Journal of Arboriculture 31(6): November 2005 293 Table 5. Overall rating and future projection for the next 5 to 10 years of strength or quality of urban/community forestry program in community (on a scale where 1 = very weak/poor and 6 = very strong/good). Standard errors are shown in parentheses for the mean strength scores, and number of towns (N) is shown in parentheses for percentages. Strength/quality mean score Will get worse 118–500 1.9 (0.2) 3.3% (1) 501–1K 2.1 (0.3) 1K–3K 2.3 (0.2) Town population class 3K–10K 2.4 (0.3) 11.1% (2) 3.4% (1) 3.8% (1) 10K–50K 2.8 (0.3) 0.0% (0) Will stay the same 50.0% (14) 50.0% (9) 44.8% (13) 34.6% (9) 35.0% (7) Will get better it would get worse, but 71% felt it would get better. However, all of the respondents in the 1998 study were community forestry professionals, while our respondents for the current study included many more nonprofessionals with no formal community forestry training and without positions specifically designated to deal with community forestry matters. By population, less than half of the respondents from towns with populations under 1,000 thought things will get better (Table 5), while a majority of respondents from larger towns and cities thought things will get better. The few who said things would get worse focused on the preponderance of old trees, a lack of interest from citizens, and lack of support staff. Those who felt things would get better cited an increasing awareness of the value of trees and the importance of caring for them. Topping of Community Trees. Respondents were asked whether there is much topping of public and private trees in their towns and whether they are aware of what topping is. More indicated that there is more topping of private trees (57% overall) than public trees (14% overall). In towns with populations over 1,000, 52% to 67% indicated that there is much topping of private trees. Only six respondents indicated that they did not know what topping is. Topping of public trees was similarly low (20% of street and park trees) in California in 1997 (Thompson and Ahern 2000), but 75% of northeastern Pennsylvania communities reported that trees were being topped or incorrectly pruned (Elmendorf et al. 2003). Our results indicate a need for anti-topping education for the public and town officials in mid-sized towns. Some of the topping of public trees indicated here also could be due to perceptions of utility pruning prac- tices—many people, professional and otherwise, seem to feel that the deep Vs, Ls, and one-sided pruning done as directional pruning by utilities is highly undesirable and is the equivalent of topping. Again, education is needed. Training Needs Most recipients (77%) felt the need for additional urban forestry training. Arboriculture training for staff was mentioned more than any other training need, including > 50,000 3.9 (0.4) 14.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 46.7% (14) 38.9% (7) 51.7% (15) 61.5% (16) 65.0% (13) 85.7% (6) All towns 2.4 (0.1) 5.4% (6) 40.0% (53) 54.6% (71) tree selection, pruning, insect and disease identification and control, planting, risk and hazard assessment, and irrigation. Close behind the need for training in arboriculture was the need to train city employees and others in urban forestry program building and maintenance, including funding programs, tree and landscaping ordinances, increasing program support, how to get a program started, and how to keep a program going. Target audiences for such training include not only city employees but also mayors, city managers, city councils, and planners. Several communities indicated a need to train citizens about tree care and the importance of tree management. In Oregon, 59% of communities felt a need for tree-related staff training, again with tree care training ranking above program management (Reichenbach et al. 1992). CONCLUSIONS Community forestry programs in Utah had good support from residents, town officials, and employees and, though they rated their programs’ quality fairly low, in general they think things are looking up. Budgets per tree and related program support were weak, helping to explain the somewhat weak programs. Only one-quarter of towns had a tree board or celebrate Arbor Day. Still, there are positive aspects to these programs. Nearly two-thirds of communities said they had community forestry programs, and the proportion of towns with tree or landscaping ordinances, tree inventories, and master tree plans doubled from the early 1990s to now, comparing favorably to figures from other parts of the country. Also, half of the communities who do not have a tree board are interested in establishing one, and most towns spend enough to qualify for the Tree City USA requirement of $2 per capita spending on community forestry programs. Spending per tree was fairly low, and spending per capita was fairly high compared to other parts of the country. This finding may be related to Utah’s comparatively low urban tree stocking levels relative to its population, which fits the state’s lack of native forests and the fact that most people live in the dry valleys. ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture
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
