Amenities, disamenities, and decision-making in the residential forest: An application of the means-end chain theory to roadside trees

• Published in: Urban forestry & urban greening 2021-11, Vol.65, p.127348, Article 127348
• Main Authors: Kloster, Danielle P., Morzillo, Anita T., Butler, Brett J., Worthley, Thomas, Volin, John C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Means-end chain theory; Residential forest; Tree amenities; Tree disamenities; Utility vegetation management
• ISSN: 1618-8667; 1610-8167
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127348

The residential forest provides many amenities to communities, including aesthetics, air quality improvement, and higher property values. However, the residential forest may also contribute human-perceived problems or disamenities including allergens, leaf debris, infrastructure damage, and maintenance costs. Vegetation management by utility companies along power lines is one process that shapes the residential forest. Property owners’ decisions to consent or object to utility vegetation management may be influenced by perceived tree amenities and disamenities. To explore this decision-making process, we conducted 32 one-on-one semi-structured qualitative interviews with resident-homeowners who consented or objected to a utility company tree removal on their property between 2014 and 2017. The study area included several towns in eastern Connecticut, USA, representing urban, suburban, and exurban residential areas. We applied the means-end chain theory as a theoretical framework, and used laddering interviews to explore the tree amenities, disamenities, and values associated with trees. Attractiveness, shade, and privacy were the most frequently identified amenities of trees; risk to power lines, trees being dead or diseased, and risk to people were the most frequently identified disamenities. Amenities and disamenities were connected to such values as happiness and enjoyment, closeness to nature, comfort, pride in one’s home, aesthetics, life, avoiding harm to others, and time or money for other priorities. Participants who objected to utility tree removals primarily identified tree amenities as reasons to retain the trees, whereas participants who allowed tree removals primarily identified disamenities as reasons for their decision. The most common reason for objecting to removal was uncertainty about the need for removal. Participants had diverse perceptions of how tree amenities and disamenities affected their potential consent to utility vegetation management, illustrating that the priorities and concerns of individual residents are important considerations for forest managers and arborists engaged in vegetation management on private property.