire.
The questionnaire was printed on both sides of two 8.5- by
11-inch sheets of paper, folded letter-style. The
questionnaire was mailed with a one-sheet cover letter, printed on
both sides, providing illustrated definitions of street trees
as criteria of the research.
Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was
used to compile and analyze the data (Fischer 1996; Voelkl
and Gerber 1999). Prior to data entry of responses to
questions included in this survey, a codebook was created.
This codebook identified the primary variable of each
question by using a name limited to eight characters, for
example "gender," or "age". A short statement clarifying the label
(the meaning) of each possible variable name (e.g., male
or female) was accompanied by a numerical code for
each answer. For example, 1 = male, 2 = female, and 0 =
missing answer or blank.
Data were analyzed using t-test and chi-square
methods to determine if there was a statistically significant
difference between the means reported from the two subgroups
those with and those without street trees planted directly
in front of their residences. The respondents' answers on
these factors were measured on a three-point scale, with 3 =
great benefit, 2 = moderate benefit, 1 = little benefit, and 0 =
no benefit or does not apply. The frequencies for each
positive and negative factor were then calculated to provide
an overall mean rating.
RESULTS
Survey Responses
The total sample consisted of 2,000 questionnaires mailed
to residential addresses, of which 104, or approximately
5%, were undeliverable because of the resident's death
or relocation from the address. The total of 676 returned
and answered questionnaires from the 1,896 delivered equaled
a 36% rate of response. This total sample was divided into
two subgroups: 568 respondents (84%) who had a tree
planted directly in front of their residences and 108
respondents (16%) who did not have a tree directly in front of
their residences. It should be noted that 90 of the 568
respondents (or 16%) who had a tree planted in front were not from
the original identified tree in front list. These 90 people likely
had a tree in front of their homes that was less than 15 cm (6
in.) dbh or had trees other than the aforementioned top
ten planted tree species in State College.
Demographics
Gender composition of the 676 respondents was
52.5% female and 47.5% male. The age range of respondents
was likewise well distributed. The education of
respondents reflects the long heritage of State College's association
with Pennsylvania State University. Of the total respondents,
85% reported having at least a college degree; 6%
reported achieving a business or trade school level of education,
and 8% attained a high school level of education. A
clear majority of respondents, 84.8%, lived in a house, 10%
lived in an apartment, and 3% lived in a condominium.
Regarding length of occupancy of current residence, 53% had
lived longer than 10 years at their address. Another 22%
reported living 4 to 10 years at their current address.
An additional 20% reported living 1 to 3 years at the
present residence (Table 1*).
Data Results
The t-test evaluation analysis of positive features of
street trees found statistical significance in 5 of the
11 factors included on the questionnaire. These factors were give
shade (t-value = 3.105, p = .002); pleasing to the eye (t-value
= 2.126, p = .036); flowers on tree (t-value =
4.274, p = .000); neighborhood more livable (t-value = 2.723, p = .007);
and increase property value (t-value = 3.136, p = .002) (Table 2).
The analysis of negative features of street trees
found statistical significance in 3 of the 11 factors on the
question
naire: branches break power lines in storms (t-value =
2.112, p = .037); sidewalk damage (t-value = 2.506, p
= .012); and trees block visibility (t-value = 3.209, p =
.002) (Table 3).
Support for street trees within State College
appears exceedingly strong: A total of 91.7% of all respondents
classified street trees in State College as being of great benefit. Of
those respondents with street trees directly in front of homes,
92.8% stated street trees were of great importance. Of
respondents without a street tree in front of their homes, 85.8% gave
the same answer. The observed relationship between the
two groupings was statistically significant at the .05 level
(chi-square = 10.000, df = 2, significance = .007) (Table 4).
Of all respondents, 61.6% reported that they would
be willing to volunteer to help maintain street trees along
their street. Of respondents with street trees directly in front
of houses, 62.3% stated a willingness to volunteer to
help maintain street trees. Of respondents without a street tree
in front of their houses, 57.8% reported being willing
to volunteer to maintain street trees. The observed
relationship between the two groupings (tree vs. no tree) for
this question was not statistically significant (chi-square =
.707, df = 1, significance = .401) (Table 5).
