Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(3): May 2008 A multistage, self-administered questionnaire was mailed in October 2005 to 1,401 officials in a sample of the 57 cities, 960 boroughs, and 1,547 townships in Pennsylvania. These are the three types of municipalities in the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- vania; most townships are rural, but some are as densely popu- lated as boroughs, which in other states may be called towns or villages. Penn State’s extension urban foresters provided lists of the 120 municipalities that had sustained tree programs and the 125 that were developing programs, all of which were sampled. In the 1991 survey, 378 tree programs were estimated to exist, a larger number because no criteria were applied to determine what constituted a tree program. In the 2005 survey, the benchmarks of a sustained program were the existence of a street tree ordinance, a tree commission or board, a street tree inventory, and a street tree management plan; a developing program had at least one of these elements and an undeveloped program had none. The survey included all 22 cities, 78 boroughs, and 20 townships that had sustained programs and all nine cities, 93 boroughs, and 23 townships that had developing programs. A lower response rate was anticipated from municipalities that had no tree program, so the random sample of undeveloped programs was elevated and consisted of 156 boroughs and 40 townships, and also all the remaining 26 cities, totaling 222 municipalities. The three types of officials selected in each municipality rep- resented those who could potentially influence the start or im- provement of a tree program. The titles of the officials in each of the three groups varied because of the different governmental structures and traditions of cities, boroughs, and townships. For example, the elected chief official might be a mayor, president of a borough council, or chairman of the township supervisors. The eight-page questionnaire containing 19 questions was sent with a cover letter that ensured confidentiality to 1,401 officials, three in each of the 467 municipalities; 20 were returned as undeliverable. Wording of the questionnaire was applicable to all three types of officials and to the three types of programs. The first question asked about the existence of eight elements that may occur in street tree programs—a tree commission or board, tree ordinance, inventory, management plan, tree care budget, pruning and removal of trees by a ISA Certified Arborist, Tree City USA, and an Arbor Day celebration—or the likelihood that an element will occur within 3 years. A six-point Likert scale measured the status of these elements, extending from 6 currently exists or 5definitely will happen to 3possibly to Sustained 145 1 will not happen. The next 11 questions, using five-point Likert scales, solicited attitudes toward the importance of eight program elements: how tree programs are organized and funded, benefits and problems associated with trees, obstacles to starting or improving a tree program, legal concerns, and helpfulness of various sources of assistance. Three questions requested specific information about annual spending on municipal trees and asked for a list and ranking of the top five benefits and the top five problems associated with street trees. The last four questions obtained demographic characteristics of the respondent. The statistical program used for all computations was SPSS version 13.0. 2 tests examined bivariate relationships between nominal attitudinal questions and survey groups: tree program types, types of officials, and population categories. Significance levels of 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 designated differences. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Responses came from 528 people at a rate of 38% and from 356 municipalities at a rate of 76%. Sustained programs had a higher response rate from individuals (17950%) than did developing (149 40%) or undeveloped programs (215 33%). Munici- pal response rates (one or more response from each municipal- ity) were 90% from 120 municipalities having sustained pro- grams, 80% from 125 developing programs, and 67% from the 222 undeveloped programs in the sample. More responses came from public works managers (24252%) than the chief elected officials (182 39%) or solicitors (119 26%). Response rates from five categories of population size varied with no par- ticular pattern from a low of 71% coming from the middle size (5,001 to 10,000) to 87% that came from the largest size (over 20,000). Information about the status of tree programs submitted by municipal officials showed some inconsistencies with the de- fined categories in which they had been placed by the extension urban foresters. Thus, if the classifications of sustained commu- nities were correct, and if the officials had complete and accurate knowledge about the four elements (a street tree ordinance, street tree inventory, street tree management plan, and a tree commis- sion or board) in their municipalities, all four should have been reported to exist in 100% of the municipalities, but they were not (Table 1). The existence of an ordinance and tree commission reported by 87% to 88% of the respondents from municipalities with sustained tree programs may be close to the truth, because all three types of officials would be expected to know about them. However, the existence of an inventory (64%) or manage- Table 1. Tree program elements in three types of programs and likelihood of adding elements within 3 years.z Program element Developing Ordinance* Commission* Inventory* Management plan* Budget greater than $2 per capita* ISA Certified Arborist* Tree City USA* Arbor Day* Number of respondents z Exists 87 88 64 58 44 46 56 59 152–172 Percentages reported by respondents. *Significant differences among types of programs at 0.001 level. ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture Likely 7 3 25 32 18 20 18 20 Exists 59 68 32 27 19 14 26 27 125–133 Likely 23 12 41 44 19 28 27 33 Exists 35 29 9 11 4 8 3 8 176–190 Undeveloped Likely 27 25 34 41 15 13 19 24
May 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
