Journal of Arboriculture 31(5): September 2005 247 Tree City USA Tree City USA, sponsored by The National Arbor Day Foundation in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters, provides direction, technical assistance, public attention, and national recogni- tion for urban and community forestry programs in towns and cities that are home to more than 93 million people in the United States. To qualify as a Tree City USA, a community must have: (1) a tree board or department, (2) a tree care ordi- nance, (3) a community forestry program with an annual budget of at least $2 per capita, and (4) an Arbor Day observance and proclamation (Na- tional Arbor Day Foundation 2005). Of the 44 communities that were included in the questionnaire’s mailing list, 20 had qualified as a Tree City USA. Because publicity is one of the four Tree City USA standards, we asked respon- dents whether their community was a Tree City USA. In Table 5, the column headed “Right” indicates the percentage of respondents who were correct (answering “yes” if they lived in a Tree City USA community or “no” if they did not), while the column headed “Wrong” indicates the percentage of those answering “no” if they lived in a Tree City USA community or “yes” if they did not. The column headed “Tree City” breaks down each strata into communities that were/were not a Tree City USA and indicates how many communities fell into each category. Note that all communities in the survey with populations between 20,001 and 250,000 (as well as St. Louis and Kansas City) were a Tree City USA. The vast majority of respondents did not know whether they lived in a Tree City USA, and, of those who thought that they knew, many answered incorrectly. In general, residents of smaller commu- nities were somewhat more likely to answer correctly (χ2 Strata Less than 5,001 = 748.8, DF = 38, P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS When seeking public support for the management of a community’s tree infrastructure, understanding the public’s needs, desires, and knowledge is essential. Elmendorf and Luloff (2001) found that the “concerns, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of some people continue to be misstated, unknown, and ignored”—leading to failures in community forest planning and management. They recommend better collection and use of unbiased public attitude data and that communication between the public and urban forestry officials go in both directions. The information from this survey in Missouri is a step in both directions. By following standard survey methodology, unbiased information was collected. This information can be used to develop a communications and education plan Table 5. Percentage of respondents correctly identifying their communities as Tree City USA/Not Tree City USA, by strata. Tree City Right Wrong Did not know Yes (1) 40.00% 9.33% 50.67% No (9) 20.53% 9.02% 70.45% Between 5,001 and 10,000 Yes (2) 22.81% 9.94% 67.25% No (5) 14.41% 9.25% 76.34% Between 10,001 and 20,000 Yes (3) 36.30% 8.52% 55.19% No (4) 18.94% 7.45% 73.60% Between 20,001 and 50,000 Yes (2) 8.27% 8.71% 83.02% Between 50,001 and 150,000 Yes (2) 10.68% 5.84% 83.48% Between 150,001 and 250,000 Yes (1) St. Louis suburbs Kansas City suburbs St. Louis Kansas City 16.54% 7.28% 76.18% Yes (6) 25.18% 7.44% 67.38% No (3) 4.38% 43.80% 51.82% Yes (2) 15.74% 6.79% 77.47% No (2) 10.60% 8.94% 80.46% Yes (1) 14.15% 11.37% 74.48% Yes (1) 18.04% 6.33% 75.62% with a schedule of implementation. Residents do not know the extent of their community’s tree resource, its conditions, and the activities that have been undertaken to care for the trees. Developing a repository of tree-related education and communication plans with easy access would be a valuable tool to many communities. Natural Resource Issues and Community Forestry Programs Missourians value the state’s natural resources but feel that not enough is being done to adequately address several key issues. Notably, survey respondents felt that the issues of managing stormwater runoff and making sure fewer trees are lost during development were inadequately addressed. This documented concern could perhaps be a springboard to securing community support to address issues. Survey respondents showed overwhelming support for caring for new trees after planting, removing trees that might break and cause injury or property damage, and planting trees. This could be interpreted as a concern to care for a community’s existing tree resource and then to replace what has been lost. The idea of conducting an inventory to assess current tree conditions and having a tree law that defines the community’s responsibility for tree care and maintenance received much less support. A plan for communicating the condition, existing maintenance needs, number, and location of existing trees; city departments responsible for work; the backlog of work; the reason for backlog (reduced budget, storm damage, etc.); and sources for further information would be con- structive in most Missouri communities. Sharing current research finds pertaining to people’s perceptions and ©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
