Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 42(4): July 2016 Advocacy Overall, 41% of cities responding to the survey had a tree board, and 40% had a non-profit group that regularly facilitated or donated tree planting or tree care on public property. Non-profit groups became much more common as city size increased, with 58% of large cities and 100% of mega cities hav- ing at least one non-profit advocacy group. A very similar trend was seen with tree boards as well. Studies focusing on other states found similar results, including a survey of municipal forestry programs and tree wardens in Massachusetts, U.S., where Rines (2007) found that 41% of respondents had attained a group that advises/ advocates for the “planting, protection, and/or maintenance of . . . community trees.” Kuhns et al. (2005) conducted a survey of Utah, U.S., com- munities and found 23% of respondents had a “tree board or similar committee.” In California, Thompson (2006) found that 58% of communi- ties had a tree board/commission with “duties or some duties,” and that 23% of communities had a tree advocacy group. Ries et al. (2007) found that 38% of cities had a “tree advisory committee.” Overall, the number of Texas cities with these two types of advocacy groups is similar to results found representing other states. However, con- sidering the minimal expenses associated with establishing these potentially influential groups, they should be given more attention from advo- cates and urban foresters. Tree boards are com- prised of volunteers and can cost very little to implement except volunteers’ time. Non-profit groups may be more complicated to operate by comparison, since a tree board relies on the municipal government for administration and 273 organization, whereas a non-profit group gen- erally does not expect this type of assistance. However, both types of groups are probably under-utilized based on the results of this survey. Urban Forest Management Plans Ries et al. (2007) found that only 9% of Oregon communities had a “community forest manage- ment plan.” In a large study of Missouri commu- nities, Treiman et al. (2011) found that 17% of mayors and city councilors (n = 824) and 17% of city department heads (n = 521) responded that they had a management plan, while only 4% of urban foresters responded that their city had a management plan (n = 28). In Texas, researchers found that urban forestry manage- ment plans are very uncommon overall at 13% and were most common among large cities (33%). None of the four responding cities over 500,000 (mega cities) had a management plan at the time this survey was distributed (i.e., Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio), al- though Austin has since successfully passed one through its City Council thereby finally fulfilling a 22-year-old ordinance mandate. This exem- plifies the difficulty often faced when establish- ing comprehensive/master urban forest plans. Plans are difficult to implement because the management objectives they contain “should be defined based on an understand- ing of public attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge, a review of the agents of change, and the expressed needs and concerns of the community (client)” (Miller et al. 2015). This means a thorough planning process is costly in terms of money and/or employee time, and Table 4. Management plans, inventories, and steps removed from city leadership by spending measures. All currency in USD$. Spending levels $ per capita <$2 $2–$9 >$9 Overall Total % of budget <0.1% 0.1%–1.0% >1.0% Overall Percent with management plan Respondents 30 25 9 64 21 29 8 58 (%) 7 16 44 16 5 14 50 16 Percent with street tree inventory Respondents 29 25 8 62 20 29 7 56 (%) 17 40 0 24 10 35 14 23 Percent with park tree inventory Respondents 30 24 8 62 21 28 7 56 (%) 10 46 13 24 19 36 0 25 Steps removed Average 3.6 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.1 3.9 ©2016 International Society of Arboriculture
July 2016
| 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
