44 a mean of 75%. The median household incomes were, at mini- mum, $12,917 to a high of $111,819 with a mean of $35,080. Availability of State Resources When respondents were asked whether there was a state forestry agency that provides consulting expertise and resources for small towns, 66% said yes, 28% said they did not know, and 6% said no. When asked what specific agency they went to, 70% reported state forestry departments and 14% cited extension service. Other responses included urban forestry specifically and the state urban forest council. When asked if they had ever been contacted by the state agency, 9% said yes, 15% did not know, 16.4% said no, and 46% left this question blank. Municipal Organizational Structure Most communities (81%) have a department for tree mainte- nance (see Table 5). By far, this responsibility is most frequently located in either public works (47%) or parks and recreation (25%) departments. At times, responsibility was shared. Most frequent partners were utilities, maintenance, and grounds or building departments. More than half of the communities (59%) have a specific person responsible for trees, but less than one- third have a dedicated budget (31%). Almost half (49%) have passed a tree ordinance. An index of the municipal organiza- tional structure revealed that 12.5% did not have any of these structures in place, 20.7% have all of them, and, on average, communities reported having slightly more than two features (2.16). Characteristics of the Mayor A mean of 6.8 years of service was reported by the mayors who responded to the survey. These ranged from 1 month to 54 years in office. In terms of gender, 13.5% were female with the re- maining 86.5% male. When asked what were the most important issues facing the mayors, on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 having the most importance, economic development, roads, and crime all had median values of 5. Rated lowest, with a median of 3, was tree maintenance. However, when asked to rate what they un- derstood as benefits of trees, the majority of mayors realized that trees provide many benefits. Rated highest were that trees add to the aesthetic beauty of the area (99%), improve the town’s image (94%), and improve the overall quality of life (83%). Lowest were benefits for reducing crime (9%), increasing property tax collections through increased assessments (26%), and adding to business climate (48%). The tree-valuing index, the sum of all the benefits the mayor felt the town received from its trees, ranged from 0 to 9 and had a mean of 5.47. Challenges of Maintenance Respondents were asked to identify, from a list of challenges, those faced by their communities. Options included the costs of Table 5. Organizational structure of community urban and community forestry programs. Municipal organizational features Department for tree maintenance Person for tree maintenance Budget for tree maintenance Tree ordinance ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture Percent 81 59 31 47 Lewis and Boulahanis: Keeping Up the Urban Forest planting, costs of maintenance, increased city liability and insur- ance rates, costs of cleanup related to storms and accidents, impeding progress, and forging a consensus on the value of trees. Of these, the cost of maintenance was the greatest (77%) fol- lowed by cost of cleanup related to storms and accidents (68%) and costs of planting (48%). Of less challenge were increased city liability and insurance rates (19%) and forging a consensus on the value of trees (20%). Social Capital Mayors were asked to indicate, on a scale of 1 (not influential) to 5 (very influential), how important various persons and groups were for promoting planting and tree maintenance. The findings revealed that the most influential group was city council (3.7 out of 5), garden clubs (3.5), general population (3.5), and school- children (3.25). Lowest were churches and the urban forest com- mittee (both 2.6) followed by the state urban forester (2.85). An index of social capital created by adding each group’s influence ranged from 0 to 48 with a mean of 24.27. Multivariate Analysis The most important predictor of tree maintenance was whether an organizational structure was present (Table 6). As noted ear- lier, the presence of an organizational structure was gauged by whether the city had a department or specific person responsible for tree maintenance, a specific budget for trees, or a tree ordi- nance in their city. Mayors in cities that had an organizational structure for tree maintenance, while controlling for all other variables, reported more routine tree maintenance activities. Re- sources at the state level also entered significantly into the model, indicating that mayors who reported knowledge of a state forestry agency were more likely, while controlling for all other variables, to report overall higher levels of tree maintenance. In addition to city and state resources, the individual charac- teristics of the mayor also proved to be significant variables in the model. The strongest predictor in this category was whether the mayors felt that tree maintenance is an important issue in their administration. Mayors who rated tree maintenance as an important issue were more likely to report performing higher levels of tree maintenance activities. As an individual character- istic of the mayor, gender proved to be a significant predictor of tree maintenance. Female mayors, while controlling for all other predictors, were more likely to report performing tree mainte- nance activities when compared with their male counterparts. The number of years served by the mayors and the value they place on trees approached significance in the model as well. Mayors who have more years of service are more likely to report higher tree maintenance activities when compared with those who have fewer years in office. Moreover, there was a positive relationship between the amount of value mayors place on trees and level of tree maintenance activities. In other words, the more benefits the mayors placed in trees, the greater the performance of tree maintenance activities practiced in their towns. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION This analysis has shown that small southern towns vary widely in their support for UCF and tree maintenance. For some com- munities, basic urban tree management appears totally lacking, whereas for others, tree maintenance is fully routine. Going be- yond basic description, we found that the fourth model was the
January 2008
| 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
