Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 46(3): May 2020 “That’s a great idea and it depends though, the height of the wire and stuff, ’cause sometimes that’s not practical to leave [the butt log] that tall . . . if it’s up on a hill, if it’s like in a danger- ous spot.” Besides time and safety issues, there were two other main concerns expressed about potential imple- mentation of a wood recovery program. First, some participants were concerned that homeowners would be unwilling to donate logs to the program. This was particularly a concern in more rural areas, where homeowners often kept the wood or gave it to a friend or neighbor: “Um, to be honest with you, around here it [a barrier to the program] would probably be more the homeowners than anything else because they may not want to give it [the wood] up. They may want to keep it.” The second main concern was about the low qual- ity of the wood from utility tree removals. Some par- ticipants stated that sawmills would not be interested in logs from roadside tree removals because these logs might contain metal: “People nail up signs for yard sales, so that wood technically is junk. You can’t do any- thing. No mill will put a saw into it.” Others stated that trees were often targeted for removal because they were dead or rotting, so the wood would not be marketable. Other Comments on the Program Participants provided other insights into how the pro- gram could be made more feasible or acceptable for the tree crews. Thorough instruction prior to imple- mentation was considered important for program success, as tree crew members did not always have prior experience in the logging industry. The crew members also mentioned the need for additional equipment, such as larger chainsaws or wedges, to aid wood recovery. Program Evaluation (Post-Implementation) Participants working within the pilot program area in North Haven indicated a range of comprehension and communication about the program. Three of the thir- teen participants in the first round of interviews (UI post-implementation 1) could not recall receiving any 203 information about the program. Of those who had received information from either the utility company or their general foreman, four were aware that the revenue from the logs would go back to the town from which the trees were removed. When asked whether they would support or oppose continuing the wood recovery program at all of their tree removal sites (i.e., including outside of North Haven), seven supported continuing wood recovery, while others were unsure or indicated that it would depend on the specific site. None of the respondents indicated oppo- sition to continuing the program. Concerns included personal safety (n = 4) and time (n = 6), with partici- pants estimating that it took 15 to 30 minutes longer to remove a tree with the wood product recovery protocol: “Every scenario is different . . . if we have the space and we can just drop larger sections you know it actually saves us time because we’re making less cuts and we can get it on the ground faster, but you know then there’s other times when we have to really think about whether we can do it safely. So it’s just all logistically, you know, it’s just a tree by tree basis.” “It is a little bit more of a safety issue because, of course, you know, we’re doing our job, which is dangerous as it is and then we have to do extra work on top of that, so that kind of makes, you know, added time pressure, which leads to more accidents.” In the second round of interviews (UI post- implementation 2), 7 of the 11 tree crew members interviewed indicated that they had worked on the pilot program in North Haven. The remainder had either not worked in North Haven or had recently started working on the crew. Of the 7 who had worked on the program, 3 indicated that they had not encoun- tered any issues with implementing the new tree removal process, but 4 indicated that the new process took more time. Six of the interviewees supported continuing the wood recovery program at tree removal sites outside of North Haven; another indi- cated that their support would depend on the specific location. DISCUSSION The objective of this study was to assess the percep- tions and experiences of utility-contracted tree crews ©2020 International Society of Arboriculture
May 2020
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
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.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
