Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(3): May 2008 Table 7. Helpful sources of assistance to three types of tree programs during the past 3 years.z Helpful sources of assistance Municipal budget** Volunteers** Technical assistance, Penn State Extension** Urban forestry grants** Local donations** Technical assistance, Bureau of Forestry** Fundraising* Percentages of respondents who regarded them as helpful. *Significant differences among types of programs at 0.01 level. **Significant differences among types of programs at 0.001 level. Number of respondents z boroughs responsible for the care of public trees along the public right-of-way and ignoring them does not relieve the municipality of exposure to liability. CONCLUSIONS In Pennsylvania, the lack of street tree programs in 46% of 57 cities, 82% of 960 boroughs, and 97% of 1,547 townships indi- cates there are many opportunities, but also barriers, to starting or improving tree programs. Attitudinal differences between mu- nicipal officials who have tree programs, compared with those with none or incompletely developed programs, suggest ways by which the start or improvement of a municipal program could be promoted. Officials with sustained programs had more positive attitudes toward the importance of trees than in developing or undevel- oped programs, especially in larger municipalities. They re- ported stronger public support and agreed that adequate financial support and annual inspections for hazardous trees were needed. However, even in communities with undeveloped programs, approximately half of the officials believed that benefits of street trees outweigh the costs and that benefits outweigh problems associated with trees; 62% of them favored starting a tree pro- gram. Among all respondents, 79% agreed that street trees were important in making a community a more desirable place to live. Several reasons emerged to explain why officials do not sup- port tree programs. Only 20% to 42% regard a well-funded tree program to be as important as other municipal responsibilities. Many municipalities are financially distressed. If officials per- ceive that residents will not support a tree program or a tax increase for tree care, they are unwilling to divert resources from other needs considered to be more important. Most realize they need more education, including information about technical mat- ters and benefits of trees that extend beyond shade and attrac- tiveness to environmental and economic values for residents, businesses, and property owners. Many are unaware of grants or technical assistance that is available. Reducing municipal expo- sure to liability resulting from hazardous trees is seldom consid- ered to be a convincing argument for a tree program, but public safety definitely is. The most helpful sources of assistance for supporting tree care were funding by the municipal budget, contributions by volun- teers, and technical assistance by professional foresters; techni- cal assistance by extension and state forestry employees was especially important to the smaller communities. Relating public safety to benefits of pruning, inventories, and removing hazard- ous trees can be especially persuasive, because 71% felt that annual inspections to find dangerous trees were important and 80% favored removal of hazardous trees. Public works administrators were slightly more likely to be supportive than elected officials or solicitors. However, the type of official appears to be less important than finding one who has a favorable attitude and a willingness to support a tree program, because relatively minor differences were found among the three types of officials. The findings suggest a three-pronged strategy for persuading municipal officials to start a tree program or improve an existing Table 8. Attitudes about municipal responsibilities for tree programs by type of program.z Statements about street tree programs I favor spending municipal funds for planting, pruning, and removal of street trees* I favor starting or improving a tree program in my municipality* It is achievable to start or improve a program in my municipality* My support for a municipal tree program can create a positive legacy* We need more information before starting or improving a program* Strong public support for a street tree program exists in my municipality* A well-funded tree program is important compared with other municipal programs* Adjacent property owners should be responsible for planting, pruning, and removals* Planning and caring for street trees is not the role of my municipality* Number of respondents Percentages of respondents who agreed with statements. *Significant differences among types of programs at 0.001 level. z ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture Sustained 85 84 68 64 47 44 42 41 9 170–175 Type of program Developing 67 78 60 56 49 32 27 53 15 137–140 Sustained 59 57 50 46 37 35 16 154–170 43 45 37 22 31 11 125–136 Type of program Developing 35 149 Undeveloped 19 23 20 19 15 16 11 182–188 Undeveloped 60 62 42 41 66 12 20 55 19 200–202
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
