Projects

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.

Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) has the broadest geographic range of any southern pine species, spanning 22 states from southeastern New York to eastern Texas. Historically, Missouri’s forests were dominated by this resilient species, covering an estimated 6.6 million acres prior to European settlement. Today, only a small portion of shortleaf pine remains, primarily within the southern portion of the state.

In today’s markets, shortleaf pine is often viewed as a financial burden rather than an asset. Inconsistent pricing, weak demand, and limited processing infrastructure have made harvesting shortleaf economically unviable for many timber harvesters, who often face harvesting costs that exceed potential sale prices. As a result, forest managers report few bids on timber sales with a significant pine component, leading to scenarios where shortleaf pine is either left standing or felled to meet silvicultural objectives, but then left to lay on the harvest site. Without expanded markets, this valuable resource remains underutilized, hindering both forest health and economic opportunities.

List of MOFEP bird project publications.

List of MOFEP Ground Flora publications

List of publications resulting from the MOFEP Herp project

MOFEP publication list sorted by year. Project specific publications can additionally be found within their project page.

List of publications from the MOFEP small mammal project

Learn more about our MOFEP tours and field experiences! See photos from previous group trips.

Missouri Conservationist Article by Elizabeth Olson.