Thirty-six percent of total respondents stated a
willingness to contribute money toward a dedicated fund
used solely for the care of street trees. Of respondents with
street trees directly in front of homes, 37% stated a willingness
to contribute money to care for street trees. Of
respondents without a street tree in front of their houses, 33.3%
reported a willingness to contribute money for the care
of street trees. The observed relationship between the
two groupings (tree vs. no tree) for this question was
not statistically significant (chi-square = 7.625, df = 3,
significance = .054) (Table 6).
Additional findings of related interest indicated that
of respondents with trees planted directly in front of
their residences, 90% were satisfied with the level of
maintenance/care that the street tree received. Of these
same respondents, 84% were pleased with the kind of
tree planted in front of their homes. Thirty-seven
percent reported giving care themselves or paying to have care
given to the street tree planted directly in front of their home.
DISCUSSION
Several factors might have led to these exceedingly
strong positive responses regarding street trees, which may not
be replicable among other urban communities. The fact
that State College has long been home to a major
successful university may result in a higher level of education
among off-campus permanent residents. With 85% of
respondents reporting at least a college degree, it could be argued
that this research was a beneficiary of insightful,
educated responses to the survey questionnaires. Also, State
College has in place an active street tree program that perhaps
has enhanced the general positive opinions regarding
street trees. In addition, the cover letter for this questionnaire
was on Longwood Graduate Program letterhead, and
Longwood Gardens is frequently associated in people's minds
with sylvan beauty. Nonetheless, this research provides
new knowledge regarding the topic of urban residents'
opinions on the value of street trees.
Seeking to determine whether urban residents'
opinions would be impacted depending on whether there is a street
tree planted directly in front of their residences, the data
presented would seem to partially confirm this. The three
negative features with statistically significant differences
(branches break power lines, sidewalks are damaged, and trees
block visibility) have in common the issue of public safety.
Respondents without trees in front of their homes expressed a
higher level of annoyance with branches breaking power lines.
This finding may be in part due more to media headlines than to
real experience or perhaps from having suffered the
inconvenience of lost power due to tree conflicts without having any of
the direct benefits of a tree planted in front of their
houses. Alternately, respondents with trees in front expressed a
higher level of annoyance with damaged sidewalks.
Homeowners, who have a fiscal obligation for sidewalk repairs in front
of their homes, or who are weary of dealing with trip
hazards, might explain this difference of opinions.
Four of the five positive features reported to
have statistically significant differences (give shade, pleasing
to the eye, flowers on tree, and neighborhood more
livable) have aesthetic characteristics. The fifth positive
feature, increase property value, has an economic
characteristic. Self-interest suggests an explanation for the
statistically significant differences of the benefits of increasing
property value, giving shade, and being pleasing to the eye, which
all received higher mean ratings by respondents with trees
in front of homes than by those without trees in front of
their homes. Actual experience may explain why the
feature "flowers on tree" had a much lower mean rating
from respondents with trees in front of their homes, as nine
of the top ten planted tree species in State College
have inconspicuous flowers.
Findings from this study may be instructive also
for those features that showed no statistically
significant differences of opinions, such as respondents' willingness
to volunteer to help maintain street trees and to
contribute money for street trees. This data alone could be useful
to any future urban forestry efforts within State College.
An overwhelming majority (91.7%) of State
College residents stated that street trees were of great importance
in their community. Less than 1% responded that street
trees were not important in their community. Sixty-one percent
of respondents were willing to volunteer some of their time
to help maintain street trees planted along the street that
they
lived on. Thirty-six percent of respondents reported
a willingness to contribute money toward a fund to be
used solely for the care of street trees in State College.
CONCLUSION
Care should be taken not to directly transfer findings of
this study to other urban locales, as State College's
permanent residents may, as mentioned, be highly reflective of a
university community. Nonetheless, the technique described in
this paper provides a model by which other individuals,
organizations, or governmental entities could gauge
residential opinions on this and/or comparable topics regarding
street trees. The major expenses for implementing such a project
is the two-way, first-class postage, stationary/copying costs,
and the labor needed for data input and analysis. Although
data input and analysis for this project was facilitated by
SPSS statistical package, scoring could be done by hand if
only frequencies and percentages are desired.
