Ilia-II; 2.8... r .53.. .L. ; 2 .3- .2: . 5514 "THE. 7 9...... r .. .. V ‘ .. Sal:a.5..h.£§£..w . in. 2...... I; t s. s .2 :wnhufia? 22:1 5....» .5". 13.2“.“ . . 41.33.. .0. I 0.- 41 mu“.- G. :‘31 z x .1»... ta: .2: a :53. L . .3? .5350. HI .L .miu . . A ‘01.. :5 I951: 1.138.: 3’ :6... 38-33.. I"?! :35} 20:...6 ' $503.1 9.. Le ‘ 352?}: :a: :3. .2. intuit .. n rt. 2.! . 5...;- 2. it... In... “.32.: 3 “PE: .5. (n 1 (.211... ,5.$¢¥S§:13:flx’£.{1t§f I... 31.2.33... «192 V1 . :ilniff 9. 0t»: 3. a, a . . ti ’ .u -31, .mif! ‘ :- v.14 .Io—pv Q A I. ‘ . Ifnjzlmwnfi ‘ioicsz. rail}, In .‘n...‘.‘lo"ll Inf: I \1 , IO - Emu ., gran 3.52:, ”34“.... a £1, ... vb? z. ,{i a. .I!.l.!.....w .uulOI—l fl.- "4 1.3-! x, £l-735‘\ t. .355... .53.;2‘... PE!!!» t... . $1.5 t {in F .3. :l:.§.3i 2.1.2.22... .. ‘ X s It Stet-1.). bl-II .311; A w girl. 53-11. unit .. 5.. .f. Lhaii it. $185.19. 9: 1.13315. lin‘iif z€.>..$.lr \. {4‘} X..quv.l:§! Iii! .3: c!" It) fir . . 4 rnumutusnfi. : .. .2 .215 . . . gym” E: gag? E. a .3 :4“ gm ‘ "I. I... ‘ 5.... r. . A 1-...H .J.;v .... if... ., A _ 53.... .; , . 'uln N Iliiu'i'iifiil‘iifitni Z 3 1293 O WWEHI 2000 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Assessing People's Attitude With Respect To Urban Trees In Puebla City, Nexico presented by Rosa Maria Garcia-Nunez has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for —-P-hTB—— degree in Mme—Deve lopment we r V Major professor 7 Date 1-3% MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 11/00 C'JCIRCJDatoDUOpGS-D‘M ASSESSING PEOPLE'S ATTITUDES WITH RESPECT TO URBAN TREES IN PUEBLA CITY, MEXICO By Rosa Maria Garcia-Nunez A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Resource Development 2000 ABSTRACT ASSESSING PEOPLE 's ATTITUDES WITH RESPECT TO URBAN TREES IN PUEBLA CITY, MEXICO By Rosa Maria Garcia-Nunez A study to evaluate people’s attitudes with respect to urban vegetation was done in Puebla city, Mexico and a general overview of the management of urban vegetation by the municipality was also done. The basic objectives of this research where to determine how people in Puebla city feel about their urban trees and parks; which kinds of tree species they prefer; what benefits or annoyances they perceive or get from the trees; and their evaluation of the management of the urban vegetation by the municipality. This study analyzed three social groups: housekeepers, elementary teachers, and college students, using variables, such as level of education, family income, gender, age, interest in tree-related programs, need for improvement of public services, and opinions about management and care of trees by the municipality. With the application of a questionnaire, 59.7 percent of the respondents replied that trees are very important for the environment where they live; 51.9 percent consider that it is very important to know about the urban environment; and 85.1 percent believe that trees improve their quality of life. The housekeeper group considered the environment very important, followed by college students and elementary teachers. Nearly 52 percent of the people who desire more trees in the city prefer Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp), laurel de la India (Ficus sp) and fresno (Fraxinus sp). There are different values that residents perceive as benefits of trees and parks in the city of Puebla, such as economic, aesthetic, recreational, attraction of animals, feel close to nature, producers of fruits and the shade. However, the shade of urban trees received the highest selection (60%) and street darkness at night by urban trees was the negative characteristic that received the highest concern. Approximately 710 parks, 84 boulevards, 7 historic places, many avenues, many streets and boulevard median are classified in Puebla city. The institution responsible for doing the care and management of 95 percent of them is Parks and Gardens. It depends of the municipality management plans. Some management alternatives and future research are recommended. Cepyright by Rosa Maria Garcia-Nunez 2000 DEDICATION To my husband Alejandro and my children Leo and Daniel for being and working always with me. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to recognize the help received from many people to finish this work. First of all I want to thank my husband Alejandro Velez for all of his support in every phase of my studies and research. I would like to present sincere gratitude to Dr. George H. Axinn, my mentor and dissertation director, for his excellent and exceptional support, encouragement, and understanding. Without his help it would have never been possible to finish my Ph.D. I also want to thank Mrs. Nancy Axinn, who helped me not only in reviewing and editing the multiple drafts that I made, but also she encouraged me during my Ph.D. studies. The members of my academic committee; Dr. James Kielbaso who was my first professor in MSU and who gave me the idea for this dissertation. His multiple suggestions, teachings, and suggestions are also appreciated. To Dr. Rene Rosenbaum who gave support, understanding and guidance of the work. To Dr. John Schweitzer who gave me encouragement and suggested me how to analyze this research. Also all my professors who have influenced my professional career. I want to thank my home institution: The Universidad Autonoma Chapingo, particularly to the department of Preparatoria, the area of Agronomia and the academy of Sistemas de Produccion Forestal, its members gave support and permission for doing my doctoral studies. Special thanks to Ing. Roberto Rivera del Rio, Ing. Raul Reyes Bustos, Dr. Clemente Villanueva, Dr. Gustavo Almaguer, Ing. Aurelio Bastida Tapia, Ing. Gustavo Ortega, Ing. Guadalupe Brito, M.C. Clelia Moreno Zarate, Dr. Diodoro vi Granados S, M.C Emma Estrada, Tec Oscar R. Lozano, and all my colleagues who helped me. The WK. Kellogg Foundation played one of the most important parts during my Ph.D studies. They awarded me a scholarship and funded my dissertation research. I want to mention especially the encouragement received from Dr. Marcos Camesi, Dr. Heliodoro Diaz Cisneros, and Dr. Marcos Kisil who along with Mrs. Rebeeca Hernandez, Mr. Robert De Vries, Miss Maria Martin and Miss Denise Alvarado always were willing to support me. Thanks to all of them for trusting me. I want to express my gratitude to Arq. Liz Tamayo and Ing. Javier Rosas Perez, who work at the office of Parques y Jardines of Puebla city. They provided me with important information needed for my dissertation The Center For Latin American and Caribbean Studies was also important in my academic work at Michigan State University. Special thanks to Dr. Scott Whiteford and Dr. Manuel Chavez whom assisted me since my first arrival at MSU. A special thanks to members of Visiting International Professional Program. Their patience and encouragement helped me overcome the difficulty of learning English and understand to identify important aspects of American culture. I want to mention especially the encouragement I received from Ms. Shelly LeMahieu, Mr. Michel Miller, Ms. Jane Trosty, and Mr. Donald G. Lord. Thanks also to Professor Roberto Velez de la Torre, and Teacher Lucila Martinez who helped with the applications of the interviews in elementary schools and colleges. Special thanks to Maria del Socorro Sanchez Velez, Professor of the Universidad of Puebla who helped in getting data from official reports, doing interviews, and setting vii appointments with representatives of Parques y J ardines institutions in Puebla city. By the same token, thanks to Mrs. Georgina Larracilla and their friends for their special interest and help in this dissertation. I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Victor S. Michaca and his wife Lorena and the children Lornita, Victor and Edgar Sanchez for the encouragement and support during my Ph.D. studies. My friend Oscar Romero also have my gratitude. Thanks to all interviewed people for answering the questionnaire, particularly those who made comments and suggestions about the topic. Finally, I want to thank my mother, Guadalupe Nufiez, my father Pedro Garcia, my brothers Pedro, Rafael, Jesus, my sisters Lupe and Maricarmen, my sister-in-law Cecy, my nieces Lily, Emily, Rosy, Anai, Tania; my nephews Diego, Sergio Rafita and Chuyito for all their enthusiasm and support during my studies in MSU. I appreciate also the encouragement of my husband’s family, Mrs. Regina Velez de la Torre, Mrs. Eugenia Huerta, Raquel and Paul Amaya, Humberto and Matihu Martinez Huerta. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APENDICCES 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Urbanization in Mexico 1.2. Location of the study 1.3. Statement of the problem 1.4. Research questions 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Importance of trees in cities 2.2 Studies of urban perceptions of ees 2.2.1. Surveys 2.2.2 The importance of street tree attitude surveys 2.2.3. Findings on street tree attitude surveys 2.3 Overview of Puebla city 2.3.1 Background information 2.3.1.1. Location ix XIII XV XVI 11 11 13 13 15 16 19 19 20 2.3.1.2. Cultural traits 2.3.1.3. Population 2.4 Urban trees, their value, and management 2.4.1. Management of urban vegetation 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1. Site of the study 3.2. Development of the questionnaire 3.3 Selecting the samples 3.3.1. People’s attitudes 3.3.1 .1 . Householders sample 3.3.1.2.Teachers sample 3.3.1.3. College students sample 3.3.2. Municipality evaluation 3.4. Sample size 3 .5 Survey procedure 3.5.1. People’s attitude 3.5. 1 .1 . Householders 3.5.1.2. Elementary and middle school teachers 3.5.1.3. University students 3.5.2. Municipality evaluation 3.6. Data analysis 3.7. Variables analysed 20 21 21 21 23 23 23 25 25 25 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 29 29 29 29 30 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 31 4.1. Attitudes of Puebla Residents 4.1.1. Survey return rate 4.1.2. Socio-demographic characteristics 4.1.3. Importance of the environment 4.1.4. Benefits of trees and parks 4.1.4.1. Positive features of trees and parks 4.1.4.2. Negative feature of street trees and parks 4.1.5. Public perceptions of street trees, parks and management -------- 4.1.6. Park attributes 4.1.7. Species preference, planting more tree and urban scenarios ------ 31 31 32 33 37 38 39 40 41 46 4.1.7.1. Urban scenarios 4.1.7.2. Place of planting 4.1.7.3. Preference for specific species 4.8. Combination of attitudes variables 4.1.9. Interest in tree related programs and community environmental services 4.1.9.1. Attitude in tree programs 4.1.9.2. Improvement public services in the neighborhood 4.2. Municipality Urban Management 4.2.1. Green spaces in Puebla city 47 49 50 52 52 53 55 55 4.2.3. City maintenance xi 56 4.2.4. Parks and public gardens administration 56 4.2.5. Management urban programs 57 4.2.6. Urban tree species 58 4.2.7. Maintenance activities 59 4.2.8. Main problems 60 5. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 61 5.1. General Conclusions 61 5.2. Recommendations 66 5.3. Further implications 67 5.4. Recommended future research for managers, foresters in Puebla city-69 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY 90 7. APPENDICES 71 xii LIST OF TABLES Table l. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in Puebla city --------- Table 2. Importance of the environment Table 3. Importance of urban environment by social group and by gender --------- Table 4. Importance of the urban environment by social group and by respondent income Table 5. Benefits that residents of Puebla perceive from trees and parks ----------- Table 6. Positive features of street trees and parks in Puebla city Table 7. Negative features of street trees and parks in Puebla city Table 8. Who planted and is taking care of urban trees Table 9. Condition of parks and street trees and maintenance by the city ----------- Table 10. Importance of parks Table 11. Importance of parks for residents of Puebla city by social group and by gender Table 12. Frequency of visits parks by habitants of Puebla city Table 13. Frequency of parks visits by gender Table 14. Frequency of parks visits per year, opinion of park condition, and opinion of city maintenance by social group and gender Table 15. Types Of parks attributes desired by residents of Puebla city ------------- Table 16. Correlation between socio-economic characteristics and parks fea es xiii 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 42 43 43 44 45 45 Table 17. Importance which the government provides to wooded areas, parkland and tree lined street Table 18. Importance of trees and shrubs in some city places Table 19. Frequency of planting more trees and preference for a specific tree ------- Table 20. Preference for a specific place for planting Table 21. Preference for specific species for planting Table 22. Correlations between socio-economic characteristics and planting more trees and species preference Table 23. Reliability of attitude questions Table. 24.Means of combined attitudes Table 25. Participation interest in tree related programs Table 26. Willingness to pay for more community services Table 27. Improvement of public services in the neighborhoods of Puebla city ----- Table 28. Some important parks in the city of Puebla Table 29. Criteria for the maintenance of green areas in Puebla city Table 30. Maintenance activities in parks by parks and gardens xiv 46 47 48 48 49 50 51 51 52 53 LIST OF FIGURES Figure. 1. Location of the area of study Figure 2. Parks and public gardens: organization chart Figure 3. Equipment and machinery from Parks and Gardens XV 56 57 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Questionnaire English version; urban tree attitude in the city of Puebla Mexico 73 86 Appendix B. Questionnaire English version; municipal tree care xvi 1. INTRODUCTION The importance of urban forestry has grown as human concentrations in big cities have become an ecological problem. Despite the importance of trees with their role in city health, to maintain and to care for trees in stressful habitats is not an easy business. Sommer, put it this way: "I believe in the environmental, social, psychological, and economic benefits of street trees. It would be nice if, just by planting street trees, all those benefits automatically came true. RegretfiIlly, this isn't the way trees grow. To receive the benefits of street trees, there must be adequate pruning, leaf collection, disease prevention and control, and a host of other city services for ordinary and extraordinary events" (1992:60). This statement explains both urban tree relevance, and the role that urban people play in the conservation, care, species selection, and management. It is predicted that by the end of year 2000, the population in urban areas will increase by more than 4750 million people (Word Development Report, 1996). By that time, more than half the world’s population is expected to be living in urban areas. This increase in urbanization is more dramatic in the less-industrialized countries, where two- thirds of the population is being absorbed by cities. This unprecedented increase in the pace of urban development has significantly affected people’s relationship with urban trees (Kuchehneister and Braatz, 1993). As a result of environmental degradation urban trees have become crucial components of urban settings (Arauj o, 1994). Urban trees are of paramount relevance to human well being. In addition to the list of goods and services that urban forestry can provide as natural filters, noise absorbers, pollutant sinks, and improvers of microclirnate, urban trees have been traditionally valued for contributing significantly to the aesthetic appeal of cities. Helping to alleviate psychological stress and providing recreational opportunities are beneficial aspects directly identified by most urban dwellers in developed and developing countries alike (Kuehelmeister and Braatz, 1993). Street trees and parks in many cases represent the only source of nature contemplation for some urban families who spend most of their leisure time there. Planting and maintenance programs are essential for health and beauty of urban forest species (Reeder and Gerhold, 1993). But if these programs are not targeted with the highest priority of public needs and perceptions, inefficiency will follow, public support will erode, and the programs will fail (Getz et a1., 1982). Knowing urban people’s perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors through surveys can help planners and managers properly target tree programs. However, many urban forest research and management decisions have usually been made without regard for resident values, especially irmer city residents (Kielbaso, 1982). 