Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 35(3): May 2009 their knowledge very low or low, and only 8% rating it high or very high (previously reported by Kuhns and Reiter 2007). Their self-rated knowledge varied significantly with gender (χ2 = 11.618, P = 0.020), with females rating their knowledge lower than males (63% low or very low versus 52% for males). The number of tree workshops or seminars respondents had at- tended was low, with 287 (81%) indicating none, and 37% of those who had attended indicating just one workshop, 31% two, 27% three to eight, and 7.5% indicating ten or more workshops. Tree Topping Practice Over one-third (37%; n = 137) of survey respondents had topped their trees. The proportion who had topped was not significant- ly affected by their feelings about the importance of trees (χ2 0.639; P = 0.730), with almost identical proportions having topped whether they rated tree importance very low or low (37.5%), or very high or high (36.5%). The proportion who had topped was significantly affected by agreement with the statement that “top- ping is destructive and should not be done” (χ2 125 = = 25.097, P < 0.001), with 55% of respondents who disagreed with this state- ment having topped. That said, 24% of those who agreed with this statement still had topped trees. Topping occurrence varied sig- nificantly by age (χ2 = 27.459; P < 0.001) and by home ownership (χ2 = 5.046; P = 0.025), with 54% of respondents over 65 years old having topped trees versus 15% of those aged 21 to 35 years; and 38% of home owners having topped versus 27% of renters. Forty percent of respondents did their own topping, followed closely by utilities (Figure 2). Satisfaction with the results of topping was high, with 41% of respondents rating their satis- faction as high and 10% rating it very high. Overall satisfaction did not vary significantly by age, gender, income, education, or home ownership. Satisfaction varied significantly by the source of the topping (χ2 = 21.586; P = 0.042) (Figure 2). Respon- dents were most satisfied with topping done by an arborist or a friend, with 71% and 67% respectively indicating high or very high satisfaction (Figure 2). Satisfaction was lowest if a utility did the topping, with 36% indicating high or very high satisfac- tion, and 34% indicating low or very low satisfaction. Close et al. (2001) also found that dissatisfaction with utility “topping” was high in Illinois, with 65% of homeowners dissatisfied. Most respondents to this paper’s study who commented on topping satisfaction mentioned tree appearance, with more than half (58%) indicating that they were satisfied with the topped tree’s appearance. Amongst the positives mentioned were lush re- growth, better shape and size, and improved health. Negatives included poor (often lop-sided) shape and appearance, perceived poor health, and not having been notified before the topping. The number one reason given for topping trees was safety, with 49% of respondents topping at least partially for that rea- son (respondents could check more than one reason) (Figure 3). Size reduction, improving appearance, damage repair, and in- creasing vigor or health also were cited fairly often as reasons for topping, by 19%–44% of respondents. Satisfaction did not vary significantly (χ2 = 19.275; P = 0.255) by the reason for top- ping, and was fairly high for most reasons (50% or above rating it high or very high, except 10% for Told To). The majority of comments about reasons for topping mentioned a requirement by the electric utility to top the tree, which may indicate misun- derstanding of what topping is since all of the utilities involved Figure 2. For respondents who had topped trees, the proportion who had a particular type of person/entity do the work (bars) and the proportion who rated their satisfaction with the results as high or very high (diamonds). in these six cities have a policy not to top trees as indicated by their Tree Line USA status (NADF 2008b). Fazio and Krumpe (1999) in Idaho and Close et al. (2001) in Illinois also found that safety and size reduction were major reasons for topping, though topping for appearance was much less common (only 3% in Idaho and 16% in Illinois, versus this study’s result of 36%). Figure 3. For respondents who had topped trees, the proportion indicating particular reasons for topping trees (bars) and the pro- portion who rated their satisfaction with the results as high or very high (diamonds). Tree Topping Knowledge For all but one of the topping knowledge statements described in the methods, respondents who had not topped before were significantly more knowledgeable about topping than those who had topped, regardless of whether they received the anti-topping/ utility pruning brochure (Figure 4). Nearly all respondents (83%– 94%) who had not topped trees were correct that 1) topping does not benefit a tree by letting in more light and 2) topping does not prevent insect and disease problems. Correct agreement/ disagreement with the following four statements gradually de- clined for those who had not topped trees: 1) topping wounds ©2009 International Society of Arboriculture
May 2009
| 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
