142 Elmendorf et al.: Arboriculture and Urban Forestry Education in the U.S. were used to answer one question (“Please circle the number that best describes your opinion of their impor- tance in urban forestry education”) using a 5-point Likert- type scale format as described above. One component or dimension was extracted to reflect the respondents’ attitude about land use planning. The land use planning variable was constructed from four original survey scales: zoning, subdivi- sion, and land use regulation, comprehensive land use plans, transfer of development rights, and watershed planning. This factor had an eigenvalue of 3.7, explained 34% of the variation in the matrix, and had an acceptable alpha of 0.88. Safety To assess differences in respondents’ attitudes about safety, a composite scale was constructed by logically combining four related scales. Initially, the four scales were used to answer one question (“Please circle the number that best describes your opinion of their importance in arboricultural education”) using a 5-point Likert-type scale format as described above. The safety variable was constructed from four original survey scales: safe work practices, OSHA standards, ANSI A300 standards, and ZI33.1 standards. This factor had an acceptable alpha of 0.85. Tree Preservation During Construction To assess differences in respondents’ attitudes about tree preservation during construction, a single 5-point Likert-type scale found in the original survey was used. Initially, this scale was used to answer the survey question (“Please circle the number that best describes your opinion of their importance in arboricultural education”) using a 5-point Likert-type scale format as described above. Tree Structure To assess differences in respondents’ attitudes about tree structure, a composite scale was used. Initially, 19 scales were used to answer one question (“Please circle the number that best describes your opinion of their importance in arboricultural education”) using a 5-point Likert-type scale format as described above. One component or dimension was extracted to reflect the respondents’ attitudes about tree structure. The tree structure variable was constructed from five original survey scales: tree anatomy and physiology, decay and compartmentalization, tree condition risk management, plant disease identification and treatment, and tree pruning. This factor had an eigenvalue of 1.8, explained 63% of the variation in the matrix, and had an acceptable alpha of 0.84. Urban Forest Management To assess differences in respondents’ attitudes about urban forest management, a composite scale was used. Initially, 19 scales were used to answer one question (“Please circle the number that best describes your opinion of their impor- ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture tance in urban forestry education”) using a 5-point Likert- type scale format as described above. One component or dimension was extracted to reflect the respondents’ atti- tudes about urban forestry. The urban forest management variable was constructed from five original survey scales: community tree management plans, urban forest manage- ment, shade tree commission role and function, street and park tree inventory systems, and street tree ordinances. This factor had an eigenvalue of 3.36, explained 31% of the variation in the matrix, and had an acceptable alpha of 0.91. DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS Demographics Eighty-one percent (105) of the respondents were male, and 19% (24) were female. The oldest respondent was 73, the youngest 28. The mean age was 48. Four respondents indicated they had a 2-year degree, 15 a 4-year college degree, 47 a master’s degree, and 63 a Ph.D. Eighty-eight percent (119) indicated they were white. One person listed African American and one person listed Asian. No persons indicated they were Hispanic or Latino. Eleven percent of the respondents were from Pennsylvania, 9% from New York, 7% from Illinois, 6% from Wisconsin, 6% from California, and 5% from Ohio. Fourteen states had only one respondent. Forty-seven percent of the respondents indicated that they taught in cities, 12% in suburbia, and 44% indicated they taught in towns. Twenty- seven percent taught at a 2-year college, 39% taught under- graduate students at a university, 30% taught graduate students at a university, and 43% had extension responsibilities. Forty percent indicated they had worked in the field for 1 to 9 years, 33% indicated 10 to 20 years, and 27% indicated 20+ years. Thirty-five percent indicated the majority of their work involved arboriculture, 28% urban forestry, and 64% both arboriculture and urban forestry. Forty-five percent indicated they had worked as a practicing arborist, and 38% indicated they had worked as a practicing urban forester. Forty-one percent indicated that they were Certified Arborists. Attitudes About Arboricultural and Urban Forestry Educational Topics Tables 3 and 4 provide a summary of the importance ranking of arboriculture and urban forestry educational topics. Reviewed together, the top five arboricultural and urban forestry educational topics considered very impor- tant by respondents were tree planting (98% important), tree pruning (97%), tree selection (95%), tree soil/water relations (93%), and tree structure/decay (92%). Other educational topics considered very important by respon- dents were plant insect identification (92%), tree identifica- tion (90%), preserving trees in construction (89%), tree risk management (88%), tree anatomy and physiology (88%), tree nutrition (85%), safe work practices (85%), ethics (84%), and urban forest management (80%).
May 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