1.1. Urbanization in Mexico. The urban environment is a primary concern in most Latin American countries (Araujo, 1994). In the particular case of Mexico, a typically rural country a few decades ago, it has now started to experience record high migration to cities. Some Mexican cities were affected by a wave expansion. New human and industrial settlements mushroomed everywhere, and places that were little villages a few years ago have suddenly lost their surrounding wilderness and experienced an overwhelming grth of urban construction. By 1996, the Mexican urban population had reached 75% of the national total, compared to 48 percent in 1970 (Poder Ejecutivo Federal, 1996). This migration from rural areas, which has led to uncontrolled urbanization, has exacerbated social tensions in the largest cities. The government of Mexico, weighed down by economic problems, did not make environmental issues a priority. Air pollution, dust storms, water scarcity, and other calamities have begun to seriously affect the health of Mexico’s inhabitants as well as the country’s economy. This situation has forced the government to adopt extreme measures in order to relieve atmospheric pollution and traffic jams. For example, in Mexico City there is a “day without driving a car” program. Despite these problems and extreme measures, open spaces and green areas in Mexican cities are rapidly disappearing, particularly in poor urban zones. Although some neighborhoods have more than 10 square meters of park land per person, others have less than 0.9 square meters of green area per inhabitant (Calvillo, 1978). Thus, our "modern and civilized" Mexican industrial megacities have emerged along with pernicious health effects on humans, such as heart attacks, cancer, pneumonia, gastroenteritis, nasal irritation and stress. As if the environmental problems described above were not enough, the current inhabitants of Mexican metropolitan areas have lost their traditional devotion to trees and nature protection. In this respect, some authors mention that millions of dollars are spent in maintenance for damages caused by vandals in parks and public gardens (Benavides, 1992 and Caballero, 1993). Moreover, trees planted in very reduced spaces on streets or parks have to be fenced to avoid destruction by youngsters. Although Mexico City is the biggest and worst example of environmental degradation, other Mexican megalopolises such as Monterrey, Guadalajara, Tijuana and other intermediate cities like Puebla are experiencing similar problems. The processes of industrialization and economic adjustment are converting every state capital city from rural scenery to an urban site. “Even though urban forestry as a practical activity has been applied in Mexico for a long time, it had not been considered a technical discipline until recently” (Caballero, 1986:252). The management of urban vegetation is very irregular throughout all Mexican cities, and it depends on the particular interests of local authorities, available funding, and, above all, on the empirical criteria of urban tree keepers (Caballero, 1986). Under such circumstances, appropriate planning of urban areas and tree selection may offer some alternatives to make city environments more habitable and humane, and save money in all aspects of urban vegetation development. Many authors have demonstrated the values of trees within cities (Caballero, 1993; Calvillo, 1978; Kalmbach and Kielbaso, 1979; Sommer, 1992; Werier, 1996 ), when their planting has been planned, not just from an aesthetic point of view, but also from an economic view that coincides with appropriate species selection. Research in cities of the United States has shown the importance of urban tree planning based on people’s attitudes and the ability to carry out urban forestry practices, to the degree that people are willing to pay extra taxes to maintain them judiciously (Kalmbach and Kielbaso, 1979). However, this is a luxury _—__—-—- c . 1 that inhabitants of neighborhoods of Mexican cities cannot afford to pay for unless they i recognize some direct economic benefit. Carefirl evaluation of people’s preferences for street trees is needed. 1.2. Location of the Study. The geographic center of Mexico is a region where the greatest urban concentrations have developed. Puebla is a city located there (figure 1). Therefore, most of the urban forestry efforts need to be aimed there (Caballero, 1986). Puebla city is considered a midsize Mexican city and it is the capital of the state of Puebla. It is located about 100 miles South of Mexico City. It represents one of the most attractive sites for national and international tourism. Since 1950, however, Puebla has experienced substantial population growth caused mainly by the establishment of textile industries in the suburban areas, which, along with communication and improved services attracted the immigration of rural people. As in many other Mexican cities, Puebla has experienced a sudden transformation and has begun to show the impact of these large human concentrations on public services, infrastructure, traffic and population. There are many parks and gardens throughout the city. They represent one of the best options for recreational activities for people, especially during weekends and holidays. The impact of visitors and the lack of maintenance programs are resulting in a deterioration of park trees, which in many cases die and are never replaced. As a consequence, the aesthetic appearances of parks and street trees have been gradually decreasing. United States Puebla City Figure 1. Location of the study area Therefore, tree-planting programs, where the active participation of the people is involved, are needed. But, what are people’s attitudes toward urban trees, and what is their interest in participating in the management of urban trees? Are they interested in participating actively? How much do they know in this respect? Are there available programs that involve citizen’s participation? “Citizen participation in forestry and natural resources programs is widely favored, generously pronounced and passionately embraced, particularly at international meetings, conferences and workshops. However, once people leave the conference hall, the actual nature of public participation varies a great deal” (Burch and Grove, 1993 :20). Recent surveys of people’s attitudes toward trees have been done in the United States, Brazil, and other countries. Since 1974, Shafer and Richards studied people’s attitudes and preferences and recent research has been based on their findings. Legg and Hicks (1976), Schroeder and Appelt (1985); Sommer et a1, (1993), Kielbaso (1982), Kalmbach and Kielbaso (1979), Nakai (1994) and others are examples of researchers who studied people’s attitudes with regard to urban trees. Although almost all of these studies have been done in the United States, many Latin American cities are in search of decisions based on reliable scientific data. 1.3. Statement of the Problem. Even though in Mexico more is known today about urban forestry than a decade ago (Caballero 1993), more research has to be done to quantify the benefits that trees can offer to urban dwellers, and to gain a better understanding of public perceptions and preferences in urban forestry in Mexico (Kuehelmeister and Braatz, 1993). Over the years people have recognized and identified their favorite species according to certain features of urban trees. Although it is true that the shape of canopies, height, color of the leaves, bloom beauty and similar features play important roles in “flu-4.3.: “ r 3’" 1 people’s preferences, it is also true that many people in urban areas complain about the selection, location and structure of urban vegetation. Many tree species are perceived as a nuisance because leaves and fruit fall onto people’s yards, lawns, and sidewalks. In some cities, for example, robust low trees are considered unsuitable since they shadow over sidewalks where criminals can be camouflaged. The management of urban vegetation in many Latin American cities is usually doing following routine activities inherited by previous administrations. However, many of them are not under a reasonable judgment, and in many cases they fail. The previous statements indicate the importance of urban forestry planning and the role that people’s preferences play in the successful planting, maintenance, and cost-effective investment of street trees. For this reason, community participation represents a key element in the planning process of urban forestry (Kuehelmeister and Braatz, 1993). Hence, foresters, municipal engineers, and citizens must work together to determine how and to what extent they can meet the challenges. Promoting citizens’ positive attitudes toward urban trees is one of the strategies for achieving positive changes that urban foresters must consider (Lewis, 1996). Knowledge of people’s attitudes and preferences and the addition of them into the managements urban programs should be considered for a better success of them. Therefore, community involvement from all parties (citizens, planners, foresters, mayors, and leaders) is necessary to ensure the rehabilitation of our urban centers. This process ultimately depends on a coordinated effort (Cape, 1996). Therefore, with this research, Puebla city may become a model for reliance on a more scientific approach how includes people attitudes and preferences for the promotion and maintenance of green areas in the city. It could help to enhance urban forest development in Mexico. 1.4. Research Questions. This study was divided in two parts. The first one was the evaluation of people’s attitudes with regard to urban trees in parks and public streets. The purposes of this part were: 1) to determine how people in different social strata in Puebla city feel about their urban trees and parks, 2) which kind of tree species preference do they have, 3) what appreciation do they have with regard to the municipal management of the urban trees, and 4) what benefits or annoyances they perceive or get from the trees. This part included five socio economic classes of groups on urban tree issues: 1) the elementary and middle school teacher’s view, 2) poor neighborhood residents 3) middle class residents, 4) wealthy neighborhood residents and 5) college students. This study analyzed other variables that could be associated with attitudes, such as level of education, gender, age, interest in tree-related programs, and opinions about management and care of the trees for the city. The research questions are: 1. How do people feel toward the urban environment where they live? 2. Which kinds of benefits do the residents perceive that they receive from trees and parks? 3. What are the public perceptions of street trees, parks and their management? 4. Are there differences in attitude among people of different social strata? 5. Which park attributes do people prefer? Do city residents have preferences for specific species, place of planting and urban scenarios? Is gender related to people’s attitudes toward trees? What is the interest level of residents regarding tree programs and community environmental services? Is there any relationship between social status and other characteristics of people regarding urban tree attitudes? The second part of this study was to evaluate municipality urban services in the city. The research questions are: 1. What are the number of parks, gardens, street trees, plazas and avenues that the municipality is maintaining? What are the main difficulties of maintenance of urban trees? . What are the maintenance priorities of specific urban places? Is there any management program(s) that involves people’s participation? The evaluation of this part was done in the office of parks and gardens (parques y jardines). It is the office in charge of the maintenance of green areas in the city of Puebla. The examination of people’s attitudes is an important variable in this study because it will help to identify characteristics and factors that could contribute significantly to the implementation of new approaches in urban forest projects. The results of this study will offer a comprehensive tool to support an urban forestry policy and management to city planners, mayors, district authorities and foresters, and especially for the people that are in charge of the parks and gardens office. 10 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Importance of Trees in Cities. Urban trees play an important role in cities because they represent the functional linkage between humans and the natural environment. Trees permit man to have near him a diminutive of the awesomeness of a verdant forest, to view this scene with pleasure, pride, and admiration, and to live in a more comfortable environment than would otherwise obtain (Barker, 1982). Moreover, trees along streets provide shade, reduce the glare from pavement, sidewalks and buildings, catch pollutants, muffle noise and if they are good trees, they increase property values (Kielbaso, 1993; Dwyer and coworkers, 1992; Hall, 1981). However, in the last two decades the increase of migration from rural areas has been accompanied by reduction of major greenery within cities, which creates a hostile environment in which to live. For that reason, an increase in street trees and appropriate planning looks to be the answer to this situation, since urban dwellers require a wide variety of stimuli to maintain a healthy condition and to function properly. Scientific research has demonstrated that people who live within constant view of the natural world, enjoy better health, both physical and mental (Kielbaso, 1993). As Starkey (1979: 1) said “man requires trees and associated plants to assist him in maintaining a healthy mental state”. Given the sudden population growth and lack of planning in Latin American cities, there are not enough parks and green space in urban settings, where growing 11 crowds can rest and relax. For instance, the percentage of green areas and open space in Mexico City is barely 8.9 percent. In contrast, the percentage occupied by roads (streets and avenues) is 27.5 percent of the total public space (Benavides, 1992). As a consequence, the quality of life in cities is more deteriorated every day. On the other hand, the decline of forested areas and the rise of pollutants in air and water have social and economic costs, since they increase absenteeism, sickness, and reduce worker’s productivity, among other issues. Thus, if we consider that quality of life is the sum of all things that make life enjoyable, comfortable, and meaningful, (including physical, mental, economic, psychological, aesthetic, and recreational) (Kielbaso, 1993), it is clear that urban foresters and street trees deserve a major consideration and an appropriate assessment. Nevertheless, to speak about the assessment of the role of trees in cities as well as their contribution to the quality of life of urban dwellers implies the need to inquire who makes, and under what decision making process, the policies, regulations and strategies to promote, design and maintain urban trees in each city. Since these measures and decisions are made by city mayors, city foresters, and even politicians, it is assumed that they base and address their decisions on their constituency’s interests. At this point, it is generally accepted that larger green areas and more trees beautify their neighborhoods. Urban citizens make such claims according to the degree of their appreciation and knowledge of this aspect. l2 2.2. Studies of Urban Perceptions of Trees. 