166 Zhang and Zheng: Urban Trees Programs from Municipal Officials' Perspective no significant impact on the financing of urban tree programs. The fact that demand for urban trees is high does not mean the local officials will spend more on urban tree programs. The cost of urban trees and their affordability are primary concerns for the municipal officials. This suggests that so- cial economic factors, such as percentage of Caucasian citi- zens, household income level, and the poverty rate were sig- nificant predictors, which is consistent with Zhu and Zhang (2006) and Zhu and Zhang (2008), which reported positive impacts of economic development on support for urban trees. Furthermore, providing citizens with the opportunity to be active in promoting community trees is an important part of management. Funding might also be alleviated by us- ing volunteers, grants, and available technical advice. Vol- untary activities and personal donations provide important support for urban tree programs, especially when funding is limited. Findings suggested that about half of the cities of- fered opportunities for their citizens to volunteer in order to provide support for urban trees in their community, but less than half of cities provided the opportunity for dona- tion. Further, based on these findings, the percentage of pri- vately funded urban tree programs was higher than publicly funded ones. Individual donation is a very important source for financing urban tree programs. More efforts can be made. The regression results revealed that large cities usually pro- vided more opportunities for citizens to support tree programs. Community involvement in management is prevalent (Sten- house 2004). Large cities usually have more tree agencies and accessible forest services, which can provide more opportuni- ties for citizens to be involved in urban forestry, not only as a volunteer but also with a monetary donation. Tree agencies also played an important role in getting funding/donations from government, businesses, or individual persons. Alabama forest- ry services provided reliable source of information and techni- cal support for urban trees. Together they provided the public with comprehensive information and service about trees. Bet- ter understanding and effective use of tree agency and forestry services will also help to finance urban tree programs, includ- ing tree planting, maintenance, and debris and tree removal. Mayors had relatively more knowledge about Alabama forest service. They were relatively more concerned about tree plant- ing and maintenance costs than were council members and ad- ministrators. However, relatively minor differences were found among the three types of officials in regards to their preferences of trees’ benefits and disadvantages. This result was consistent with findings from Ricard (1994) and Stevenson et al. (2008). A good understanding of the benefits of urban trees and an awareness of available forestry services will help to promote ur- ban tree programs. Municipal officials should be provided with more chances to get specific training or education opportunities in their work. Mail and internet are important ways to get in- formation. Having classes or seminars offered on topics related to urban tree care is also an effective way to spread knowledge about urban trees. Support from forestry professionals in the Alabama forestry service is also recommended as a good option. LITERATURE CITED Allen, L. 1995. A social, economic, and political analysis of Missouri’s urban forest. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S. 135 pp. Dwyer, J.F., D.J. Nowak, and M.H. Noble. 2003. Sustaining urban for- ests. Journal of Arboriculture 29(1):49–55. Elmendorf, W.F., V.J. Cotrone, and J.T. Mullen. 2003. Trends in urban forestry practices, programs and sustainability: Contrasting a Penn- sylvania, U.S. study. Journal of Arboriculture 29:237–247. Grado, S.C., D.L.,Grebner, M.K., Measells, and A.L. Husak. 2006. Sta- tus, needs, and knowledge levels of Mississippi’s communities rela- tive to urban forestry. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32:24–31. Green, T.L., T.J., Howe, and H.W. Schroeder. 1998. Illinois Small Com- munity Tree Programs: Attitudes, Status, and Need. Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois, U.S. 124 pp. Jim, C.Y., and W.Y. Chen. 2006. Perception and attitude of residents to- ward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environmental Man- agement 38(3):338–349. Kielbaso, J. 1990. Trends and issues in city forests. Journal of Arboricul- ture 16(3):69–76. Lewis, C.A. 1992. Effects of plants and gardening in creating interper- sonal and community well-being. In: D. Relf (Ed.). The Role of Hor- ticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National Symposium. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, U.S. Pincetl, S. 2010. Implementing municipal tree planting: Los Angeles mil- lion-tree initiative. Environmental Management 45:227–238. Relf, D. 1992. Human issues in horticulture. HortTechnology 2(2): 159–171. Ricard, R.M. 1994. Urban and community forestry survey results. Uni- versity of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System, Haddam, Con- necticut, U.S. 54 pp. Robeson, H.L. 1984. Urban forestry in the Chicago suburbs. Journal of Arboriculture 10:113–116. Schroder, H.W., T.L., Green, and T.J. Howe. 2003. Community tree pro- grams in Illinois, U.S.: A statewide survey and assessment. Journal of Arboriculture 29(4):218–225. Stenhouse, R.N. 2004. Local government conservation and management of native vegetation in urban Australia. Environmental Management 34(2):209–222. Stevenson, T.R., H.D. Gerhold, and W.F. Elmendorf. 2008. Attitudes of municipal officials toward street tree programs in Pennsylvania, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(3):144–151. Summit, J., and E.G. McPherson. 1998. Residential tree planting and care: A study of attitudes and behavior in Sacramento, California. Journal of Arboriculture 22(2):89–97. Thompson, R., R. Hanna, J. Noel, and D. Piirto. 1999. Valuation of trees aesthetics on small urban-interface properties. Journal of Arboricul- ture 25(5):225–233. Treiman, T., and J. Gartner. 2005. What do people want from their com- munity forests? Results of public attitude survey in Missouri, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 31(5):243–250. Wolf, K.L. 2003. Public responses to the urban forest in inner-city busi- ness districts. Journal of Arboriculture 29(3):117–126. Zhang, Y., A. Hussian, J. Deng, and N. Letson. 2007. Public Attitudes to- wards urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environment and Behavior 39(6):797–814. Zhu, P., and Y. Zhang. 2006. Demand for urban forests and economic welfare: evidence from the Southeastern U.S. Cities. Journal of Agri- cultural and Applied Economics 38(2):279–285. Zhu, P., and Y. Zhang. 2008. Demand for urban forests in United States cities. Landscape and Urban Planning 84:293–300. ©2012 International Society of Arboriculture
July 2012
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
