290 Kuhns et al.: Urban Forestry Programs in Utah A maintenance/planting ratio was calculated as the sum of funds spent on tree maintenance and removal divided by funds spent for tree planting. A ratio of 1 indicates equal spending on planting and maintenance, with less than 1 meaning greater spending on planting and more than 1 indicating greater spending on maintenance. Overall, this ratio was 1.6, with ratios around 1 (0.6 to 1.2) for smaller towns (those under 10,000 population) (Table 2), increasing to 4.1 for towns above 50,000 population. Surprisingly, the smallest towns also had a fairly high ratio of 2.7, with the highest maintenance percentage (53%) of any population class including the largest cities (49%). Though putting a lot of money toward planting seems a good thing to most community forestry advocates, maintenance is often neglected, leading to a low-quality or even dangerous community forest. We believe that a maintenance/planting ratio above 1 is desirable, and probably on the order of 2 or 3 is best. The large cities’ ratio of 4.1 seems a bit high, possibly reflecting inadequate planting. Our overall ratio of 1.6 was lower than the 3.3 calculated from Kielbaso’s (1990) national figures for 1986 but similar to that for Oregon communities in 1992 (1.6 to 1.8; Reichenbach et al. 1992). Urban/Community Forestry Management Urban/Community Forestry Program Levels. Respon- dents were asked to indicate the level of advancement of their town’s urban/community forestry program according to federal Performance Management Accountability Systems (PMAS) status (USDA-FS 2003). One of five levels could be chosen as follows: • Project level (tree projects but no program): Conducts activities such as Arbor Day, tree plantings, or one-time events; no expansion from projects to a program. • Formative level (initiating program): Recognizes that trees, forests, and greenspace are community assets; community forestry programs are being initiated. • Developmental level (program in place but still develop- ing): Community forestry programs have been initiated and additional enhancement activities are being pursued. • Sustained level (program well established): Community forestry program organized well enough to function on its own with agency or organization support. • No tree projects or programs. About two-thirds of communities indicated that they had a program, with most of those (40%) characterizing it as project level. Only 8% rated their program at the sustained, well-established level. Community population in Utah correlated strongly with program level, with large communi- ties, especially those with a population greater than 10,000, having the most active programs. The proportion of towns with no program or a project-level program generally ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture decreased as population increased. No town with a popula- tion of under 1,000 had above a formative-level program, and only two were at the formative level. Towns with populations between 3,001 to 10,000 again stood out, having the highest proportion (58%) of project-level programs of any population class and the lowest proportion (4%) of sustained-level programs (of towns with population over 1,000). Recall that these are the towns that had the lowest per capita funding and highest dependency on grants and donations. In California in 1997, 83% of communities had urban forestry programs, and program participation also generally increased as community population increased (Thompson and Ahern 2000). Care and Ownership of Street Trees. We asked respon- dents to indicate whether the community or the adjacent property owner owns the town’s street trees and which is charged with caring for them. Most communities (62%) owned the town’s street trees, with another 9% indicating that the trees were owned by both, most likely with some owned by the city and some by the adjacent owners. Considerably fewer towns actually care for street trees, however, with only 35% saying they cared for their towns’ street trees, a little higher than the 29% of communities that reported street trees as a priority for spending, as men- tioned earlier. This discrepancy is common in Utah and likely elsewhere in this region, with many towns owning street trees because of their locations on rights-of-way, but allowing or even requiring adjacent property owners to care for those trees. Population did not seem to matter, other than for the very smallest towns (under 500 population), which were much more likely to care for street trees than other towns (58% of small towns versus 35% overall)—this even though the largest cities are much more likely to have active urban forestry programs and large budgets. Still, as mentioned earlier, only 5% of the smallest towns’ tree budgets went toward street tree spending. Comparable figures were not available in other studies we examined, though 30% of California communities in 1997 required homeowners to maintain trees planted as a part of new subdivision requirements. It is unclear whether this included only street trees or also other public trees (Thompson and Ahern 2000). Number of Community Trees. The average number of public trees per town was 2,316 (median 150), increasing steadily as town population (and presumably physical size) increased. In towns with populations under 1,000, the average number of street and park trees were about the same and, as the population increased, so did the ratio of street to park trees (about 2.7:1 in cities larger than 50,000) (Table 3). The large average number of trees in the “other” category was influenced by the respondent from Provo indicating that they had 30,040 trees classified as “utility trees.” Statewide trees per capita averaged 0.30 (3.33
November 2005
| 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