2.2.1. Surveys. In order to understand public concern for urban trees and their fimctions, many scientists have recommended administration of surveys as one of the best tools to assess people’s attitudesl regarding the importance of trees, and at what point they may be involved to maintain those trees close to their neighborhoods. Surveys have been carefully designed and conducted to assess resident attitudes toward selected characteristics of street trees. Kalmbach and Kielbaso (1979) evaluated householder response to street trees with regard to size and density in front of their homes. Getz et al (1982); Kielbaso (1982); and Schoeder and Appelt (1985) identified inner city and small town residents’ attitudes regarding urban forestry and tree programs. Sommer et a1. (1989); Sommer and Sommer (1989); and Sommer et al., (1990), evaluated householder responses to street trees in front of their homes. Sommer, (1992) provided information about public perception of street trees. Araujo, (1994) evaluated Brazilian residents’ perceptions on urban trees. To evaluate people’s attitudes toward urban trees, Sommer et al (1992) used a mail survey as a tool for assessing practitioner opinions of tree species planted locally. The study considered agreement among arborists, gardeners, and landscape architects in rating street trees in the south of San Fransisco Bay area and around the cities of Sunnyvale and Redwood city, CA. These authors used questionnaires that were sent to individuals accompanied by a cover letter and stamped self-addressed return envelopes. ' Attitude is a manner of acting, feeling, or thinking that shows one’s disposition, opinion, etc(Agnes, 1999) 13 Their expectations were to receive from the mail survey at least 20-25 percent returned questionnaires from members of each profession. The findings showed, however, that gardeners had a 25 percentage of return rates compared to arborist and landscape architects with 51 percentage of return rates. This approach demonstrated the advantages and limitations of using mailed survey. Sommer and Sommer (1989) tried a questionnaire that included a list of 10 benefits and 18 annoyances that earlier research and interviews with arborists had established to be relevant to household’s attitudes. They used 14 surveys in 8 cities in California with a total database of 816 household evaluations. Several researchers have implemented different ways to encourage people to respond to surveys. For instance, Sommer and coworkers (1990), prior to conducting door to door surveys in Davis and Stockton California, published in the local newspaper a brief article describing the purpose, data, and location of the interviews. After this, letters were sent to individual residences informing them about the survey. Aranis (1991) in a study titled “environmental attitude and its effect on growers’ nitrogen management practices: A case study of St. Joseph county Michigan corn growers” sent an advance letter to sampled populations notifying individuals that he or she has been selected in the survey, and giving notice about the arrival of the questionnaire. At the same time, two weeks after the initial mailing, a reminder postcard was sent to all the growers in the sample encouraging them to fill out the questionnaire and return it. Araujo(l994) used the same strategy in Curitiba Brazil. She used a mail survey with encouragement, but added another element. She even used a money award of US$ 70.00 to one of the participants by means of a lottery. The cover letter clearly stated that 14 answers given to the questions would not have any influence in the lottery participation and entry to the lottery participation would be granted to all returned questionnaires. All of these encouragement techniques helped to increase the return rate in those studies, even though results can vary according to many other variables which do not remain constant. 2.2.2. The Importance of Street Tree Attitude Surveys. There is little discussion on the fact that planting trees will benefit present and future generations, and that developing a long-term care program for street trees is essential for maintaining the health and beauty of the urban forest (Reeder and Gerhold, 1993). For that reason is also believed that municipal tree programs represent an efficient investment in the community future. Doing surveys of urban dwellers’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviors can help planners and managers to manage target municipal tree programs properly (Araujo, 1994). From that point on Brush and Moore(1976 ) cited by Sommer and Sommer (1989) suggest that the chief research task for behavioral scientists in regard to street trees is to identify those attitudes perceived as desirable, and undesirable by city residents. This way, for example, if there is to be a major increase in street trees, it could be important that the varieties selected maximize householder satisfaction and minimize public maintenance costs (Sommer and Sommer 1989). 15 2.2.3. Findings of Street Tree Attitude Surveys. Araujo(l994) conducted an urban tree survey study in the city of Curitiba, Brazil. She used three kinds of survey methods to evaluate tree perceptions and attitudes: door- to-door, and two types of mail surveys. The main objective of this survey was to determine how Curitibanos (residents of Curitiba) feel about their urban trees and parks and how trees contribute to the quality of their lives. The following groups of variables were examined: (1) positive features of street trees; (2) negative features of street trees; (3) preferred park attributes; (4) preferred location for trees and shrubs; (5) program participation; (6) need for improvement in public services including street trees; and (7) statements about the City of Curitiba and its environment. The single variables analyzed are: (1) condition, pruning, and maintenance of street trees; (2) demographic characteristics: age, education, income, and years of occupation of house or building; (3) satisfaction with size of trees, need for more trees, participation in recycling, willingness to pay more for several tree programs, gender, who does the yard work, ownership of house or building, and type of building. The findings showed that attitudes were not influenced by the method of survey used. No significant differences between methods were found for any of the attitudes surveyed. The positive features receiving the higher rates are to bring nature close, attract birds, pleasing to the eye, and to make neighborhood more livable. Gender was a factor influencing attitudes on three of the 14 positive features of street trees: filter dust from air, attract birds, and give sense of pride. Women tended to place higher values on those positive features than men. Age influenced attitudes in: give shade, slow wind speed, and 16 give sense of pride. Education and income had some influence on a higher number of Wart”.- positive features. Sommer et a1 (1989) evaluated householder response to two street trees in front of their homes: European elm (Ulmus procera) and London planetree (Plantanus x acerifolia) in Sacramento California. The research was intended to evaluate: 1) attitudes toward the two street trees that householders could experience directly, including benefits and annoyances; 2) return rate differences for surveys addressed with a personal name; and 3) demographic information such as ownership, gender, race, income, age and length of residence. They found that the major benefits of the European elm were shade and visual aesthetics. The most annoying features were insects, disease, and dropping sap. For the London planetree, the major benefits were shade, visual, aesthetics and increased property values. Demographic variables (except age) were not related to opinions of the two trees. The results showed that households are not unanimous in demanding the removal of the elms. Since most of them like the elm, they did not want to see it removed. In the same year (1989) Sommer et al did another study about the factor structure of street tree attributes in eight cities in California. They analyzed household rating of 28 potential benefits and annoyances. The objective was to insolate clusters of positive and negative attributes that will have both the theoretical and practical value to arborists. The respondents were asked for an overall opinion of the tree, its growth characteristics, the quality of the city maintenance, animals attracted to the tree, and various demographic items used in the interpretation of the responses. The most important findings are that 17 tree benefits cluster, while annoyances do not. This suggests that arborists need not spend a great deal of time distinguishing between the various benefits associated with street trees. Determining that a tree is rated positively by local residents seems sufficient as a guide to initial selection and replacement. Kalambach and Kielbaso (1979) conducted a survey to learn resident’s attitudes toward selected characteristics of street tree plantings in five Michigan and Illinois cities. Questions were asked regarding tree size and tree density preference and demographic data such as age, gender, level of education, and where they lived. Color photographs and semantic differential analysis, adjective pairs or attitude scales were used to elicit personal attitudes regarding size of shade trees and amenity values of trees. The result of the semantic differential analysis strongly suggests that in the minds of residents trees do enhance urban settings. Comparison of responses to existing tree sizes and expressed verbal preferences suggest that the preference for a change in tree size is four to one in favor of larger tree size over a smaller tree size. In photo selection choices, 78 percent of the residents selected large trees scenes, opposed to 18 percent selecting a majority of small tree scenes. Exarrrined individually, cities demonstrated no significant tendencies in photo selection based on age, level of education, or gender. No apparent differences concerning tree size preference exist between female and male (males selected large trees 80 percent of the time compared to 76 percent for females). Overall, 50 percent of residents favored more trees along their particular residential streets. The desire for more trees was very strong among the residents having occasional or no street trees. The inference was that the satisfaction level for the majority of residents is reached with planting densities of approximately one tree per home. 18 The majority of the survey research has been focused on adult values. However, Johnson and Monear (1994) studied a child’s view of the urban forestry in Minnesota. The objective was to provide some insight on the roles that urban community forests play in a young person’s life. They found that urban, suburban, and rural kids took pictures with a high percentage of green. However, urban children took the higher percentage of pictures with pavement. Therefore, the children in urban areas live in an environment that has more pavements in it than rural and suburban areas. 2.3. Overview of Puebla City. 2.3.1. Background Information. Puebla was founded in April 16 of 1531 by Fray Toribio de Benavente, “Motolinia”(Rivera, 1997). Puebla city is also called the Angelopolis or Angelopolitane city, evoking the legend that says that the Angels, who are frequently honored in fountains and statues throughout the city, designed the city. However, the first name of the area was Cuatlaxcoapan Valley and it was sparsely settled by native mesoamericans. Puebla was the most important city of the New Spain, afier Mexico City (Careager and Jerez, 1984) when the conquest took place. The city is the capital of the state of Puebla, and it was designed and built according to Vitrubio, a Spanish city planner and architect, whose methods later were improved by Alberti (Rojas, 1997). 19 2.3.1.1. Location. Puebla is located in the South of Mexico City. The city is established in a huge valley, surrounded by small hilly mountains: Loreto and Guadalupe parks and in the Northeast by Malitzin and Popocatepectl volcanoes. On the West side, the Atoyac River crosses the settlement fi'om North to South. The downtown altitude is 2160 meters above sea level. Its geographic coordinates are: 19° 03’ N latitude and 98° 12’ W longitude. The climate is subhurnid. The average temperature is 15 °C, and an average year precipitation of 888.5 mm (INEGI, 1996). The main activities of the economically active population are trade, industry and tourism (Careaga and Jerez, 1984). 2.3.1.2. Cultural Traits. Puebla is the Mexican city where the colonial architecture is mostly represented. An example is the famous cathedral, which was founded before of the conquest of Tenochtitlan (the current Mexico city) in January 24, 1518 (Careaga and Jerez, 1984). Puebla’s cathedral is known worldwide as the “Relicario of America” (The America’s heirloom) and it is the most visited monument owing to outstanding architecture and majesty. In addition to this, the city’s downtown is endowed with wonderful monuments, fountains, churches, civil architecture and a cultural richness. The city is famous also for its traditional cuisine and craft, Puebla was declared in 1990, a World Heritage by the UNESCO. 20 2.3.1.3. Population. From the total population of the state of Puebla (4,624,365) 26.45 percentage is living in the capital which has 1,222,569 inhabitants (INEGI, 1995). The city population has experienced a rapid growth, since only 10 years ago its population was 532,744 (Careaga and Jerez,]984). It means that in a decade the population increased threefold. The current rate of growth is 2.60 percent. That is higher than the average rates of growth in the state, which is 2.04 percent. In terms of gender, 48.7 percent are males (2,253,476) compared to 51.3 percent females (2,370,889). The population of the city is predominantly young, since more than 50 percent are less than 19 years old (INEGI, 1995). The percentage of population of 15 years or more without elementary education was 18.6 in 1990, in contrast with 40.6 in 1970, and the percentage of inhabitants with studies after elementary school was 34.2 percent in 1990, versus 8.7 percent in 1970 (INEGI, 1995). 2.4. Urban Trees, their Value, and Management. 2.4.1. Management of Urban Vegetation. The main institution in charge of the management of green areas of the city, is called “Parks and Gardens” (parques y jardines). It is an institution that depends on the municipality, and the management of urban programs are a function of the general municipality program. They are in charge of maintenance of public parks, gardens, avenues, plazas, downtown, and sometimes gardens in schools or residential places. 