Urban forestry programs face the continuing
challenges of higher costs of planting and maintenance combined
with increasing difficulty in obtaining funds, often largely
from local tax revenues, to accomplish their needed work as
we enter a new millennium.
The high level of support for street trees exhibited
by respondents to this research study is important
information to State College's and other communities' street tree
planning and management personnel. Knowledge obtained
from this research might be useful in helping to create
and/or implement a residential support program to assist
in successful planting, maintenance, and fund-raising
for increased numbers of street trees.
LITERATURE CITED
Coley, R.L., F.E. Kuo, and W.C. Sullivan. 1997. Where
does community grow? The social context created by
nature in urban public housing. Environ. Behav.
294:468492.
Daily, G.C. (Ed.) 1997. Nature's Service: Societal
Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington,
DC. 392 pp.
DeAraujo, M.N. 1994. Urban Tree Attitudes and Comparison of Three Survey Methods in the City
of Curitiba, Pr, Brazil. Thesis. Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI.
Fischer, H.W. 1996. The Sociologist's Statistical
Tools. University Press of America, Latham, MD. 242 pp.
Hull, B. 1992. How the public values urban forests.
J. Arboric. 18(2):98101.
Schroeder, H., and S. Ruffolo. 1996.
Householder evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb.
J. Arboric. 22(1):3543.
Smardon, R.C. 1988. Perception and aesthetics of the
urban environment: Review of the role of
vegetation. Landscape Urban Plann. 15:85106.
Sommer, R., H. Guenther, and P. Barker. 1990.
Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape
J. 9(2):7985.
State College Borough Municipal Tree Plan:
19931998. 1993. State College, PA.
Summit, J., and E.G. McPherson. 1998. Residential
tree planting and care: A study of attitudes and behavior
in Sacramento, California. J. Arboric. 24(2):8996.
Ulrich, R. 1984. View through a window may
influence recovery from surgery. Science 224:420421.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Census of Population and Housing. 1990. Tape file
1A, 1990. Washington, DC.
Voelkl, K., and S. Gerber. 1999. Using SPSS for
Windows. Springer, New York, NY. 264 pp.
Acknowledgments. Financial support for this research
was provided by the Longwood Foundation, Inc. The work
presented here was part of a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for a M.S. degree at the University of Delaware.
I would like to thank Alan Sam, Superintendent of Buildings
and Grounds, Borough of State College, Pennsylvania, for his
valuable assistance.
Consulting Arborist
576 East Third Street
South Boston, MA 02127
balsamea@juno.com
Résumé. Cette recherche visait à découvrir s'il y
avait une différence d'opinion à propos de la valeur des arbres
de rues parmi les résidants, et ce dépendant si les
résidants avaient ou non un arbre planté directement en façade
de leur résidence. En réponse à un questionnaire
structuré, 676 résidants de State College en Pennsylvanie ont
donné leurs opinions sur les bénéfices et les ennuis concernant
les arbres de rues. Des recherches démographiques
utilisant des statistiques descriptives ont été employées pour lister
les
caractéristiques de la population cible. Cette recherche
a permis découvrir qu'il y avait une différence
statistiquement significative dans les opinions des résidants dépendant s'il
y avait ou non un arbre de rue planté devant la
résidence. Dans le développement des politiques publiques à
propos des arbres de rues, il est recommandé que des
études similaires soient menées pour mieux comprendre
les opinions des résidants sur cette question.
