Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 44(4): July 2018 respondents unaware of the by-law, while the Brampton neighborhood respondents had a sig- nificantly lower number with knowledge of the by-law (Cramer’s V 0.149, P < 0.001). Based on survey responses, common sources of knowledge about the by-laws were local newspapers, arbor- ists who were hired to remove trees, construc- tion contractors completing renovations that required removal of trees, community groups (e.g., residents’ associations), and neighbors. Respondents were significantly more likely to know about the by-law if they had more trees on their property or had removed trees since taking up residency in their current house (Table 4). The number of trees planted was not sig- nificantly related to by-law awareness. Addi- tionally, those with a university degree, and residents born in Canada had a significantly higher rate of knowledge, while those who had lived in their house less than two years were less likely to know about the by-law (Table 5). In terms of specific components of the by-law, in four of the five study neighborhoods, “Tree removal on private property should not be regu- lated by the city” was the most common response to whether the minimum tree size and number requiring a permit for removal was appropriately defined in their municipality’s by-law (Figure 2a). Table 3. Basic knowledge that private urban tree pro- tection by-law exists. Neighborhood Etobicoke North York Scarborough Mississauga Brampton Aware the by-law existed (%) 71 56 70 62 44 Table 4. T-test results for survey respondents’ awareness of their municipality’s by-law in relation to the number of trees of their property, total number of trees planted while in current house, and total number of trees removed while in current house.z Response Yes No T-test statistic (P-value) Total trees on property 9.0 7.0 2.491 (0.013) z The sample size is 1,075. No. of trees planted 4.6 4.0 1.005 (0.315) No. of trees removed 2.7 1.9 3.700 (<0.0001) 191 The second most common component was “Num- ber and size as defined is appropriate.” However, no option was selected by more than 50% of respondents, suggesting divergent opinions exist. Scarborough had the highest percentage of resi- dents that believed regulating private tree removal was not a municipal responsibility (50%), and the three Toronto neighborhoods had the high- est number of respondents who felt that the by- law was too strict (18% to 21%). The Mississauga neighborhood differed from the other four, with respondents significantly more likely to support the current standards as compared to the other municipalities (Table 5), although these standards are more lenient than Brampton and Toronto’s by-laws and support-levels were still below 50%. The pattern of most respondents (i.e., more than 60%) choosing either the no regulation option or the current regulation is appropriate option held for the tree replacement requirement and permit costs (Figure 2b; Figure 2c). For tree replacement requirements, the most common answer in three neighborhoods was that the cur- rent regulation is appropriate, while this was the most common answer in only one neighborhood for permit costs. Similar to tree size and num- ber requirements, Mississauga respondents were significantly more likely to support the current regulation and less likely to support not regu- lating private tree removals than respondents in other municipalities (Table 5). However, no option was selected by more than 50% of respon- dents in Mississauga or the other neighborhoods. Support for more stringent requirements regarding the number and size of trees regulated, replacement requirements, and cost of a permit was associated with households that had signifi- cantly more trees on their property, as compared to those respondents who did not think there should be any regulation (Figure 3). Addition- ally, respondents who stated the current by-law replacement requirements were too lenient had planted a significantly higher number of trees, on average, as compared to those who felt the by- law was too strict (Figure 4). Surprisingly, the number of trees recently removed was not sig- nificantly related to the type of support associ- ated with size (P = 0.483), tree replacement (P = 0.416), or permit cost requirements (P = 0.415). ©2018 International Society of Arboriculture
July 2018
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
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.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
