126 are not easily healed or sealed over by new growth, 2) topping decreases tree health, 3) fast growth after topping is not a sign of good tree health, and 4) topping makes a tree more likely to become a hazard in the long run and hurt someone or damage their property. A similar pattern occurred for respondents who had topped trees, but they were much less likely to be correct. Those who had topped were one-third to one-half as likely to be correct as those who had not topped. The brochure only signifi- cantly affected answers of those who had not topped, and then only for the middle four statements. It never had an effect on those who had topped, indicating that their beliefs about topping may be fairly deep-seated and not easy to change with education. Kuhns and Reiter: Tree Care and Topping Beliefs Educational Source Use and Trust Most respondents (85%) felt that they needed information and education on urban trees, and this need did not vary significantly with whether they had topped before (χ2 = 0.307; P = 0.579). For those who needed information, 46% used a local nursery or gar- den center (Figure 5). Use of Extension and the Internet also were high (25%–30%). Friends, arborists, state forestry agencies, and family members were cited as sources less frequently, with utility foresters and tree nonprofit/volunteer groups cited the least. Fazio and Krumpe (1999) reported use of Cooperative Extension and city foresters as information sources by their respondents in Idaho. Treiman and Gartner (2005) found that Missouri community resi- dents relied most heavily on their local garden center for tree advice. Respondents’ trust in a source of tree information did not necessarily mirror use. Trust is shown in Figure 5 as the propor- tion giving a source a “Full Trust” rating. Extension and state forestry, both noncommercial information sources, were rated high for trust but moderate to fairly low for use. Nurseries, on the other hand, had high use but fairly low trust. The Internet, friends, and utility foresters had low trust ratings. Other studies have found that Extension was a highly trusted tree/forest infor- mation source (Kuhns et al. 1998; Kuhns et al. 2005). Compara- tively low use of this source may be a reflection of the Extension system not being as well-known as it used to be (Varea-Ham- mond 2004). People may use Extension educational resources, like the Master Gardener program and various Extension Web resources, without even realizing the source of the information. Figure 4. Percentage of respondents correctly answering ques- tions on topping and its effects (correctly agreeing or disagreeing with statements) (T = True, F = False; note that two have no cor- rect answer). Bars are included for those who have not or have topped a tree (NoTop/Top) with or without a brochure (Br/NoBr). Statistical comparisons were made for each statement on the ef- fects of topping and receiving the brochure, with bars that are not significantly different (χ2 ; α = 0.05) joined by lines. Most (86%–90%) of those who had not topped disagreed that topping improves a tree’s appearance (Figure 4). Predictably, those who had topped trees were much more equivocal about this statement, with about half (49%–57%) thinking it improved ap- pearance. A majority of those who had not topped before (ap- proximately 60%) felt that topping is destructive and should not be done (Figure 4). Only 30% of those who had topped agreed. This means that 70% of those who had topped, and 40% of those who had not, think that topping is an acceptable practice. In other words, people may think that topping looks bad but they also think that it sometimes is necessary. In comparison, Zhang et al. (2007) reported that 43% of urban Alabama residents “strong- ly believed that tree topping is a legitimate tree care option.” Fazio and Krumpe (1999) also found that most people who had topped trees tended to lack knowledge about topping, incor- rectly thinking that topped trees are safer or less likely to become a hazard, that extra light from topping benefits the tree, that top- ping is a good way to prevent insect or disease problems, and that topped branches close over and seal by the growth of new wood. Close et al. (2001) found that about half of people who topped trees believed that topping would increase their tree’s lifespan. Figure 5. Proportion of respondents using information and edu- cation sources about urban trees (bars) and proportion indicating full trust in each source (diamonds). CONCLUSIONS Citizens in the interior West cities studied care about trees but know relatively little about their biology and care and the effects of topping. Many of their misconceptions are shared to some extent by the arboriculture community, possibly leading to con- fusion over mixed-messages. More and better education of con- sumers and arborists is needed to counter this lack of knowledge. In addition, arborists need to come to agreement where possible on some of these disputed issues (such as fertilization and plant- ing techniques) so they can speak to the public with one voice. ©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