21 The management of urban vegetation in the city is divided into north and south. There is an office in each part, but both depend on the general municipal administration. 22 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1. Site of the Study. The study was developed in the city of Puebla, Mexico (figure 1). It was chosen for this urban survey because of its prominent tourism reputation and the important role of green areas in the city. However, as a pioneer study, it could be replicated in other Mexican cities. In the literature review, it was documented that surveys are a good data gathering technique for this kind of urban attitude study. Therefore, surveys were used in the compilation of data in the city of Puebla. The researcher has not found any reports in the literature about other studies of this kind in Mexican cities. Therefore, this research is primarily exploratory and the data were collected in a single period of time. 3.2. Development of the Questionnaire. The questionnaire is an extraordinarily efficient tool for collecting data from a large number of respondents, and if this approach were used successfully in collecting street tree evaluations, it may have important ramifications for compiling regional and statewide data lists using a broad pool of qualified individuals representing different professions (Sommer, 1992). 23 The development of the questionnaire for both parts of the study was based on preliminary experiences cited in the literature review. However, the construction of the questions was adjusted for the research questions presented in the Introduction chapter. The questionnaires are modeled after two studies: “Urban tree attitudes and comparison of three survey methods in the city of Curitiba, Brazil” (Araujo, 1994) and “Preferences of Detroit residents for urban forest and forestry programs” (Kalmbach and Kielbaso, 1979). However, the selection of questions was focused and modified according to the objectives of this research project. The questionnaire for assessing people’s attitudes was divided in four sections: urban neighborhood information, public park information, general information about trees, and socio-economic characteristics (Appendix A). Those sections contain closed format questions (yes, no, maybe responses, and rating scales), ranking, multiple choice, and open-ended questions. There were clear directional instructions for answering each question by the interviewee, such as: check one, check one on each line, and write, etc. Participants were asked to respond based on the condition of trees that are growing in front of their residence, trees growing along the street in their immediate neighborhood, and trees in public parks. Moreover, some questions asked the respondents to express their willingness to pay for more community services. Additional questions focus on their willingness to participate in urban tree management programs, if available. The questionnaire includes a list of positive and negative features of street trees. They are rated from very great benefit (1) to no benefit (3), and annoyances from very annoying (1) to not an annoyance (3). The overall opinion concerning condition, pruning, 24 and maintenance of street trees and parks was rated from excellent (1) to poor (4). The relative importance of trees in various locations in the city, importance of the environment, interest in the management, care and maintenance, improved public services, and the importance for local government to provide more tree areas were rated on a three point scale from very important (1) to not important (3). The questionnaire was translated to Spanish. It was pre-tested on 40 persons representative of all groups. The questionnaire for the municipality maintenance information (Appendix B) has only open questions since it was applied by face-to-face interviews. 3.3. Selecting the Samples. 3.3.1. People’s Attitudes. Three different populations were sampled for assessing people’s attitudes. One was householders by monthly salary2 perceived the second was a sample of college students, and the third was a sample of elementary and middle schools teachers. 3.3.1.1. Householders Sample. A stratified random selection of the householders by type of neighborhood was done according to poor, middle or wealthy residential location in the city. A city map was used to locate the neighborhoods. The neighborhoods of Maravillas, San Manuel, La Cienega, Volcanes and the center of the city were selected. Some 25 elementary and middle schools were selected randomly in each selected neighborhoods; and some students from each school were randomly selected for the application of the questionnaire. The sample included people from different social levels. The differentiation between poor, middle or wealthy householders was established according to the minimum income received by month3 (number of minimum salaries received by family). The survey included residents which lived in houses, apartments, shared housings, and businesses places. 3.3.1.2. Teachers Sample. The elementary and middle school teachers population was identified in the same schools were used for the selection of householders sample. It include teachers fi'om different gender and age. 3.3.1.3. College Students Sample. The sample of university students was taken from the University of Puebla (U niversidad Autonoma de Puebla UAP) and the Universidad de Las Americas (UDLA) in all the different grades, and departments. Those are the most representative universities in the city. 2 It helped to classify householder in wealthy, middle and poor. 3 Minimum wage in Puebla city is about S 3.72 by day. 26 3.3.2. Municipality Evaluation. In the case of the municipality evaluation the whole population was interviewed, because it was small. 3.4. Sample Size. The sample size depended on the variation of the total population of each group. Also the variability of the preliminary data in the pilot survey. However, for assessing people’s attitudes, a total of 350 questionnaires were administered, and 10 for the municipality evaluation. In the case of people’s attitudes a total of 350 questionnaires were sent. However, only 300 were received and useable for this analysis; 141 were for householders, 106 for university students and 53 for teachers. In the evaluation of municipality maintenance information, the whole population was studied. It included managers of the north and south offices with a total of 6 persons. Therefore, a total of 6 questionnaires were used for the analysis. 3.5. Survey Procedure. 3.5.1. People’s attitudes. The methods used in other studies related to urban forestry attitudes were door-to- door or face-to-face, mail, and telephone survey interviews. Since there are no previous 27 studies in Puebla city about the percentages of responses using survey methods, a pilot test was developed to determine which kind of method works better with the specific groups studied. According to the results of the pilot survey, the method suggested for doing the interviews was paper and pencil written questionnaires in some cases, and face-to-face oral interviews in others. 3.5.1.1. Householders. The householder population was the most difficult population to interview, due to the fact that a high percent in the pilot survey did not answer the questions seriously and consciously. Therefore, a practical way for administrating the questionnaires was to ask for help from teachers in elementary and middle schools. School teachers in the selected neighborhoods administered the paper and pencil questionnaire. They helped with the distribution of questionnaires to householders and gave directions for completing it. Questionnaires through school teachers is a method that helps with the direction of the answers with authenticity and civic responsibility. It starts by obtaining the help of principals and teachers of the schools located in the sampled neighborhood. After the purpose of the study was explained, they first completed the questionnaire (for determining their attitudes and the clarity of questions), and then selected a sample of students who are assigned the questionnaire as school homework. In this way, the students had the opportunity to do an interview linked with a natural science topic, such as in this case, and their parents took this work seriously. 28 3.5.1.2. Elementary and Middle School Teachers. The survey procedure in the sample of elementary and middle school teachers was to provide the questionnaires personally, and after one or two days it was picked up. This method worked fine due to the fact teachers showed interest and responsibility. 3.5.1.3. University Students. This was the easiest population to sample because the students were available and sometimes happy to answer the questionnaires. Some university professors helped with the distribution of the questionnaires, and in others cases the researcher distributed them 3.5.2. Municipality Evaluation. The method of face-to-face was used for the administration of the survey in the municipality evaluation. It worked well because they were friendly and gave enough time to answer the questions. 3.6. Analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the responses for each category of variables, a frequency distribution test was performed, followed by measures of central tendency to summarize further information. 29 A mean rating range was used in the analysis of group variables. It used different point scales depending on respondent’s perceptions. Other analyses of association of these variables were done regarding positive or negative features of street trees and socio- demographic variables. Some relationships were explored, such as social group, age, gender, tree condition, park’s importance, who visits a park more frequently, and city maintenance. 3.7. Variables Analyzed. The following groups variables were analyzed in assessing people’s attitudes: positive features of street trees; negative features of street trees; desired park attribute; preferred location of trees and shrub;, need for improvement of public services; and citizen participation. Data were also collected on socio-demographic variables such as: age, education, income, gender, native of city and years of occupation of their house, apartment building or business places. For the municipality maintenance information, the variables analyzed were: number of parks; gardens; plazas and avenues for maintenance; priority of maintenance; main activities of maintenance; infrastructure; problems of maintenance. 30 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1. Attitudes of Puebla Residents. 1.1. Survey Return Rate. Out of the 350 surveys sent out for the three sampled populations, 300 were returned in time for the analysis, for a return rate of 84 percent. In the case of householders and university students, the involvement of schools helped insure the collection of quick and more reliable information. Pen-and pencil was good method for collecting data of elementary and middle school teachers. Generally, all the questions received a good percent of responses, but the rate was different for different sections of the questionaire. In the first section, related to urban neigborhood information, the lowest percent of response was in the question of who planted the street trees? (75 percent). In the second section about public parks, all of the questions received more than 90 percent response. “What is your feeling about the following species of trees?” in section three received a low percent of responses (50 percent). The last section of the questionaire received percentages from 73 (building type) to 100 percent (education level). Monthly household income got 99 percent response, which was useful since this question was the basis for dividing poor, middle and wealthy households. The high response percentage verifies the efficiency of the methods used for applying the questionaire. The “pen and pencil” instrument, using elementary and middle school students as collectors of information from their family members was a 31 very good method, specially, since under the study conditions, the householders sample was the most difficult for collecting the data. A major advantage of the method was collection of more valid information since the teachers from school served as distributs of the questionnaires, and the hoseholds felt therefore more responsibility in their responses. 1.2 Socio-Demographic Characteristics. The socio-demographic characteristics of survey respondents are presented in Table 1. Of 300 respondents, 63.3 percent were female and 36.6 were male, and only 63.8 percent were native of the city. This implies that more than half of the respondents were females and natives of the city. Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in Puebla city. Characteristic N Percent Characteristic N Percent Resident of Puebla Gender Yes 187 63.8 Male 109 36.6 No 106 36.2 Female 189 63.3 293 100 298 99.9 Income Education Wealthy class 35 1 1.7 Elementary school 66 22.0 Middle class 99 33.1 Middle school 33 11.0 Poor class 61 20.4 High school 45 15.0 No salary 104 34.8 College 156 52.0 299 100 300 100 Age Building type 15-19 59 20.5 House 116 65.3 20-29 1 17 40.6 Apartment 88 29.3 30-39 59 20.5 Shared housing 14 4.7 40-49 35 12.2 Business 2 .7 50-59 14 4.9 220 100 ~60 4 1.3 288 100 Ownership Length of ownership Own 204 75 1-10 156 60 Rent 68 25 1 1-20 66 25.4 272 100 21-30 36 13.8 -31 2 .8 260 100 N= Total sample. 32 With regard to monthly salary received, the highest percentage belongs to people who do not receive a direct salary (34.8 percent) such as students or some householders. 33.1 percent of respondents are clasified as people from middle class2 20.4 percent are poor people, and only 11.7 percent are weatlhy class. For education, 52 percent of the total sample has college education, 22 percent have elementary school, 15 percent have high school, and 11 percent have middle school. The age of respondents was between 20.5 and 60 years, but 40.6 percent were between 20 to 29 years old, and only 1.3 percent are older than 60 years. Owners of their place of living were 204 of 272 respondents (75 percent), and 25 percent rent their place. Regarding type of accomodation, 6.3 percent live in a house, 29.3 in an apartment, and 4.7 in a shared housing unit. In summary, the majority of respondents in this study are females (63.3 percent), natives of the city (63.8 percent), and persons who do not receive any salary (34.8 percent). Those without salary are students or work at home without any monetary payment. 