148 Stevenson et al.: Attitudes Toward Street Tree Programs Table 5. Attitudes toward tree care practices by type of tree program.z Importance of tree care practices Annual removal of dangerous street trees* Annual inspections to find unhealthy or dangerous street trees* Standards applied for pruning, planting, and removals* Ordinance specifies responsibilities for planting, pruning, and removals* Tree commission manages tree care practices* Inventory quantifies species, tree condition, and work needs* Number of respondents Percentages of respondents who regarded them as important. *Significant differences among types of programs at 0.001 level. z portant than municipal budgets (43% versus 35%). Donations and fundraising supplemented them but were deemed less im- portant than urban forestry grants (37%). Also important to both sustained programs and developing programs was technical as- sistance by Penn State extension urban foresters (50% and 45%) and by the Bureau of Forestry (35% and 31%). Lack of technical assistance was much more important to municipalities below 10,000 in population size (52% to 53%) than to larger ones (30% to 38%). Attitudes about Municipal Responsibilities for Tree Programs How influential are the attitudes of officials in shaping municipal tree programs? Research has shown that adequate funding for tree programs can be achieved where officials perceive that resi- dents are supportive (Robeson 1984; Elmendorf et al. 2003). The decisions of officials are based on their perceptions of reality, i.e., what they believe to be true, more than on factual informa- tion about trees (Geiger 2005). Officials who have sustained or developing tree programs were more supportive compared with those who have no pro- gram (Table 8). So it could be inferred that their support con- tributed to the success of the programs. In sustained programs, 84% of officials believed improvements can be made; presum- ably the other 16% were satisfied with their programs or were disinterested. However, even in municipalities with nonexistent programs, 62% were in favor of starting a tree program. Sup- portive officials apparently are motivated by more than creating a positive legacy as indicated by the lower percentages. Those who believed the start or improvement of a municipal tree pro- gram can be achieved also were at lower percentages, 42% to 68%. Only 20% to 42% believed a well-funded tree program is important compared with other municipal programs. Part of the reason probably is that only 12% to 44% thought that strong public support for a street tree program exists in their munici- pality. Nevertheless, 60% to 85% favored spending municipal funds for planting, pruning, and removal of street trees. However, also, 41% to 55% proposed that adjacent property owners should be responsible for planting, pruning, and removals. Apparently of- ficials believed the costs of planting and maintaining street trees should be shared by the municipality and adjacent property own- ers. Another reason sometimes given, but not a valid one in Pennsylvania, is the assumption that a municipality can avoid liability for damage caused by trees by making property owners responsible for tree care. Only 9% to 19% believed that planning and caring for street trees is not the role of their municipality. Many officials, 47% to 66%, claimed that more information is needed before starting or improving a program. Those responses are consistent with their attitudes, 52% to 69% (Table 4), that they needed more information about the benefits of street trees to a municipality. Barriers to Starting or Improving Tree Programs Some of the barriers to starting or improving tree programs were regarded as equally important by all three types of officials (Table 9): insufficient funding (by 86%), a lack of personnel (70%), inadequate equipment (67%), and low public support (62%). Lack of funding was also the most important barrier in a Mississippi study (Grado et al. 2006). Elected officials and pub- lic works directors (69% to 70%) were more concerned than solicitors (57%) about tree-related problems such as raised side- walks, cleanup of leaves in the fall, and nuisance birds, perhaps because they were more likely to hear complaints from their constituents. Solicitors were the least concerned about liability (37%) and more about lack of technical assistance and informa- tion (59%) compared with the other officials. Some municipal officials do not realize that Pennsylvania municipal codes make Table 6. Attitudes toward pruning of street trees by type of tree program.z Statements about pruning Proper pruning improves health, structure* Only a qualified person should prune* Benefits of pruning outweigh costs** Topping is not an appropriate practice* Number of respondents Percentages of respondents who agreed with statements. *Significant differences among types of programs at 0.01 level. **Significant differences among types of programs at 0.001 level. z ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture Sustained 95 78 62 58 169–172 Type of program Developing 91 70 47 44 134–138 Sustained 90 84 84 81 79 65 170–173 Type of program Developing 77 70 71 66 67 50 137–139 Undeveloped 73 60 55 54 43 35 195–200 Undeveloped 85 62 41 42 195–196
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