Zusammenfassung. Diese Studie versucht zu
bestimmen, ob die generelle Einstellung von Anwohnern
zu Strassenbäumen anders ist, wenn sie einen direkt vor
ihrem Grundstück haben. In einem strukturierten
Fragebogen haben 676 Anwohner des State College in Pennsylvania
ihre Meinungen über die Vor- und Nachteile von
Strassenbäumen ausgedrückt. Durch beschreibende Statistik wurden
die demografischen Ergebnisse über die Charakteristika
der Zielpopulation gelistet. Diese Studie zeigt, das es
statistisch relevante Unterschiede in den Meinungen gab, wenn
die Bäume direkt vor dem Grundstück standen. Bei
der Entwicklung von öffentlichen Strategien in Beziehung
auf Strassenbäumen wird empfohlen, dass weitere
ähnliche Studien durchgeführt werden, um ein besseres
Verständnis für die öffentliche Meinung zu diesem Thema zu erhalten.
Resumen. Esta investigación se condujo
para determinar si existe una diferencia de opinión sobre el
valor de los árboles urbanos entre los residentes dependiendo
de si tienen un árbol plantado en frente de su casa.
En respuesta a un cuestionario estructurado, 676 residentes
de State College, Pennsylvania dieron sus opiniones de
los beneficios y molestias de los árboles. Con base en
datos demográficos y utilizando estadística descriptiva
se enlistaron las características de la población objetivo.
Esta investigación mostró que hubo diferencia significativa
entre las opiniones de los residentes dependiendo de si el
árbol está plantado en frente de su residencia. En el desarrollo
de políticas relacionadas con los árboles urbanos
se recomienda que se conduzcan futuros estudios
similares para un mejor entendimiento de las opiniones de
los residentes sobre este tema.
Table 1. Socio-demographic distribution of State College, Pennsylvania, respondents.
Characteristics | Numberz | Percentagey |
Gender | |
Male | 318 | 47.5 |
Female | 351 | 52.5 |
Total | 669 |
Age | |
1925 | 16 | 2.4 |
2635 | 74 | 11.0 |
3645 | 126 | 18.7 |
4655 | 150 | 22.2 |
5665 | 101 | 15.0 |
6675 | 116 | 17.2 |
76 and over | 92 | 13.6 |
Total | 675 |
Ownership | |
Own | 560 | 83.5 |
Rent | 107 | 15.9 |
Other | 4 | 0.6 |
Total | 671 |
Building type | |
House | 567 | 84.8 |
Apartment | 66 | 9.9 |
Condominium | 23 | 3.4 |
Other | 13 | 1.9 |
Total | 669 |
Length of occupancy | |
Less than 1 year | 30 | 4.5 |
13 years | 134 | 20.0 |
410 years | 149 | 22.3 |
More than 10 years | 355 | 53.1 |
Total | 668 |
Education | |
Grade school | 3 | 0.4 |
High school | 57 | 8.4 |
Business/trade school | 40 | 5.9 |
College degree | 176 | 26.1 |
Post-graduate | 399 | 59.1 |
Total | 675 |
zSome questions were left unanswered on questionnaires; hence, not all totals are equal to 676.
yNumbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Table 2. Evaluation of positive features of street trees
in State College, Pennsylvania, comparing tree vs. no
tree in front of residence (independent samples t-test).
Tree planted directly in |
front of house | Numberz | Mean | t-test | py |
Give shade |
Yes | 567 | 2.50 | 3.105 | .002* |
No | 106 | 2.18 |
Pleasing to the eye |
Yes | 565 | 2.86 | 2.126 | .036* |
No | 103 | 2.70 |
Flowers on tree |
Yes | 550 | 1.20 | 4.274 | .000* |
No | 103 | 1.75 |
Fall color |
Yes | 562 | 2.53 | 0.414 | .679 |
No | 106 | 2.57 |
Neighborhood more livable |
Yes | 560 | 2.75 | 2.723 | .007* |
No | 105 | 2.51 |
Reduce noise |
Yes | 548 | 1.93 | 0.378 | .706 |
No | 102 | 1.89 |
Cool building in summer |
Yes | 559 | 1.90 | 0.483 | .629 |
No | 104 | 1.85 |
Increase privacy |
Yes | 563 | 1.85 | 0.978 | .328 |
No | 104 | 1.96 |
Improve environment |
Yes | 560 | 2.73 | 1.474 | .143 |
No | 105 | 2.61 |
Attract birds |
Yes | 563 | 2.22 | 0.476 | .634 |
No | 105 | 2.17 |
Increase property value |
Yes | 548 | 2.31 | 3.136 | .002* |
No | 102 | 2.00 |
zSome questions were left unanswered on questionnaires; hence, not all totals are equal to 676.
yAn asterisk indicates statistically significant at the .05 level.