1.3. Importance of the Environment. Respondents were asked three questions related to importance of the environment where they live: (1) How important is the environment where you live?, (2) How 2 The classification of poor, middle and wealthy class was done according to numbers of min wage perceived for the total family per month. Therefore, poor people was classified with a perception of 1 to 10 min wage, middle class people perceive between 11 to 20 min wage, and wealthy people more than 20 min wage. 33 important is it for you to know about the environment where you live? and (3) What is the importance of trees for improving quality of life? Table 2. of the urban environment. environment environment recs quality of life Regarding importance of their environment, 179 of 300 respondents (Table 2) considered that the environment where they live is very important (59.7 percent), and only 20 (7.3 percent) considered that it is not important. From 289 answers, 154 (51.9 percent) consider that it is very important to know about the urban environment, and 246 of 297 (85.1 percent) believe that trees improve quality of life. Those high percentages suggest that, in general, citizens of Puebla city will be positive toward programs related to environmental education and management of urban trees. In general, people from Puebla consider the importance of the environment almost in the middle between “very important” and “somewhat important”, very important was rated 1, somewhat important 2, and not important 3, and the mean (Table 3) was 1.48. There are some differences among averages of social groups analyzed. Householders scored 1.37, students 1.55, and elementary teachers 1.62. Therefore, housekepers consider the value to be most important. There are differences between male and female. Males gave the closest value to very important (1.45); therefore, they rated the environmet where they live slightly higher than females did (1.50). In the social groups 34 analyzed householder male consider the environment very important (1.35) and elementary male teachers somewhat important (2.00). Almost all of the three social groups interviewed considered that knowing the environment where they live is between very important and somewhat important, since they gave an average of 1.56, 1.57 and 1.42 respectuly. Male and female respondents had the same mean (1.55). This implies that no matter in which social group or gender they are, they will be receptive to educational environmental programs. Table 3. of urban environment social and group rees the the quality of life environment environment on a very N= Total sample " P< .05 35 In general, the average consideration of the importance of the the environment in which they live differs in people of different income groups. Wealthy people scored 1.46; middle income people scored 1.52; poor people scored 1.30, and for people with no salary the score was 1.55 (Table 4). Table 4. of the urban environment social and income. group recs income the the quality of life environment environment on a very N= Total sample 36 Therefore, poor people gave the highest value to the importance of the environment. The same relationship was found for [mowing about the environment (1.48) and trees for improving quality of life (1.05). That suggest that, this specific group considers most important the environment, it could be due to they wise to live in better environment and it will help them to appreciate more it. 1.4. Benefits of Trees and Parks. There are different values residents perceive as benefits from trees and parks in the city of Puebla. These were identified as: economic, aesthetic, recreational, atraction of animals, feel the nature close, producers of fruits, and the shade of trees (Table 5). Table 5. Benefits that residents of Puebla from trees and Respondents had the oportunity of choose among the different values that urban trees represent for them. They could choose any number of values that they considered important. In Table 5, the column N represents the number of people surveyed who chose each option. Shade of urban trees was the value that got the higthest frecuency (180) with a percentage of 60. It was followed by feel nature close (178) with a percentage of 58.9, aesthetic 38.7 percent, recreational value 29.8 percent, fruits 28.3 percent, attraction of animals 23.2 percent, and economic value 11.9 percent. Therefore, shade and feel nature 37 close are the more appreciated and important values for the city respondents and attraction of animals and economic value were the less appreciated. 1.4.1 .Positive Features of Trees and Parks. There were 13 positive characteristics studied among the residents of the city of Puebla (Table 6). Respondents had the oportunity of giving each one a characteristic the number 1 for no benefit, 2 for some benefit, 3 for very great benefit and 4 for no answer. Table 6. Positive features of street trees and in Puebla tree characteristics rating“ ery great benefit benefit nature to on trees on a no to very great N= Total sample. Among 13 positive features of street trees (Table 6), respondents placed a high rating on the characteristics of give shade (2.65 ) and bring nature close (2.58) on a 3 point scale, suggesting that they had a strong perception about these two characteristics of trees. However, other characteristics such as: pleasing to the eye, flowers on trees, recreation activities, slow wind speed, filter dust fi'om air, and give sense of pride, received means ranging from 2.09 to 2.47, suggesting that such features also represent highly appreciated values. Increase property values (1.60) and increase privacy (1.70) were the lowest rated characteristics of trees in Puebla city. 38 Give shade and bring nature close were the characteristics that received the higthest percent with regard to very great benefit (67.9 and 61.3 percent), and had the lowest percent in no answer (.4 an 2.1 percent). In contrast, increase property values and privacy received the lowest percent (10.7 and 14.6 percent). Those percentages correspond to the mean rating data. Therefore, the most important two positive characteristics selected by Puebla residents were give shade and bring nature close. 1.4.2. Negative Features of Street Trees and Parks. Respondents placed different ratings on negative features of street trees (Table 7). The mean rating varied from 1.71 to 2.24 (mean of 1.89), and may be compared to the mean rating on positive characteristics (mean of 2.18) with a range from 1.60 to 2.65. These figures indicate that there was not a great difference. This may be an indicator that respondent’s attitudes toward positive features of trees, generally, are a little superior to their attitudes toward the negative features. Therefore, residents appreciate positive characteristics that urban trees offer, but they recognize the annoyance that trees create too. in Puebla Table 7. features of street trees and street trees rating“ annoyance annoyance street at on a no annoyance to very great annoyance N=total sample 39 Darken street at night was the characteristic that therespondents of Puebla city considered as most negative (2.24), followed by sidewalk damage (2.17), insects and disease in trees (1.94), flower parts fall (1 .98), falling branches (1 .82), flower parts fall (1.81),fiuit or seed fall (1.74), falling leaves in fall (1.73), and block visibility (1.71). 1.5. Public Perceptions of Street Trees, Parks and Management. Public perceptions of trees and their management was evaluated by asking what is the general opinion that residents of Pueba city have about the condition of street trees and park trees, and how the city is maintaining them. It was important to first determine who planted the trees, because it was assumed that when somebody planted a tree, there might be a high probability that he or she would take care of it. Acording to data presented in Table 8, street trees were planted by resident people and city foresters. The majority of trees were planted by resident people (63.8 percent). However, both groups are taking care of street trees. The higher percentage is from resident people (60.8). Table 8. Who lanted and is care of urban trees. care samp Opinions about the condition of street trees and parks in local neighborhoods, and the maintenance of them by the city, are presented in Table 9 . Condition of street trees have 40 a mean rating of 2.83, and park trees have a rating of 3.20. The mean was rated from 1 (excellent) to 4 (poor). Ratings suggest that street trees are in better condition than park trees. Maintenance of street trees by the city was scored as 3.56, and for park trees the score was 3.35. This indicates that the city is giving better maintenance to park trees, even though parks trees are in worse condition. This circumstance could indicate that park trees receive more pressure fi'om visitors than street trees, and street trees are maintained not only by the city, but also by resident people (Table 8). Generally, the condition of pruning of street trees is classified between good and poor (mean of 3.20 in Table 9 ). The majority of respondents (39.1 percent) clasified pruning as in poor condition. This suggests that pruning needs to be improved in firture management plans. Table 9. Condition of and street trees and maintenance the rating" street trees street trees the street trees trees trees the on a N= total sample 1.6. Park Attributes. Among respondents, 47.6 percent considered the parks as very important, 40.2 percent consider them important, and 12.2 percent not important (Table 10 ). This implies that almost 90 percent of people consider parks as very important and important. 41 Therefore, a high percentage of residents may be receptive to management programs targeted for parks. Table 10. of The social group that gave the highest importance to parks was the householders with a mean of 1.60, (Table 11 ). The mean was calculated from 1 (very important) to 3 (not important). The students group followed with (1.62), and finally elementary teachers (1.75). Althougth the means are different among these social groups, all of them give a value between very important to important. Therefore they valued parks important. Generally, males considered parks more important than females, since males gave a mean of 1.56 and femalesl.69 (Table 11). Table 11. of for residents of Puebla social and Swap of M= mean rated on a 3 point scale from very important (1) to not important (3). 42 This is related to who visits a park more, with childrens, since generally in Latin American countries, mothers are the ones who take responsability for activities of children. However, in this specific case, fathers helped by visiting more parks with childrens more often. From 295 respondents, 39.3 visit parks per year frequently3 (Table 12 ), 29.5 regularly, 28.5, rarely and 2.7 do not visit parks. Table 12. F at of visits habitants of Puebla. In this study, fathers visit parks more frecuently (40.9 percent) than mothers (26 percent), and 32.7 percent were visited by other persons (Table 13). Table 13. F of more visits Males consider the condition of parks to be better than females do (3.06 and 3.28 respectively). This might be related to fathers visiting parks more frecuently than mothers. However, both consider maintenance of parks by the city government to be between good and poor (3.36, 3.34) (Table 14 ). 3 Frequency of parks visit per year was classified as frequently for people who visit a park each weekend or at least three weekends per month. Regularly for people who visit at least once a month and rarely was from people that visit parks less than 5 times per year. 43 Table 14 . Frequency of parks visits per year, opinion of park condition, and opinion of city maintenance by social and group a maintenance on a to ** Rated on a 4 point scale from excellent (1) to poor (4). N= total sample M= mean Respondents, were asked to mark what type(s) of attributes they prefer to see in their local parks (Table 15 ). Gardens and flower beds was the attribute that received the highest percentage of selection (76.7 percent), followed by sport fields (65 percent), trees and shrubs (64 percent), playground equipment (56.3 percent), picnic area (39.7 percent), and finally walking and bicicle path (32.7 percent). Selection of attribuites depends on interest of more frequent visitors, and males are the ones who visit more parks per year. Althougth gardens and flowers beds got the first preference, sport fields (second preference) received many recommendations. The most important was the utilization of sport fields, such as football, basketball, and baseball. Generally, males are 44 the ones who choose these kinds of fields. One additional recommendation was that some of the sports fields presently in parks need to be repaired, because they are in bad condition. Table 15. beds of attributes desired bicicle residents of Puebla area There are some correlations between socio-economic classification and respondents’ assessments of characteristics of parks (Table 16). Althougth these kinds of correlations do not give an absolute value about the dependence of one characteristic upon another, they do indicate a kind of casual link. The highest correlation was between the level of education and age (.451). Table 16. Correlation between socio-economic characteristics and parks features. Characteristic Education Age Gender parks Parks Who Tree’s City level irnporta visits visits condition mainten nce parks ance more Education 1.00 - .150” .012 .042 -.133* -.017 -.014 level .451" Age -.451"' "‘ 1.00 .015 .001 .102 .028 .063 -.103 Gender .150“ .015 1.00 .090 .083 -.144* .156" -.013 parks -.012 .001 .090 1.00 .302“ * -. 133 * .016 .265“ * importance Parks visits .042 .102 .083 .302" 1.00 .033 .68 -.002 Who visits a -.133“ .028 -.l44"‘ -.133* .033 1.00 .014 .007 park Tree’s -.017 .063 .156"I "' .016 .068 .014 1.00 .268* * condition City -.0 14 -. 103 -.013 -.265’ "' -.002 .007 268* " 1.00 maintenance " correlation is significant at the 0.01 level " correlation is significant at the 0.05 level 45 This implies, that it is important to consider people’ age, and the level of education than have the residents. Some other correlations are: opinion of park tree ’s condition and city maintenance (.268), how important are the parks and city maintenance (.265), resident of the city and opinion of trees park condition (156), level of education and native of the city (.150), native of the city and who visits a park in the family (. 144), how important are the parks and who visits a park in the family (.133). 1.7. Species Preference, Planting more Trees and Urban Scenary. 