Community Trees

Missouri's 2010 Street Tree Economics (PDF, 420 KB)

To promote the Missouri Department of Conservation’s (MDC) Community Forestry Program and help communities foresters need to help community decision-makers visualize forest resources as an infrastructure asset. The Community Forestry Program targets city and county governments, arborists, non-profit organizations, regional planning councils, the nursery industry, homeowners and other groups with an interest in managing community trees. Forestry Division annually spends ~ $440,000 in cost-share programs such as Tree Resource Improvements and Maintenance (TRIM). Understanding barriers to active management will allow MDC to target TRIM dollars to gain the greatest return.

In 2010 statewide measurement of community-owned street trees in Missouri collected physical tree attributes which can characterize their economic value. Community tree values are “public goods;” they do not come with a price tag attached but they benefit the entire community. Economists have many methods for estimating a dollar value of such public goods. The Forest Service has created software called “i-Tree,” a peer-reviewed package that provides urban and community forestry analysis and benefits assessment. i-Tree helps communities understand the environmental services trees provide. i-Tree has been used by communities, non-profit organizations and consultants to report on the urban forest at various scales from individual trees to entire states.

Missouri’s 2010 Street Tree Inventory (PDF, 490 KB)

MDC’s Community Forestry Program advises, coordinates and facilitates efforts by many entities that own and affect the state’s community-owned trees. Assistance targeted at local governments, arborists, non-profit organizations and planning councils. MDC urban foresters and staff need a clearer picture of what trees occur along streets and how they change over time. Better management will improve the environmental, social and economic well being of each community and ultimately the entire state of Missouri.

In 2010, a third statewide survey of trees along streets in 44 Missouri communities was conducted by MDC. This follows measurements in 1989 and in 1999. The objective was to depict whether and how Missouri’s urban forests are changing over time. Communities were stratified into analysis classes by population and location with the number of randomly located plots in each community based on miles of road. 

Community Forestry Officials: Results from a MDC survey (PDF, 387 KB)

Missouri Department of Conservation’s (MDC) Community Forestry Program advises, coordinates and facilitates the efforts that affect Missouri’s community-owned trees. Assistance provided by MDC is targeted at local governments, arborists, non-profit organizations and planning councils. To better understand the knowledge, motivation and behavior of community forestry officials, a survey was mailed to employees in 612 Missouri communities. Our goal was to characterize the local agencies charged with managing urban trees, their budgets and personnel levels, and to determine which urban forestry issues local officials found to be most pressing.

In 2011 MDC conducted surveys of three groups involved in community forestry: local elected officials (broken down into mayors, council members, etc.), local heads of city departments and urban foresters. The questions in these three surveys were similar to a 2003 MDC survey. All surveys included questions such as which community department was responsible for street tree management, size of budget, and what sources of funds were used. Questions also were included on department size and the educational background of its employees, as well as on equipment, local tree ordinances and familiarity with potential sources of outside money and advice. There were also several sets of questions asking respondents to rank their attitudes towards certain community forestry issues, such as hazard trees, topping, urban sprawl and adequacy of funding and tree maintenance and planting. Slightly different sets of questions were developed for the three groups. The response rates ranged from 21% to 80%, depending on the type of survey and group.

Trees Work: A Baseline Survey of 3 Communities (PDF, 465 KB)

Forestry Division has begun a state-wide campaign focused on increasing awareness of the benefits that trees and forests provide to Missourians. To be effective, this “Trees Work” campaign’s messages must resonate with a wide variety of groups and population segments, and do so in the brief opportunities. To develop and evaluate such targeted messages, we must understand 1) the current level of awareness of tree and forest benefits, 2) which of benefits are most important to Missourians, and 3) what messages are most likely to motivate people to action and what barriers prevent action toward sustainability of Missouri’s forests. The campaign is planned to last several years, so baseline research provides critical information for development and evaluation.

Three communities, Columbia, Salem, and Webster Groves, were chosen, not as representatives of all Missouri but as places where the campaign was about to be piloted, for a mail survey in 2013. Questions included respondents’ awareness of various environmental campaigns and tree benefits, which campaign linkages were most important, and which messages they found most resonant. MDC mailed out 6,700 surveys and received 2,426 responses, an overall response rate of 36%.

Missourian’s and their Community Trees: Results from an MDC Survey (PDF, 456 KB)

A survey was administered in 2012 including asking respondents how they would vote on two hypothetical ballot questions: would they be willing to pay a tax (of varying level) to fund tree care and maintenance, and would they support establishing a new law to protect trees during development. Based on pre-tests, the survey was printed in 10 different versions, each with a different tax level ($X) in the hypothetical ballot issue. This method, referred to in economic literature as the contingent valuation method, allows the calculation of the population’s mean willingness-to-pay for public tree care and maintenance.

• When asked “How would you vote to establish a tree fund costing each homeowner $X?” over 53% of respondents said they would vote for the fund (across all monetary amounts), 23% against, and 23% undecided.
• The top reasons listed for respondents’ decision on the hypothetical ballot issue were cost (72%), the wording of the referendum (65%), the condition of community trees (62%), and other competing community needs (54%).
• Missourian’s willingness-to-pay for a tree fund in their community varied from a low of $4.47 per household in smaller communities (population less than 5,000) to over $60 in St. Louis and its suburbs.
• When deciding whether to vote for more taxes to pay for tree care, about 80% say trees help with property values is an important factor while only 11% say it would not be important.
• Trees are part of a community’s infrastructure. Eighty-three percent agree or strongly agree that community trees are part of a community’s assets like streets, utilities, and parks.
• There is strong support for tree protection during development and construction, with 84.6% that think protecting trees from development is important and 65% thinking too many trees are lost during development, and 80% think a community should protect trees from construction. Over 53% responded that it is very important or important to have a tree law which defines the communities’ responsibilities in these areas.
• In questions about topped trees, 56% of people said topped trees are not healthy, over 90% said topped trees are not attractive but just 16% said they see topped trees frequently.
• About 72% responded it is either very or somewhat important for cities to manage trees to minimum standards.
• Almost 85% think it is important to prune trees and 90% think it is important to manage trees for safety.