Search

Abstract Hunting has important social, cultural, economic, and conservation benefits. Information on hunters’ motivations and expectations for a hunting experience can help support decision‐making by state and federal wildlife managers. We surveyed deer (Odocoileus spp.) and elk (Cervus canadensis) hunters participating in controlled hunts in eastern Oregon to describe hunter characteristics and experiences, including the importance of hunting motivational factors and specific setting attributes (2017–2019; n = 501). We compared differences between hunters’ ratings of importance and satisfaction and identified factors of particular importance for hunters with different characteristics. Survey response rates were high, ranging from 97% in 2017 to 81% in 2019. We found that the intangible benefits of hunting were most important to hunters, with enjoyment and spending time with friends and family emerging as the top‐ranked hunting motivations by importance. Motivations differed by gender, age and hunting avidity. Women rated getting meat for themselves and family higher than did men ( x ¯ = 4.67 vs. 4.26). Frequent hunters ranked many experiential elements of a hunt higher in importance than less frequent hunters (e.g., Seeing animals in the wild, x ¯ = 4.52 vs. 4.19; Fun and enjoyment, x ¯ = 4.50 vs. 4.21; Thrill of the chase, x ¯ = 4.34 vs. 3.97). Older hunters considered learning experiences less important than younger hunters (New experience, developing new skills, x ¯ = 2.72 vs. 3.52; Gaining knowledge about the outdoors, x ¯ = 3.14 vs. 3.83). We also found that the attributes of the specific hunt setting were less important than the broad factors that motivate hunting participation. Our results provide context for hunting retention and reactivation efforts and can be used to identify opportunities to recruit new hunters whose diversity reflects that of background populations in the U.S.

Several recent longitudinal studies have found that exposure to the natural environment is associated with lower non-accidental mortality. However, most of these studies used the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) as an exposure metric; and because NDVI might not be sensitive enough to adequately capture changes in urban vegetation, these studies might lack true longitudinal variation in exposure. Therefore, we used a natural experiment to assess the impact of 30 years of tree planting by the nonprofit Friends of Trees on non-accidental, cardiovascular, lower-respiratory, and accidental mortality in Portland, Oregon (mortality data were provided by the Oregon Health Authority). We estimated autoregressive mixed models of Census-tract level mortality rate (deaths per 100,000 population) associated with trees planted, including a tract-level random effect. All models used data from the American Community Survey to control for year, race, education, income, and age. Each tree planted in the preceding 15 years was associated with significant reductions in non-accidental (-0.21, 95 % CI: −0.30, −0.12) and cardiovascular mortality (-0.066, 95 % CI: −0.11, −0.027). Furthermore, the dose–response association between tree planting and non-accidental mortality increased in magnitude as trees aged and grew. Each tree planted in the preceding 1–5 years was associated with a reduction in mortality rate of −0.154 (95 % CI: −0.323, 0.0146), whereas each tree planted in the last 6–10 and 11–15 years was associated with a reduction in mortality rate of −0.262 (95 % CI: −0.413, −0.110) and −0.306 (95 % CI: −0.527, −0.0841) respectively. Using US EPA estimates of a value of a statistical life, we estimated that planting a tree in each of Portland’s 140 Census tracts would generate $14.2 million in annual benefits (95 % CI: $8.0 million to $20.4 million). In contrast, the annual cost of maintaining 140 trees would be $2,716–$13,720.

Research suggests that social cohesion partially mediates the health benefits of being exposed to the natural environment. However, past studies have relied on self-reported measures of social cohesion that have well-documented limitations. Therefore, we evaluate the impact of tree planting on social cohesion using voter-turnout data as an objective metric of social cohesion. Our study area is the 141 Census tracts in Multnomah County, Oregon that fall within (>50% area) the City of Portland. We used biennial primary and general-election turnout data from 2002 to 2020, and tree-planting data from the Portland based non-profit Friends of Trees. We estimated mixed models of voter turnout including tract-level random effects and controlling for socioeconomic status. Voter turnout and tree planting may be codetermined, so lagged tree-planting variables were used in all regression models. We found that each tree planted 10–11 years before an election was associated with a 0.020% (95% CI: 0.013–0.027) increase in general election turnout and a 0.016% (95% CI: 0.0089–0.023) increase in primary turnout. As the length of the planting lag decreased, the association between tree planting and voter turnout, in both primary and general elections, declined in significance and magnitude. Our results add to the body of evidence suggesting that social cohesion partially mediates the health benefits of exposure to the natural environment.