1.7.1. Urban Scenary. Urban scenery is very important for residents of Puebla city. Among respondents, 61.4 percent consider that government provided wooded areas are very important (Table 17 ), 27.6 percent consider them important, and 11 not important. Also, 46.5 percent consider tree lined street as very important, and 64 percent consider open parkland very important. This implies, that parkland is the most important urban scenery for the residents. and tree lined street. Percent which the to wooded areas, Table 17. areas 46 City’resident respondents consider trees and shrubs between very important and important (1.24 to 2.31) (Table 18). Since the mean was rated from 1 (very important) to 3 (not important), trees and shrubs in parks received the highest value (1.24), and 80.4 percent of respondents chose it as very important. Trees in downtown and plazas, shopping areas, and residential streets were selected as important (53.1, 46.2, 42.3 percent respectfirlly). Trees and shrubs in fiont yards were selected not important (45.7 percent) by the residents. Table 18. of trees and shrubs in some rating“ ront on a very to not N= Total sample 1.7.2. Place of Planting. When respondents were asked whether or not more trees should be planted in the city, 85.9 percent of respondents answered positively (Table 19 ); however, 14.1 percent answered negatively. Some of the recommendations of people who answered negatively were that “there are enougth trees in the city and they need more care,” or, “planting more trees is only for justify, in many cases, budget or political issues.” However, 237 persons of 276 feel that more trees are needed in the city. 47 Table 19 . of more trees and for a tree. more trees es Not Total es Not Total Respondents had the oportunity of choosing places where they think that more trees need to be planted. From 633 choices made of places for planting, 204 were in favor of planting more trees in the parks (Table 20 ). That represents 68 percent. In contrast, planting trees in fiont or back yards received only 60 and 61 responses, which each represent around 20 percent. This kind of choice of places for planting more trees is totally consistent with activities of people and the design of the majority of houses in the city. Generaly, people spend more leisure time in parks, and there is very little area in front of the houses, and in many instances the houses reach totally to the border of the streets. Therefore, the selection of planting more trees in parks and less in front of yard is appropriate. Table 20. Preference for a for the trees. SUCCIS centers 48 1.7.3. Preference for Specific Species. Among respondents who desire more trees, 51.9 percent expressed a preference for a specific tree (Table 20). They had the oportunity of choosing which species they prefer among 11 species (Table 21 ). Table 21. Preference for for resno raxinus From the 11 species proposed, Eucalyptus, Laurel de la India and Fresno received the highest numbers of selections: 81, 77 and 73 respectively, from the total of 579 selections made. Since Eucalyptus is the most abundant species in the city's parks, probably many people know it, and that may have influenced the high selection of this species. Casuarina, Acacia and Pirul had the lowest scores (18, 28 and 33 respectively). Alamo, Frutales, Palma and Cedro blanco received medium scores (42, 56, 60, 67 respectively). Athougth the questionaire asked, for each of the proposed species, whether people like them very much, like, not like, or they do not know, there were no anwers for that question. Probably, this question was so specific that it required more knowledge of the species than respondents had for the comparison with others. Therefore, it was too 49 difficult: to answer. In many cases, the people only know that there are different trees, but they do not know the name of specific trees, and it was difficult to decide among the choices. There are some correlations between planting more trees, and species preferences and some socio-demographic characteristics (Table 22). The hightest was between level of education and age (.451), followed by age and native of the city (-.264), preference for specific tree and planting more trees(. 223), level of education and native of the city (.222), and age and preference for specific tree (.132). Therefore, it is important to consider this kind of correlation in targetting urban programs. Table 22. Correlations between socio-economic characteristics as well as planting more trees and species preferences. Planting Preference for Level of Age Gender Native of more trees specific tree education Puebla Planting more 1.00 .223 * * -.039 .035 .107 .083 trees Preference for 223* " 1.00 -.070 -. 132’ -.06 .043 specific tree Level of -.039 -.070 1.00 -.451*"‘ .150" -.222" education Age .035 -.l32"‘ -.451" 1.00 .015 -.264** Gender . 107 -.062 .150" " .015 1.00 -.056 Native of .083 .043 .22" -.264" -.056 1.00 Puebla " correlation is significant at the 0.01 level ‘ correlation is significant at the 0.05 level 4.8. Combination of Attitudes Variables. A selection of some important attitude variables was done using convined scales. They included problems residents have with urban trees, perceptions of positive and 50 negative characteristics, as well the importance of trees and shrubs in some areas of the city. Table 23 shows the reliability of the respective scale combination. Table 23. of attitude trees trees some areas Some means were statisticaly significant (Table 24). Combination of negative characteristics that respondents perceived regarding urban trees were the important ones. The means of these combinations depended on which variables were taken in account. Among the social groups, students (14.95) have higher perception than householders (13.60) and teachers (13.82). This may be related to the level of education. In the case of the householder income, people with no salary have higher perception (14.96) that poor (14.12), middle (13.42) and wealty (13.58) householders. Between level of education , respondents which have college education have the higher perception (14.51) than people with no college education (13.71). Table 24. Means of combined attitudes. College Middle Wealty No salary Householdes Teachers 51 There were significant means differences between positive characteristics and level of education (Table 24). Respondents that have college education have a higher perception (26.03) than respondents with not college education (24.72). It implies, even though respondents recognized negative trees charateristics, they recognize also the positives. 4.9. Interest in Tree Related Programs and Community Environmental Services. 4.9.1. Attitude Toward Tree Programs. Survey participants indicated a very high interest in paticipation in tree-related programs. From 275 respondents, 225 agreed to participate (81.1 percent). The highest rated program by respondents was environmental education (69.8 percent), (Table 25). It was followed by adopt a street tree (68.7 percent), ecological programs (67.6 percent), arbor day (42.8 percent), and finally, voluntary service (29 percent). Table 25. interest in tree related a street tree yes to no on a N= Total sample Athougth the mean for participation in tree programs is between yes and maybe (1.38 to 1.91), the willing to pay is between no and no opinion (2.00 to 2.22) (Table 26 ). That indicates the good possibilities for participation, but with no voluntary payment. However, environmental education received the highest percent of voluntary payment 52 (37.1 percent), while ecological program, arbor day, and voluntary service have a high percent in no payment. It implies the inclusion of city tree programs which include environmental programs, and could have voluntary participation (Table 25) of Puebla citizens. Table 26. to for more services. a street tree on a yes to 1.9.2. Improvement of Public Services in the Neighborhood. Respondents were asked to select from a list of 12 public services (Table 27) in terms of the condition of each one. The question was, “In your neighborhood, is the condition excellent, good, poor or there is no service. The mean in the range of the services was from 2.49 to 2.94. In general, the services were rated between 2 and 3; therefore services are between good and poor in condition. There are services where the condition of the majority of them are clasified as poor, such as water and services (60.7), law enforcement (60.1), followed by trash pick up (58.6), public transportation (51.9), trash in parks and plazas (49.3), public schools (48.7), and sewage (46.4). There are other services where a high percent is clasified as good, such as street trees (53.2), followed by traflic control (52.4), road repair (46.9), sidewalk (46.4), and recreational programs (35.2). There were no services where the high percent was excellent. The range was from 2.3 to 0.4 percent. Public transportation received 2.3 53 percent, and trash in parks and plazas, recreational programs, road repair, sidewalk, and sewage had 0.4 percent. Nine of the twelve services evaluated had less than one percent. Table 27. of services in the in Puebla rating "‘ on a to no N= Total sample There are neighborhoods in Puebla city where there are no services, such as recreational programs (30.4), followed by sewage (14.7), sidewalk (13.4), public transportation (10.5), trash in parks and plazas (8.4), public schools (7.9), street trees (6.5), law enforcement (5.9), trafi‘ic control (2.8) and finally trash pick up (.7). Seven of the twelve public services were clasified in poor condition, and five in good condition. Nine of twelve received less than one percent as excellent, and ten out of twelve do not have services. Water is a service that is in the whole city; however, a high percent (60.7) is in poor condition. Therefore, water needs to be improved, since it is basic for the majority of things. There are no recreational programs in many parts of the city. However 81.1 percent of the respondents agree to participate in programs, but only 18.3 percent are willing to pay for improvements of those programs. That implies that, people may volunteer for the implementation of programs but they can not pay. 54 2. Municipality Urban Management. The face-to-face interview was the method of data collection utilized regarding the management of green areas in Puebla city. The questionnaire was administered to six persons in charge of different offices for maintenance of urban vegetation, (Parks and gardens, north and south zone). They have the responsibilty of doing the maintenance and care of about 95 percent of green areas in the city. The places for maintenance and care are parks, open green land, street trees, downtown, green area around the monuments and statues, green area in residential places, and boulevards, among others. 2.1. Green Spaces in Puebla City. Since Puebla is a tourist city, it has many urban trees in parks, streets, avenues, commercial plazas, downtown, and carnellones However, the majority of trees are in parks, avenues and streets. About 710 parks, 84 boulevards, 7 historic places, many avenues, streets and boulevard medians are classified. Table 28 shows some examples of parks, their size, and their address. Table 28. Some in the of Puebla. S name Francisco Lamadrid sur venue Mendoza entre 55 2.2. City Maintenance. The maintenance of green area in the city of Puebla is mainly administrated by the municipality, althougth a low percent is by the state or private companies. Therefore, the municipality has under its responsibility the maintenance and care of about 95 percent of green areas. Parques y jardines ( parks and gardens) is the institution in charge. 2.2.1. Parks and Public Gardens Administration: flow chart Parks and gardens is an organization dependent on the municipality. It is divided in two zones for the maintenance of green areas in the city: north and south (figure 2). However, there is a general coordinator who has the total responsibility of maintenance. Zone north has one coordinator, 3 supervisors and 7 team workers (5 for omamentals and integrals and 2 for tree activities). In general, there are 150 persons employed in north area. Zone south has one coordinator, 4 supervisors, and 8 team workers (6 for omamentals and integrals, and 2 for tree activities). In total, the south zone has 200 persons employed. I general coordinator J I 1 [coordinator 01f north oficce] [coordinator of south oficcej I I I I I I l I 1 supervise” supervisorZ Isupervrsoral lsupervtsort I lsupetvisorzl IsupervisorSl lsupem'soHl steamworks |2teamwotksl |21eamworksl I2teamworksl |2teamworks| |2teamwotks| |2teamworks| Figure.2. Parks and public gardens; organization chart. 56 Parks and gardens have different equipment and machinery for doing the required maintenance and care activities (figure 3). equipment and machinery] I I I I I workshops warehouseI vehicles I water well 1 car ent for e D W I 9 1 light truck I mechanical} bricklayer I heavy truckI headin g I— water truckI Figure 3. Equipment and machinery from parks and gardens. There are 5 workshops, 2 warehouses, 50 vehicles, one water well and two nurseries. According to the general coordinator’s opinion the equipment and personnel are enough for maintaining green areas in acceptable condition. However, others had the opinion that the maintenance could be better if there were more personnel and equipment.There are also tools such as pruning saws, machetes, brooms, and mechanical saws, among others. These help with activities of cleaning parks, avenues, and streets. 2.3. Management of Urban Programs. There is not an official urban management program in the organization of parks and gardens. The way they maintain green areas is by performing routine activities such as watering, pruning, fertilizing, limestone application, pruning grass, cleaning, repairing games, and so on. However, the new administration (1999) has been creating a new project that relates to other existing programs and projects as follows: 57 1. PRONARE (National Program of Reforestation). This is a national program that provides economic resources for the propagation of plants and the salary of workers, while parks and gardens provide surface, water, and supervision. 2. Maintenance of habitation houses. This program is in coordination with other organizations such as public work, electricity, and garbage collection. 3. Schedule of activities for festivities. 4. Reforestation program of 11 South Avenue, which has an extension of 11 kilometers. It is a new project that includes activities of plant propagation, some of which are fruit species. Parks and gardens have priorities for the schedule of maintenance and care activities. They are in described in Table 29. Table 29. Criteria for the maintenance of green areas in Puebla city. are r are requested for important or historic events. are are many an are green areas With these established priorities, some parks receive frequent maintenance by the municipality. But some other parks receive maintenance one time a year or almost never. 2.4. Urban Tree Species. There are many species of trees in parks, streets, and avenues of the city. For many years the selection of the species for planting or reforesting has been done 58 depending on the selection criteria of the person in charge of each administration. Generally, the new trees are the trees that are available in nurseries, but when the city’s administration changes, the general coordinator changes too. Therefore, the new person in charge has new idea of how to maintain green areas, and how to select new species. As a consequence, the city has many species that are not native of this place; for example, the eucalyptus that are in many parks and streets. The forest species most utilized in parks, streets and boulevards are: pirul (Schinus molle), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sP), cedro bl3.1190(Cupressus SD), 13113th (Ligusmjaponicum), amate (ficus SP), 13031” anda (Jacaranda mimosaefolia), fresno (Fraxinus sp), laurel de la india (Ficus sp), colorin ( Erythrina sp), palmas ( Phoenix dactilifera and Euprichardia pacifica), W035 (Yucca 513), among others. 2.5. Maintenance Activities. There is a high diversity of activities, and in many cases the activity depends on the kind of maintenance place. However, the most common activities are: pruning, watering, grass cutting, calcetado“, pest control, painting of protection fences, repair of children’s toys, and trash pick up, among others (Table 30). Table 30. Maintenance activities in parks by parks and gardens. uP 4 Calcetado is the action of painting the base of tree with a mix of lime, salts, and oil. 59 2.6. Main Problems. There are many problems in the maintenance and care of Puebla’s green area. One of the main problems in the parks or in green areas is vandalism. Mainly teenagers who paint graffiti in seat places; writing on tree trunks with knifes, and walking on new plants do this. These greatly big damage the park. Another problem is the lack of communication with other organizations such as the Electric Company or the Phone Company. Because they prune trees without any specifications, trees lose their ornamental form. Huge quantities of garbage (especially after festivities) are another problem. There is no conscience about putting garbage in the appropriate place, and people generally throw it over the grass or streets. 60 5. