Journal of Arboriculture 31(5): September 2005 245 who found that a large majority of small-city respondents in one Louisiana community felt that their community’s performance in tree protection and maintenance was “good to excellent.” The dissonance between the high ranking that Missourians gave to natural resources and how well they felt Missouri was doing at addressing those issues may show where the public would like to see more effort placed, and provide an opening for public education programs. Respondents were also asked how important it was to have various items as part of the community forestry program run by their community. Managing hazard trees received the highest total of “very important” or “somewhat important” responses (93%), closely followed by tree planting (92%) and tree maintenance (92%). A smaller percentage, 59% of respondents, thought that tree inventory was important (Table 3). Note that respondents were not told about the costs of these items or any trade-offs between items, so responses represent a “pie-in-the-sky” ideal program. Sixty-one percent of respondents agreed (“strongly” or “somewhat”) that public trees in their community were in Table 2. Comparison of issue importance and issue success. Percentages represent the total of respondents answering either “very important” or “somewhat important,” and the total of respondents answering either “very well” or “well” (χ2 P < 0.0001). = 29737.1, DF 6, Issue Quality of natural resources Having trees on streets and in parks Responding “important” 98% 95% Making sure fewer trees are lost during development 88% Managing stormwater runoff 92% Responding doing “well” 67% 76% 28% 37% Table 3. Percentage of respondents saying that a compo- nent was a “very important” or “somewhat important” part of a community forestry program (χ2 6, P < 0.0001). Program component Planting trees Caring for new trees after planting Having a tree law that defines the community’s responsibility for tree care and maintenance Counting, measuring, and monitoring trees Pruning for tree shape and safety good condition, and only 21% saw hazard trees as a problem in their communities. Slightly more respondents (28%) thought their communities had enough public trees than disagreed (27%), with 29% being “neutral” and 14% saying they did not know. About 73% said that trees counted as “community assets.” Over 60% said that their community was a better place to live thanks to public trees. Except for hazard trees, this study did not break down specific costs and benefits related to urban trees, as did work by, for example, Lohr et al. (2004), but respondents in the focus groups used to test the survey noted many of the same benefits that Lohr et al. did (e.g., shade, aesthetics, and pollution control). Respondents were asked which from a list of departments were responsible for tree care in their towns. For all the possibilities on the list except “Parks & Recreation,” “do not know” was the highest response. (For “Parks & Recreation,” 53% said “yes” it was responsible, while 41% said “do not know.”) The plurality of respondents did not know whether their communities provided enough resources (employees, money, and equipment) to manage trees (27%) or whether their communities were doing enough to protect trees during development (23%). Only 11% thought that people in their communities would be willing to pay more in taxes for better tree care. (χ2 = 10303.2, DF = 6, P < 0.0001). = 15211.1, DF Responding “important” 92.1% 93.3% 59.9% 59.7% 85.8% Removing trees that might break and cause injury or property damage 93.0% The Hypothetical Tree Fund Across all ten strata, respondents were willing to vote yes on the hypothetical ballot issue to establish a tree care fund (Table 4). Overall, 53% of respondents said that they would vote yes. In general, more people responded positively in larger communities or those around major cities (i.e., the St. Louis and Kansas City suburbs). This trend may reflect either a greater awareness of the need for such a fund in larger communities or a greater willingness to turn to the govern- ment to solve those problems. The response to the range of hypothetical taxes that would support the tree fund makes economic sense: As the level of tax rises, the level of support decreases. Still, even at the highest hypothetical tax level ($20), more respondents (43.8%) said they would vote yes than said no (26.5%) (χ2 = 165.6, DF = 18, P < 0.0001). Respondents were also asked to choose from a list of statements those which most influenced their “vote.” The leading reasons chosen (overall) were “amount of the tax,” “community responsibility for trees,” and “condition of trees in my community.” Again, basing one’s “vote” on the level of proposed tax makes economic sense. The other two popular reasons give insight into how people think about their community’s trees and their importance. It is interest- ing to note that “yes” voters were far more likely than “no” voters to list “community responsibility for trees” and “condition of trees in my community“ as important reasons, while “no“ voters were far more likely than “yes” voters to ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture
September 2005
| 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