Table 3. Evaluation of negative features of street trees in State
College, Pennsylvania, comparing tree vs. no tree in front of residence
(independent samples t-test).
Tree planted directly in |
front of house | Numberz | Mean | t-test | py |
Attract animal problems |
Yes | 555 | 0.58 | 0.499 | .618 |
No | 105 | 0.62 |
Insects/diseases in tree |
Yes | 556 | 0.81 | 1.422 | .156 |
No | 105 | 0.93 |
Branches break power lines in storms |
Yes | 561 | 0.85 | 2.112 | .037* |
No | 105 | 1.08 |
Sidewalk damaged |
Yes | 565 | 1.23 | 2.506 | .012* |
No | 105 | 0.95 |
Branches fall |
Yes | 558 | 1.03 | 0.632 | .528 |
No | 105 | 0.98 |
Leaves fall | | | |
Yes | 558 | 1.22 | 1.178 | .239 |
No | 105 | 1.10 |
Flowers/seeds fall |
Yes | 555 | 0.99 | 1.163 | .245 |
No | 102 | 0.87 |
Block the sun |
Yes | 560 | 0.63 | 0.681 | .496 |
No | 104 | 0.68 |
Darken street at night |
Yes | 557 | 0.60 | 0.342 | .733 |
No | 105 | 0.63 |
Cause allergies |
Yes | 555 | 0.59 | 1.306 | .192 |
No | 103 | 0.70 |
Block visibility |
Yes | 556 | 0.48 | 3.209 | .002* |
No | 105 | 0.77 |
zSome questions were left unanswered on questionnaires; hence, not all totals are equal to 676.
yAn asterisk indicates statistically significant at the .05 level.
Table 4. Importance of street trees to residents of State College,
Pennsylvania.
Tree planted in | No tree planted in |
Response | front of house | front of house | Total responses |
Of great importance |
Number | 515 | 91 | 606 |
Percentage | 92.8 | 85.8 | 91.6 |
Of moderate importance |
Number | 38 | 12 | 50 |
Percentage | 6.8 | 11.3 | 7.6 |
Not important |
Number | 2 | 3 | 5 |
Percentage | 0.4 | 2.8 | .8 |
Total number | 555 | 106 | 661z |
Percentage | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Chi-square = 10.000
Df = 2
Significance = .007 (at the .05 level)
zSome questions were left unanswered on questionnaires; hence, not all totals are equal to 676.
Table 5. Willingness to volunteer with help maintaining
street trees in State College, Pennsylvania.
Tree planted in | No tree planted in |
Response | front of house | front of house | Total responses |
Yes |
Number | 343 | 59 | 402 |
Percentage | 62.3 | 57.8 | 61.6 |
No |
Number | 208 | 43 | 251 |
Percentage | 37.7 | 42.2 | 38.4 |
Total number | 551 | 102 | 653z |
Percentage | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Chi-square = .707
Df = 1
Significance = .401 (at the .05 level)
zSome questions were left unanswered on questionnaires; hence, not all totals are equal to 676.
Table 6. Willingness of State College, Pennsylvania, residents
to contribute money to care for street trees.
Tree planted in | No tree planted in |
Response | front of house | front of house | Total responses |
Yes |
Number | 203 | 35 | 238 |
Percentage | 37.0 | 33.3 | 36.4 |
No |
Number | 254 | 41 | 295 |
Percentage | 46.4 | 39.0 | 45.2 |
No opinion |
Number | 91 | 29 | 120 |
Percentage | 16.6 | 27.6 | 18.4 |
Total number | 548 | 105 | 653z |
Percentage | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Chi-square = 7.625
Df = 1
Significance = .054 (at the .05 level)
zSome questions were left unanswered on questionnaires; hence, not all totals are equal to 676.