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions 1. Puebla citizens consider the environment where they live and knowledge about it to be very important. Moreover, they believe that urban trees improve quality of life in the city. From the three groups analyzed the housekeeper group considered the environment very important followed by students and elementary teachers. Residents of Puebla city placed a high rating on the values that urban trees and parks represent for them. These are: shade that urban trees provide, sensation of feeling nature close, aesthetic attribute, fiuit producers, attractors of animals and the economic value. Gender influences the consideration of importance of the environment. Males considered the environment more important than females and elementary teachers did. Income also had influence on the consideration of importance of the environment. Poor people considered the environment more important, followed by wealthy people, middle income people and people with no salary. However, the three social groups considered that it is important to know about the environment. Out of 13 positively analyzed characteristics; give shade and bring nature close received the highest rating compared to increase property values and increase privacy, that received the lowest rating. Therefore, give shade and bring nature close are the two positive characteristics which are important for Puebla residents. 61 But, other characteristics such as: pleasing to the eye, flowers on trees, recreation activities, slow wind speed, and filter dust fiom air, represented values highly appreciated, too. The main concern of Puebla's residents regarding negative features of urban trees is related to night safety. Darken street at night was the negative characteristic that received the highest mean rating, followed by sidewalk damage, insects and disease, flowers parts fall, fruit or seed fall, falling branches, falling leaves in fall and block visibility. Almost 90 percent of the residents consider that more urban trees should be planted in the city of Puebla. The places that received the highest rating for planting, are parks and trees along the streets. In contrast, planting trees in front and back yards got the lowest preferences. The selected species by the respondents are eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp), laurel de la India (Ficus sp) and fresno (Fraxinus sp). Eighty percent of the respondents are interested in participating in tree related programs. Environmental education was selected as the first priority followed by adopt a street tree program, ecological programs, arbor day and finally voluntary service. However, although they agree to participate in tree programs, they are not willing to pay, or prefer not to give their opinion. Almost 50 percent of residents consider parks as very important. The housekeeper group gave the highest importance, followed by students, and finally elementary teachers. Males consider parks lightly more important than females and they are who visit parks more frequently parks with their children. Males 62 10. 11. consider the condition of parks to be better than females. This result was a E surprise, considering that females are traditionally the ones who take care of gardens, trees, and children, among other activities in the house. However, it indicates the trend in a middle size city such as Puebla, where residents planted more than 50 percent of the street trees and they are also taking care of them. As a desired attribute in local parks, gardens and flowerbeds received the highest percentage of selection as compared to walking and bicycle path, which received the lowest percentages. However, there are other attributes of parks which are appreciated, too, such as sport fields, presence of trees and shrubs, playground equipment, and picnic area. Residents planted more than 50 percent of the street trees, and they are taking care of them as well. City foresters are more concerned with the management of trees in parks, plazas, and downtown and main entrance boulevards. However, park trees are in the worst condition. This implies that a better schedule of activities probably needs to be performed in parks that are more frequently visited. As a complementary activity a display of visitors rules in visible park’s places is also needed. Scale combination of negative urban trees have strong perception by respondents from different level of education, different household income and different social group. Respondents that have college education, no salary, and the students group have the strong perception. However, a combination of positive characteristics had strong perceptions between the respondents with different level 63 l2. 13. 14. 15. of education. Respondents with college education have strong perception that not have it. Trafi‘ic control public service ranked at the top, as the service in the best condition, from a list of 12 public services. It was followed by street trees, trash pick up, water and services, road repair, public schools, trash in parks and plazas, sidewalks, law enforcement, public transportation, sewage, and recreational programs. There are neighborhoods where there are not public services, or they are far away. The top three are recreational programs, sewage, and sidewalk. In general, seven public services were classified in poor condition, and five in good condition. The institution responsible for doing the care and maintenance of 95 percent of green areas in the city is Parks and Gardens. It depends on the municipality management plans. However, there are private urban companies and state companies too. About 710 parks, 84 boulevards, 7 historic places, many avenues, many streets and carnellones are classified. For management, they are divided in north and south zones, each having a coordinator, supervisors and teamworkers. However, a general coordinator, who is changed when the municipality administration changes, administers both north and south. According to respondents, there is enough equipment and machinery for the maintenance of green areas in the city. However, there are priorities for the maintenance of green places. There are green spaces that are maintained frequently, there are others that are maintained once at year, and there are others 64 16. 17. 18. 19. not classified as important, which are almost never maintained. This implies that more personnel and equipment are required, since Puebla City is classified as a tourist historic place. Not only are the appearance of entrance boulevards and historic places important, but also all green areas are necessary for the maintenance of the image of the whole city. The main maintenance activities are watering, pruning, fertilizing, limestone application, pruning grass, cleaning, planting new trees, repairing game fields, and sometimes collection of trash. These activities are being done when required, and when the coordinator considers that planting more trees is needed, they do it. However, there is no specific criterion for the selection of urban species because they follow the current species in the park, or plant the species that are in the nurseries. There is not a management plan. The pen-and-pencil method, using elementary and middle schools as managers of questionnaires, was an appropriate method for doing the survey for the evaluation of urban trees attitudes among Puebla residents. It was an effective means of administration, since it helped to have questions answered with more responsibility and timely returns. On the other hand, face-to-face was an excellent method for gathering information on the institution in charge of maintenance and care of green areas in the city of Puebla (parks and gardens). There were no differences in return rates among the population samples (poor, middle and wealthy classes, elementary and middle schoolteachers and college students). However, college students returned the questionnaires most quickly. 65 20. More time was invested in administering questionnaires face-to-face than pen- and-pencil. But that was necessary because the population living close to parks and gardens was so small and some parts of the questionnaire, such as the budget section, required a special kind of introduction or modification. And, sometimes, the interpretation of the responses varied with the body expressions of the person being interviewed. However, this method was accepted because all of the persons interviewed by face-to-face method were friendly and showed responsibility. Recommendations 1. Elementary teachers gave the lowest mean rating to considers parks very important compared to student and housekeeper groups. In addition, elementary male teachers considered the environment as somewhat important. Therefore the implementation of a special educational program that will provide more environmental tools that help this group is recommended, since they are educating our children. On the other hand, students and housekeeper groups are agreed that it is important to know about the environment. They will help the city forestry managers to implement environmental programs, since they consider participation in these programs as a first priority. Although park trees received more maintenance by the city, they are in the worst condition. It could be because there is more direct touch between them and the frequent visitors and sometimes they are doing vandalism things. Therefore, some type of normative rules that help to guide park visitor behavior is necessary. 66 More than 50 percent of the visitors are males, and they are the ones taking care of r'fv _... children. Therefore, the specification of appropriate sanctions is recommended. Since the main concern of the residents is that trees darken streets at night, in future management plans, it is important to consider the selection of urban species and an appropriate density and pruning to provide more light. Under the study conditions, pen-and-pencil using elementary and middle school as research administrators was a good method for gathering information about resident’s attitudes about urban trees, and face-to-face was a good method for gathering information from administrators of green areas. When it is necessary to interview municipality management foresters, it is recommended to include a sample of employees mid-to-low level positions. It will create a different view of some issues. Further Implications. The management of urban vegetation in middle or high population cities is not an easy task. Basically, it needs the integration of two components: who is taking care of the urban vegetation, and who is living in touch with the urban vegetation. According to the interviews in this study with city foresters in the city of Puebla, the first component is working in acceptable conditions. However, the present management of both day-to-day and future activities does not contemplate any participation or preferences from Puebla's residents. Therefore, some possible alternatives for a better administration of green areas could be the following: 67 1. First of all, the creation of a management plan that integrates citizen’s preferences shown in this study. It could include among others: a) b) d) g) Since city parks represent a recreational place, it is important to consider that they are the only place where many Puebla residents pass their free time. Therefore, there should be comfortable rest places. Planting more trees in public parks and along streets, and with species such as eucalyptus, laurel de la India, and fresno. Removal of old, sick and dead trees should also be considered. A wide variety of species should be considered and tested Adequate density and size of the species of urban trees is required too. Citizens prefer tall shade trees for parks, and medium or tall size trees with no low branches for the streets. These kinds of preferences are related to safety. Therefore, it is very important to consider which species are recommended and planted. Planning the addition of more gardens and flower beds and sport fields, which are the two attributes that the residents prefer to see in the parks. Add the maintenance, by the city, of small parks not now considered as important. This implies more personnel, tools, machinery and budget. Since the interviewed people expressed positive environmental attitudes, it is important to implement such environmental activities as: adopt-a-street- tree, arbor day, ecological programs, voluntary service, and environmental studies, among others. 68 2. Some ways to achieve a genuine involvement of people in some activities of the city management plans may be: a) Holding informal neighborhood meetings, listening to what people want, their preferences, necessities and suggestions about maintenance and care of green areas. b) Trying to motivate them, offering the species that they want and some educational environmental programs. c) Forming advisory committees to encourage citizen participation. d) If the people feel that green spaces are their property, they will help with the maintenance, the cost of municipality management will decrease, and the city will be greener. Recommended Future Research for Managing Forest in Puebla City 1. The implementation of an urban inventory. This study will consist of a recognition of frequency and valuation of urban trees, classification of parks in the city according to frequency and kind of visitors, main activities, size, historic value, and location, among others. This kind of study will help to the municipality administration for the implementation of future and more suitable management plans. Recognition of the requirements of the most used urban tree species and selection of greater variety. This study will search what are the main requirements for the appropriate development of the urban species in the city. It will help the urban foresters in Puebla to classify which species are more appropriated for the new 69 reforestation in the city. Moreover, will be so important to consider people’s species preferences showed in this study. 70 APPENDICES 71 APPENDIX A Questionnaire English Version Urban Tree Attitude in the city of Puebla, Mexico. 72 fil‘dd COVER LETTER USED IN THE SURVEY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY URBAN TREE ATTITUDE STUDY IN PUEBLA CITY April 16, 1998 Dear Sir (Sirs). Thanks for your participation in this survey. This questionnaire will be used to determine how the dwellers of Puebla city in Mexico feel about the street trees, and public parks. The results are designed to be used by managers and professionals to help provide better services on tree selection and maintenance the public demands. You have been chosen completely at random and the answers will be kept anonymous and strictly confidential. No names appear on this survey, and your names will not will used in the report. The questionnaire includes all the instructions that you will need to fill it out; you can start on it any time. If you would like information, or a summary of these study results, please feel free to contact me at the address given bellow. The questionnaire will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Your answers are so important and necessary for the successful completion of the survey. I want to thank you for giving me your time and cooperation. Sincerely Rosa Garcia-Nunez Student in Michigan State University. 