374 Petter et al: Tree Selection of Tree City USA Cities in the Pacific Northwest municipalities provided multiple responses from dif- ferent departments, which resulted in eighty-five total responses. There was an effort to increase response rate by contacting respondents multiple times (Millar and Dillman 2011). We defined the urban forest as all trees growing within the boundaries of the municipality. Our goal was to assess tree species selection specifically on public lands that utilize public funds. These trees are highly visible and collectively owned. Our research aims to contribute to a broader framework for urban tree species selection—specifically, how common trends such as “right tree, right place” and the 10-20-30 rule manifest themselves in actual decisions. We explored why managers are selecting species of concern that do not adhere to best management practices. Finally, we wanted to compare the quantitative and qualitative responses to see how selection criteria are being utilized. Analysis The survey included closed-ended descriptive questions about respondents’ experience in the field, municipal budgets, and how many trees they plant per year. Data collection was similar to Petter et al. (2020), however, the study combined descriptive statistics from closed- ended questions with responses to open-ended ques- tions to explore tree species selection on public land across municipalities in the PNW. While the quantita- tive results were the main focus, we included a quali- tative component in an effort to further triangulate (Creswell 2013) tree species selection. There have been studies (Conway and Vander Vecht 2015; Petter et al. 2020) that examined quantitative components of tree species selection in urban areas, but the qualitative component is necessary to construct a greater under- standing of tree species selection as well as to inves- tigate emergent themes of tree species selection. These qualitative and quantitative components were then used to see how tree species selection is operational- ized in urban areas. Together the quantitative and qualitative components help explore tree species selec- tion by managers at a greater depth. This study explored the top 5 most commonly planted tree species as expressed by managers (i.e., those responsible for tree species selection within their municipality). Two open-ended questions were used to assess the most commonly planted species in each municipality in 2016, as well as the species ©2020 International Society of Arboriculture planted before 2016: “Please list the 5 most common tree species PLANTED in 2016 in your municipal- ity,” and “Please list the 5 most common tree species that are GROWING in your municipality.” Respon- dents were asked to use scientific names for these questions if possible. Responses were then compiled to compare existing diversity with those tree species planted in 2016. If a respondent only specified genus (e.g., Acer), it was placed into Acer spp.; however, where possible, cultivar and species names were retained to assess diversity within and among taxo- nomic ranks. Common names were converted to sci- entific names. For each species listed, we provided a genus and family to calculate the most common gen- era and families in those municipalities. This provided insight into the 5 most commonly selected tree species, genera, and families across the sample population. Two open-ended qualitative questions were used to examine motivations behind those selections. We analyzed two open-ended questions using the Nvivo qualitative analysis software to add additional con- text to tree species selection. The first question coded in Nvivo was, “In your own words please describe the most important criteria to you personally for tree species selection.” The second question coded in Nvivo was, “Does being a Tree City USA city influ- ence tree species selection, if so how?” We used sum- mative content analysis, which involved creating a count of common nodes, to explore and further develop the- ory (Hsieh and Shannon 2005) surrounding tree spe- cies selection. Each response was placed into a broader category or node (e.g., aesthetics, diversity, and func- tion) and tallied; some responses were broken into multiple nodes. The criteria that were used in Petter et al. (2020) were used as nodes in the summative con- tent analysis. Other common themes of urban for- estry such as “right tree, right place” were also used as nodes. Furthermore, this provided an opportunity to explore additional criteria that had not been listed in Petter et al. (2020). While many of these nodes are discussed in urban forestry, this provides a more sci- entific approach to how managers are using these cri- teria. Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data was used to further explore tree species selection and how that is operationalized in the tree species managers are selecting. Peer debriefing (i.e., a second researcher reviewed the coding) was used to check coding and ensure validity of the qualitative research (Creswell and Miller 2000).
September 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
