292 Kuhns et al.: Urban Forestry Programs in Utah Table 4. Proportion of communities with an employee responsible for tree management, plans, ordinances, and tree inventories, by population class and for all towns. Percentages indicate the proportion who indicated having a particular program attribute within a population class. Number of towns (N) is shown in parentheses under percentages. Community has a … Municipal employee in charge of community trees Master tree and landscaping plan Tree ordinance Landscaping ordinance Municipal tree inventory* 118–500 25.8% (8) 10.3% (3) 13.3% (4) 13.3% (4) 10.0% (3) 501–1K 26.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 11.1% (2) 5.9% (1) 22.3% (4) 1K–3K 40.0% (12) 14.8% (4) 32.1% (9) 37.9% (11) 26.7% (8) abruptly when population rose above 1,000 and increased greatly when population rose above 10,000 (Table 4). Clearly, the largest towns in Utah have much more capacity, though probably also more need, for program elements essential to an active and community forestry program. In nearly all cases, though, planning for the public tree resource lags behind the development of ordinances or even the gathering of inventory data. Of the towns which indicated that they had a municipal employee responsible for managing trees, most gave the title of that person as superintendent or director, forester or arborist, or a park employee. Most of these employees worked for the parks department (34%), public works (30%), or both (15%). The average amount of time spent managing trees by that public employee was 0.4 FTE (full time equivalent), with an additional 0.3 FTE spent by other employees. Carroll (2003) reported that four out of six large cities in the northeastern United States also make parks departments responsible for street and park trees. Tschantz and Sacamano (1995) reported an average of seven full-time and four seasonal employees involved in tree manage- ment for U.S. communities in 1994, but it is unclear whether these employees spent all of their time on tree work, and their response rate of 34% makes bias more likely. Urban/Community Forestry Strengths, Weaknesses, and Future The average reported strength or quality of urban/commu- nity forestry was 2.4 (on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 indicating very weak or poor, and 6 indicating very strong or good), with 80% of communities on the bottom or weak end of the scale (1, 2, or 3) and 20% on the strong end (4, 5, or 6) ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture Town population class 3K–10K 44.4% (12) 7.7% (2) 34.6% (9) 37.5% (9) 25.9% (7) 10K–50K 55.0% (11) 40.0% (6) 88.9% (16) 70.6% (12) 72.2% (13) *Combines those that indicated “partial” inventory with respondents who said “complete” inventory. (Table 5). Almost one-third circled very weak/poor, while only one respondent circled very strong/good. Perceived quality increased from a low of 1.9 for the smallest towns to 2.8 for cities of 10,001 to 50,000. Only the largest cities had average ratings on the strong side of the scale. These results are in keeping with budget and other information reported earlier, though it is somewhat surprising that the score is as low as it is for the largest cities, because it seems that respon- dents would tend to be biased toward the strong end of the scale, perceiving that their programs were stronger than they really are. These results are similar but lower than data reported for the Intermountain West by Kuhns (1998), who reported a mean score of 3.9 (on the same scale) from U&CF managers across the region. The current data appear to indicate a need for improvement, even for larger cities. When asked to list strong and weak points about urban/community forestry in their community, there was no common thread. Respondents, for example, listed citizen and municipal support as both a strength and a weakness—a strength when it is present and a weakness when it is not. Lack of budget, personnel, or a program showed up fairly often as weak- nesses. These findings also were consistent with those of Kuhns’ (1998) for the Intermountain West overall. Though respondents were not very upbeat about the quality of urban and community forestry in their towns (Table 5), they appeared to be hopeful for something better. When respondents were asked how they felt about the future of urban/community forestry in their town over the next 5 to 10 years, very few indicated that it will get worse, while over half think it will get better. This is less positive than Kuhns’ (1998) figures for the Intermountain West, where, again, only 5% felt > 50,000 85.7% (6) 57.1% (4) 85.7% (6) 71.4% (5) 71.4% (5) All towns 44.3% (54) 30.2% (19) 56.8% (46) 48.1% (42) 45.2% (40)
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