913 C Cherry Lane East Lansing MI 48823 73 CONSENT FORM . I consent to take part in a survey of attitudes toward urban trees in Puebla city, conducted by a student of Michigan State University in cooperation with the department of Parks and gardens of Puebla city. . The objectives of the study have been explained to me and what my participation will involve. . I understand that I do no have to answer all the questions and that I am free to discontinue my participation in the moment that I want during the interview. . I understand that my answers will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous in all the phases of the study. . I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any benefit for me. Signed Date 74 QUESTIONNAIRE URBAN TREE ATTITUDE SURVEY IN THE CITY OF PUEBLA, MEXICO SECTION I. Urban neighborhood information. The following questions refer to the trees growing along the street in your neighborhood and in your house. 1. Do you ever notice the trees in this area? Yes No 2. If you do, what interest has you about trees and shrubs? CHECK THOSE THAT APPLY. __a) Their economic value _d) Attraction of wild animals _b) Their aesthetic value _c) Feel the nature close to you _c) Recreational value _f) Fruits Other: _g) Shade 3. What is your overall opinion of the condition of the street trees in your neighborhood streets? CHECK ONE _excellent _very good _good poor 4. Who planted the street trees? _resident people _city foresters both no one 5. Who is taking care of the street trees? _resident people _city foresters both no one 75 6. How well do you think that the city is maintaining the street trees? CHECK ONE _excellent _very good good poor 7. Do you think that the trees along streets are appropriate for that space? Yes No 8. The pruning of street trees in your neighborhood is: CHECK ONE _excellent _very good good poor 9. If you had a choice, what size of street trees would you like to have lining your street? CHECK ONE _a) Large shade trees over 25 feet high _c) Smaller trees that flower in the spring _b) Smaller trees under 25 feet high d) A combination of a & c _e) No trees 10. Do you have any problem with the street trees in front of your house? _Yes (go to part b) _No b). Which kinds of problems have you in the trees in front of your house? CHECK THOSE THAT APPLY _a) Are the trees too tall _d) Problems with the sidewalk _b) Are the tree short in size _e) Attraction of animals _c) They create too much shadow around the house _f) Production of too much garbage _g) Other: 76 11. Who does most of the yard work? CHECK ONE husband wife son _daughter _gardener _other 12. Which kind of activities do you do in the trees and shrubs? CHECK THOSE THAT APPLY. _a) Watering __d) fertilizing _b) Pruning _e) Other _c) Weeding 13. Here are some public services. Please check bellow the condition of them in your neighborhood. SECTION II. Public parks information The following questions refer to the trees growing in the public parks. 14. How do you consider the parks in the city of Puebla? __ very important _important _not important 77 15. How often do you or your families visit a park? frequently regularly rarely none 16. Generally, who visits more frequently the parks in your family? mother _father _other (specify) 17. What type(s) of attributes would you like to see more of in your local parks? CHECK THOSE THAT APPLY. _a) Sport fields _e) Playground equipment _b) Picnic area _f) Gardens and flower beds ____c) Walking and bicycle path _g) Other _d) Trees and shrubs 18. What is your overall opinion of the condition of the trees in your local parks? CHECK ONE _excellent _very good _good poor 19. How well do you think that the city is maintaining the parks? CHECK ONE _excellent _very good good _poor SECTION 111. General information about trees. 20. How important is for you the environment where you live? very important _ somewhat important _no important 78 21. Do you think that trees on the city are important for improving the environmental quality of life? yes no 22. Here there are some possible features of the street trees. Please check below the degree of benefit that you receive from these trees. CHECK ONE ON EACH LINE ery benefit benefit answer 23. Here are some possible negative features of street trees. Please check below the degree of annoyance that you receive from these trees? CHECK ONE ON EACH LINE tree 0 an cry characteristics annoyance annoyance annoyance answer 01' 24. Do you feel that more trees should be planted in the city? _Yes (Answer question b) No 79 b). Do you prefer a specific place for more trees planting. CHECK THOSE THAT APPLY _a) In the streets _d) In the back yard _b) In the Parks _c) In the downtown _c) In the front yard _f) In commercial centers _g) Other 25. Do you have preference for specific tree? _Yes (go to question b) No b) What is your feeling about the following species of trees? much I like a Eucalyptus C 1116110 resno e k) Other: 26. Are you interested in participating in some tree programs? _Yes (go to question 27) No 80 27. Would you be willing to participate in these programs if available? CHECK ONE ON EACH LINE Yes May be/don’t know No a) Ecological programs _ _ _ b) Arbor Day programs c) Environmental education programs (1) Voluntary service e) Adopt a street tree program 28. Would you be willing to pay (a fee or tax) for more of the following community services? CHECK ONE ON EACH LINE Yes No No opinion a) Recreational programs b) Parks c) Environmental education (1) Street trees e) Bicycle path f) Other: 29. How important to you are trees and shrubs in the following areas? CHECK ONE ON EACH LINE Very Not No Important Important Important opinion a) In a city park _ _ _ _ b) In downtown and plazas __ __ _ c) Shopping areas _ _ _ _ d) In front yards of homes _ _ _ 81 e) Along residential streets f) In and around parking lots _ g) In industrial areas h) In back yards of homes 30. How important is it for you that the local government provides the following for its resident constituencies? CHECK ONE ON EACH LINE. Very Important important a) Wooded areas __ __ b) Tree lined street __ _ c) Open parkland __ __ d) Other __ __ Not important Not answer 31. How important is for you to know about the urban environment where you live? CHECK ONE. a) Very important b) Important c) Not important (I) Not answer 32. How interested are you in the management, care and maintenance of trees and forests in the city? CHECK ONE. __a) Very interested __b) Interested c) Not interested (I) Not answer 82 33. In your opinion which are the most important urban environmental problems in Puebla city? 34. What are other comments that you want to include?. SECTION III. Socio-econornic Characteristics The following information will be used in the statistical analysis. You will not be identified. 35.What is your main activity or profession? 36.How old are you? 37. Are you? _Male _Female 38. Are you native of the city of Puebla? Yes No 39. What is the highest year of schooling that you have completed? CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF YEARS. Elementary school 1 2 3 4 5 6 Middle school 1 2 3 High school 1 2 3 College 1 2 3 4 5 6 + 83 40. What is your approximate monthly household income? CHECK ONE __1-5 min wage _11-15 min wage _21-25 min wage _ 6-10 min wage _16-20 min wage _26 + 41. Is your building? : CHECK ONE _a house __an apartment _shared housing _a place of business 42. How long have you occupied this house/building? Years 43. Do you own or rent? _Own _rent 44. Which is the name of your neighborhood or street? 84 APPENDIX B Questionnaire English Version Municipal tree care 85 MUNICIPAL TREE CARE QUESTIONNAIRE General Information As person responsible for city tree care please indicate your title? What is the area that urban trees are covering in the city? How many parks are in the city? How do you classify the parks and the street trees? Which kind of activities do you plan to do in the urban trees? 999939!” Which percentage of the planned activity do you achieve? Activity % finished Geographical information of your municipality 7) How many square kilometers are within your jurisdiction? 8) On how many kilometers of street and other roadways are you responsible for tree care? 9) Which is the number of parks that you are responsible? 10) How do you classify the maintenance of parks and street trees? 11) Could you give some examples of parks of first, second and third priority? First Second Third 12. Is some other governmental agency also responsible for tree care within your jurisdictional area? 86 Manpower- Who gets the job done? 13. How many full time public employees, including managers, are involved with tree care? 14. Approximately what percent of there total time is spend on tree care activities? 15. How many seasonal employees are involved with the tree care? 16. What is the average number of months a seasonal employee works in a year? 17. Are there volunteers? 18. What are your concerns about manpower? 19. What are your suggestions Equipment- What do you do tree work with? 20. Could you write a list of the main equipment that you require? 21. Does your department has available all this equipment? 22. Which are the general conditions of the equipment? 23. Which kind of equipment are you likely to purchase in the next 1-4 years? 24. What are the main difficulties that you have with the equipment? 25. What are you suggestions? Budget-The money picture 26. Please indicate the position of the tree care within the governmental structure? 27. What is the total municipality budget? 28. What is the total annual parks and recreation budget? 29. What is your total annual tree care budget? 30. What percent of your above tree care budget is used in each of the following general areas? 87 Street trees % or $ Parks _% or $ Nursery maintenance _% or 3 Public grounds _% or $ Other (specify) _% or $ 31. What are the main concerns that you have related to budget? 32. What are you suggestions? Trees: how many, which ones, etc 33. How many street trees are located in your jurisdiction? 34. How was the number determined? _Survey by volunteers _Survey by city employees _Estimate Records __Other (specify) 35. Do you keep tree records? _Yes no 36. If yes, are they computerized? _Yes no 37.18 the value carried on the city books as a city asset? _Yes _No _Don’t’ know 38. List the 5 most commonly occurring tree species or varieties; if known, their number and percentage of total city trees. Species # % 88 39. How many street trees were planted in your municipality? 1987 1988 40. List of species most commonly planted Species # 41. Who choose the species? 42. What was the criterion for the selection of this species? 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY Agnes, M. 1999. Webster’s New world college dictionary. Macmillan . USA. 1716 p. Aranis, Ouano. M. E. 1991. Environmental attitude and its effects on growers’ nitrogen managements practices: A case study of St. Joseph county corn growers. M.S. thesis. Resource Development. MSU. 132p. Araujo, Nakai, M. 1994. Urban tree attitudes and comparison of three survey methods in the city of Curitiba, Brazil. Master of Science thesis. MSU. Department of Forestry. 139 p. Barker, Philip A. 1974. Trees as important components in man-oriented ecosystems. Handout gave in Urban Forestry class. Benavides, Meza H. M. 1992. Current Situation of the Urban Forest in Mexico City. Journal of Arboriculture. 18(1):33-36. Burch, W and Grove, J. 1993. People, trees and participation on the urban frontier. Unasylva 173 (44):]9-25. Caballero, Deloya. M. 1993. Urban Forestry in Mexico. Unasylva 173 (44):28-32 . 1986. Urban forestry activities in Mexico. Journal of Arboriculture 12(10): 251-256. Calvillo O. M. 1978. Areas verdes de la ciudad de Mexico. Anuario de Geografia. Universidad Autonoma de Mexico.(l6): 377-3 82. Careaga, A., Jerez V. 1984. Guia turistica De Mexico. Tomo : Queretaro, hidalgo, Tlaxcala y puebla. Edit. Promexa Mexico. Pag. 185. 91 Cape, G. 1996. Nature in the city: A community process. A cross-section of perspectives for informed public participation and decision making. Urban Forest 10:4-6. Departamento del Distrito Federal. 1991.Agua 2000. Estrategia para la ciudad de Mexico. Mexico DF. Dwyer, F. J., McPherson. E. G. , Schroeder W. H., Rowntree R. A. 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5):227-233. Escurra E. and Mazari. 1996. Are Megacities viable? A cautionary tale from Mexico city. Environment. 38(1) 6-15. Getz, D. A., Krow, A. and Kielbaso, J .J . 1982. Inner city preference for trees and urban forestry programs. Journal of Arboriculture 8(10): 258-263. Hall M., 1981. Trees and people. Journal of Arboricultue 7(1): 19-23. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografia e Infonnatica. 1996. Anuario Estadistico de Puebla. Gobiemo del Estado de Puebla. 1995. XI censo general de poblacion y vivienda 1990 y conteo de poblacion vivienda. INEGI Johnson, R.G., and Monear, J. 1994. A Child’s View of Urban Forestry, Journal of Aboriculture 20 (6): 332-340. Kalambach, K. L. and Kielbaso, J.J. 1979. Resident attitudes toward selected characteristic of street tree planting. Journal of Arboriculture 5 (6):124-129. Kielbaso, J .J . 1982. preference of Detroit residents for urban forests and forestry programs. In Proceeding of the 1982 convention of the society of American Foresters. Cincinnati OH. pages 349-3 52. 92 1993. Urban Forestry and Quality of Life in Cities. In: 10 Congresso florestal Panamericano 70. Congresso Florestal Panamericano. ANAIS preceedings. Volume 3. Pa. 122-126. Kuchelmeister, G. and Braatz, S. 1993. Urban and peri-urban forestry. Unasylva 173 (44):212. Legg, M.H. and Hicks, R. R. 1976. Public decision making in selecting trees for humans settlements. In J .W. Andersen, ed. Trees and Forests for Human Settlements. Center for Urban Forestry Studies, University of Toronto, Canada. 275-285 p. Lewis, R. F. 1996. Strategies for promoting Urban Forests. A cross-section of perspectives for informed public participation and decision making. Urban Forest 10:7-9. Miller, R.W. 1988. Urban Forestry. :Planning and managing urban greenspace. Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 404 p. Poder Ejecutivo Federal. 1996. Programa F orestal y del Suelo 1995-2000. SEMARNAP. pp. 18. Reeder, E. C. and Gerhold, H. D. 1993. Municipal tree programs in Pennsylvania. Journal of Arboriculture 19(1) : 12-19. Rivera, R. 1997. Puebla de los Angeles. Ciudad hecha por y para Espanoles. El Universal.(O4/16/97). Seccion C. Puebla Puebla. Rojas, N. 1997. Puebla de los Angeles: Utopia y realidad. El Universal (04/ 16/97). Seccion B. Puebla, puebla. Schroeder, H.W. and Appelt, P. 1985. Public attitudes toward municipal forestry programs. Journal of Arboriculture 11(1): 18-21. 93 Shafer, E. L. and Richards, T. A. 1974. A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scene and photographs of those scenes. US Department of Agriculture. Forest Service Research Paper NE-302. 26 p. Sommer R., P.A. Baker, H. Guenther, and K. Kurani. 1989. Householder evaluation of two street tree species. Journal of Arboriculture. 15(4): 99-103. Sommer, R. 1992. Public Perceptions of Street Trees. In: Proceedings of the Fifth National Urban Forestry Conference. Los Angeles, CA. pp.59-6l. Sommer, R., Guenther,H., and Barker, RA. 1990. Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal 9(2): 79-85. Sommer, R., Guenther,H., Barker, RA. and Swenson, J. P. 1993. Comparison of four methods of street tree assessment. Journal of Arboriculture 19(1): 27-34. Sommer, R. and B. A. Sommer. 1989. The factor structure of street tree attributes. Journal of Arboriculture. 15(10) : 243-246. Starkey, G. D. 1979. Trees and their relationship to mental health, Journal of Arboriculture, 5 (7): 153-154. Werier, J. 1996. Trees and the quality of life. A cross-section of perspectives for informed public participation and decision making. Urban Forest 10: 10-11. Word Development Report.1996. From Plan to Market. World Bank, Oxford University Press. p 184-222. 94 "Illlllllllllllillllf