150 Stevenson et al.: Attitudes Toward Street Tree Programs Table 9. Barriers to the start or improvement of a street tree program perceived by three types of officials.z Barriers to programs Type of official Insufficient funding Personnel lacking Inadequate equipment Low public support Tree problems: leaf-fall, sidewalks, birds* Liability concerns* Technical assistance needs* Lack of information* Number of respondents Percentages of respondents who considered them important. *Significant differences among types of officials at 0.01 level. z program. First, residents could be organized and educated to demonstrate strong support for tax-based funding for a tree pro- gram. Ideally, a local resident who has a strong commitment to trees and community pride would organize that effort, aided by a few volunteers, and could use assistance available from exten- sion urban foresters in Pennsylvania. Second, when officials have recognized that strong public support has developed, they should be reminded of the economic, environmental, and safety benefits that can be realized from an effective street tree program and the technical assistance that is available. Third, officials should be asked to provide adequate funding and make provi- sions for the four main program elements: an ordinance, tree commission, inventory, and management plan. Most officials do have an appreciative outlook on trees. Favorable times for pro- moting a street tree program are just after an emergency involv- ing trees has occurred or at the start of an election campaign; that is based on personal experience, not on the survey. Acknowledgments. Partial support was provided by the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry through the Penn- sylvania Urban and Community Forestry Council. LITERATURE CITED Elmendorf, W.F., V.J. Cotrone, and J.T. Mullen. 2003. Trends in urban forestry practices, programs and sustainability: Contrasting a Penn- sylvania, U.S. study. Journal of Arboriculture 29:237–247. Geiger, J.R. 2005. Politicians and the tree vote. City Trees 41:8–12. Grado, S.C., D.L. Grebner, M.K. Measells, and A.L. Husak. 2006. Sta- tus, needs, and knowledge levels of Mississippi’s communities rela- tive to urban forestry. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 32:24–31. Kuhns, M.R., B. Lee, and D.K. Reiter. 2005. Characteristics of urban forestry programs in Utah, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 31:285–294. Reeder, E.C., and H.D. Gerhold. 1993. Municipal tree programs in Pennsylvania. Journal of Arboriculture 19:12–19. Ries, P.D., A.S. Reed, and S.J. Kresse. 2007. The impact of statewide urban forestry programs: A survey of cities in Oregon, U.S. Arbori- culture and Urban Forestry 33:168–175. Robeson, H.L. 1984. Urban forestry in the Chicago suburbs. Journal of Arboriculture 10:113–116. Schroeder, H.W., T.L. Green, and T.J. Howe. 2003. Community tree programs in Illinois, U.S.: A statewide survey and assessment. Jour- nal of Arboriculture 29:218–225. Stevenson, T.R. 2006. Attitudes of officials toward municipal street tree programs. Pennsylvania State University, MS Thesis. 125 pp. Still, D., B. Fair, and H. Gerhold. 1996. Community forestry grants in Pennsylvania: How effective are they? Journal of Forestry 94:26–30. ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture Still, D.T., and H.D. Gerhold. 1997. Motivations and task preferences of urban forestry volunteers. Journal of Arboriculture 23:116–130. Treiman, T., and J. Gartner. 2004. Community forestry in Missouri, U.S.: Attitudes and knowledge of local officials. Journal of Arbori- culture 30:205–212. Tyler R. Stevenson 1624 North Coast Highway, #25 Encinitas, CA 92024, U.S.
[email protected] Henry D. Gerhold (corresponding author) Professor of Forest Genetics 333 Forest Resources Building Penn State University University Park, PA 16802, U.S.
[email protected] William F. Elmendorf Assistant Professor of Urban and Community Forestry 334 Forest Resources Building Penn State University University Park, PA 16802, U.S.
[email protected] Résumé. Les réponses d’une enquête provenant de 528 responsables au sein de 356 municipalités ont permis d’évaluer l’état du développe- ment des programmes municipaux d’arbres de rues ainsi que les atti- tudes de trois types de décideurs: les élus en chef, les administrateurs de travaux publics et les conseillers municipaux. Dans les programmes soutenus qui comportent une réglementation, une commission de l’arbre, un inventaire et un plan de gestion, les décideurs ont une attitude plus positive envers les arbres que dans les communautésoù les programmes sont en cours de développement – c’est-à-dire qui ont au moins l’un de ces éléments –, ou encore celles sans programme pour les arbres. Mais même dans le dernier cas, environ la moitié des décideurs croient que les bénéfices des arbres outrepassent les coûts et les désavantages, et 62% favorisent le démarrage d’un tel programme. Il n’existe pas de pro- gramme pour les arbres dans 46% des villes, 82% des banlieues et 97% des villages; il y a donc plusieurs opportunités mais aussi d’importantes barrières. Une compréhension incomplète des bénéfices des arbres et des pratiques d’entretien mène à un faible support public, une insuffisance de fonds ainsi qu’un personnel et des équipements inadéquats. La plu- part des décideurs favorisent le déboursé de certains montants pour les arbres, mais ils jugent les programmes pour les arbres moins importants que d’autres responsabilités civiques. Les décideurs peuvent être per- 493–498 All three 86 70 67 62 70 55 51 46 167–168 69 60 39 41 226–228 57 37 59 59 100–101 Elected official Public works Solicitor
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
