266 Kuhns and Reiter: Utility Pruning tions subsequently for descriptions of these questions). These differences should be taken into account when considering the applicability of these findings to the overall population of those six cities. Knowledge and Attitudes About Utility Pruning Do People Care? To establish whether people care about these subjects, we asked two questions about caring—one on the importance people placed on urban trees and another on how much they had thought about utility tree pruning. Respondents placed great importance on urban trees and their health and welfare with 79% rating importance high or very high and only 4% rating it low or very low. Tree importance was not signifi- cantly affected by home ownership but was by education (P < 0.010), income (P < 0.004), age (P < 0.032), and gender (P < 0.042) with trees generally rated more important as respon- dents’ education increased, at higher income levels, for all but the oldest ages, and for females (Figure 1). Many studies have confirmed the importance and value people place on urban trees. For example, 73% of Missouri residents (Treiman and Gartner 2005), 99% of residents of a Chicago suburb (Schroeder and Appelt 1985), and 98% of Alabama residents (Letson 2004) agreed that trees were valuable community assets. Hunter (2001) presents a good overview of the values Europeans place on urban trees (urban forests). Although respondents placed great importance on urban trees, most had not thought much about utility tree pruning. When they were asked “Prior to this survey, how much had you thought about utility tree pruning?,” 43% replied very little or none. This might help to explain our relatively low response rate for this survey, because it might be difficult to get people to respond about something that they have not thought much about and therefore might not care much about. However, another way to look at these data are that one- fourth (25.3% [n93]) of the respondents had thought quite a bit or a great deal, and over half (56.8% [n209]) had at least thought a moderate amount about the subject. This in- dicates a level of thought about utility tree pruning beyond what we would have guessed. The amount of thought varied significantly by income (P < 0.046), those with the highest income having thought the least about utility pruning (data not shown). Thought did not vary significantly with owner- ship, gender, age, or education. Although some studies (e.g., Close et al. 2001) and many articles and editorials in the popular press confirm peoples’ strong feelings about and dis- like of utility pruning practices (e.g., Jarvik 2007 and Muller 2007), no other studies were found that determined how much people think about utility pruning or what they think about it. Knowledge of Tree Care Practices and Issues Most of the results on people’s knowledge about topping and general tree care are not covered here. Respondents’ overall self-assessment of their knowledge about urban trees and their care was fairly low with an overall mean of 2.4 in which 1very low, 3medium, and 5very high. Knowledge varied significantly with age (P < 0.012), home ownership (P < 0.018), and gender (P < 0.018) with all but the youngest group, owners, and males rating their knowledge higher than the others. Knowledge did not vary significantly with income and education. Knowledge of urban trees and tree care was highly associated with thought about utility pruning (2 123.888, P < 0.0001) with those who felt they were most knowledgeable about trees more likely to have thought more about utility pruning. Knowledge of and Attitudes About Utility Pruning When respondents were asked to indicate who prunes trees around utilities and why, 82% correctly identified the power company as responsible, 94% correctly identified clearance for electric lines as the purpose of utility pruning (59% said phone lines), and 75% listed public safety and 82% reducing outages as the reason pruning is done around lines. Generally it seems that respondents understand who is responsible for utility pruning and why it is done. We assessed detailed knowledge of and attitudes about Figure 1. Mean importance ratings from the question “How would you rate the importance to you of urban trees and their health and welfare?” by education, in- come, age, and gender. Importance was rated as 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = medium, 4 = high, and 5 = very high. Importance varied significantly for all factors at = 0.05. ©2007 International Society of Arboriculture utility pruning in a respondent’s area (defined as in their city) by asking their level of agreement with a series of statements about the subject with agreement indicated as 1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, and 4 strongly agree (Figure 2). Figure 2A–C deals with statements about harm to trees. Most responses were fairly middle of the road, assum- ing that an agreement value of 2.5 is the midpoint between agree and disagree. There was slight disagreement that the utility pruning done in their area harms tree health and agree- ment that it harms tree aesthetics. There also was agreement
July 2007
| 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
