274 O'Herrin and Shields: Assessing Municipal Forestry Activity in Texas, U.S. may explain why, in Table 4, there appears to be a connection between high spending rates and the presence of management plans. Inventories and Proactive Tree Maintenance Like management plans, inventories of street trees (20%) or park trees (22%) were also uncom- mon, whether they are comprehensive or sample inventories. However, the same connection be- tween high expenditure rates and management plans can’t be made with inventories (Table 4). In California, Thompson and Ahern (2000) found that about 55% of communities had their trees on a regular/systematic tree maintenance cycle, and “less than half of the respondents had a tree inventory of some kind.” The results from Texas show a similar trend, where more com- munities had their trees on proactive mainte- nance cycles (street trees 47%; park trees 60%) than had tree inventories (street trees 20%; park trees 22%). In both cases, this means that cities may be flying blind with only rough estimates based on the last maintenance cycle’s results to forecast future tree maintenance budget needs. Like urban forest management plans, per- forming a tree inventory for the first time or keeping an existing inventory updated can be difficult due to the associated cost, whether paid in money or staff time. Tree inventory software programs are also expensive, and problems may be encountered when trying to integrate new inventory software with existing work order/ call center management software. Factors other than cost may play a role in the prevalence of inventories. Urban foresters in cities with rela- tively small tree populations might think they can manage effectively without a tree inventory, considering the survey found that inventories became more common as city size increased. Position Urban forest managers in small cities tended to be about two or three steps removed from city leadership. In medium cities, they tended to be about three steps removed. In large or mega cit- ies, they tended to be about four steps removed. The importance of the position of the urban for- est manager relative to city leadership has been mentioned several time in the literature, where ©2016 International Society of Arboriculture increased proximity is desirable (Johnson 1982; Thompson et al. 1994; Thompson 2006). In- creased proximity to city leadership may improve a program’s chances when competing for funding. However, researchers found that the dis- tance from city leadership increased slightly as spending increased (Table 4). This implies that the urban forester’s proximity to city leadership may have less impact on spending rates than other potential factors, such as their ability to communicate effectively, the support their program receives from imme- diate superiors, and support from advocacy groups (e.g., tree boards or non-profit groups). These results found a clear trend of increased distance between city leadership and urban foresters as city size increases—attempts to decrease this distance may not be the most effective means of securing needed funding. Johnson (1982) found that parks and recreation departments tended to be more understanding of the mission of urban forestry programs, although programs housed in public works departments tended to have more resources available to them. Thompson and Ahern (2000) conducted a survey of California communities in 1997 and found that almost 70% of urban forestry programs were housed in parks and recreation departments, and almost 30% in public works. In a case study of six cities, all with a population over 500,000 and spread across the U.S., Carroll (2003) found that four of those urban forestry programs were in the parks and recreation department (66%) and two were in public works (33%). These trends are very similar to the results from the Texas study, which found about 70% of urban forestry programs were housed in parks and recreation departments, and about 18% in public works. However, in Texas, the cities with programs housed in public works were all small cities, with the exception of one medium city, one large city, and Austin (mega) reporting a sce- nario of shared responsibility between the two departments. Public works departments may often serve as a catch-all in smaller cities, being responsible for whatever tasks and infrastruc- ture don’t fit precisely into another department’s expertise. This could explain why the survey found several small cities that had less than 1.0
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
