Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(4): July 2007 267 Respondents’ dislike of the esthetics of directional prun- Figure 2. Mean agreement with statements about harm to trees from utility pruning and about the people who do utility pruning in their area, without and with an educa- tional brochure, in which 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = dis- agree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree. For the state- ments with a star, level of agreement was significantly higher if the respondent received a brochure (P < 0.001, 0.001, 0.030, and 0.039, respectively). that pruning techniques are used that minimize harm to trees while maintaining clearance. Receiving a brochure had no apparent or significant effect on agreement for these three statements (based on 2, 0.05). Figure 2D–F deals with training of utility pruning personnel and public relations. Without a brochure, agreement was only moderate that prun- ing officials are highly trained professionals, but this agree- ment was significantly strengthened for those who received the brochure (2 10.930, P < 0.012) (Figure 2D). The relatively few respondents (n 82) who had direct interac- tions with pruning officials appear to have had satisfactory experiences (Figure 2E). Finally, respondents fairly strongly disagreed that utility pruning officials do a good job explain- ing the process to the public (Figure 2F). Statements in Figure 2G–K deal again with utility pruning personnel, what they care about and their trustworthiness. There was strong agreement that pruning officials care a lot about line clearance and outages (Figure 2G) and weaker agreement that they care a lot about the public’s safety (Fig- ure 2H) with the latter significantly increased if they received a brochure (28.997, P < 0.029). Three statements (Figure 2I–K) dealt with pruning personnel’s care for trees. There was slight agreement that pruning officials can be trusted to treat trees properly, and this was not significantly affected by the brochure. There was disagreement that they care a lot about trees, which turned to agreement if the respondent re- ceived a brochure (210.448, P < 0.015). Agreement was slight for an oppositely worded statement that officials prune without concern for trees with moderate disagreement if the respondent received the brochure, although the brochure’s effect was not significant at 0.05 (2 4.663, P < 0.198). ing, with the more severe-looking forms being disliked the most, was expected. This goes along with our personal ob- servation that people think that directional pruning looks un- natural and possibly harmful. It also generally matches what little literature there is on the subject; Schroeder and Cannon (1983) showed that views of natural features were preferred in 16 Ohio towns, and in particular, people did not like seeing utility lines. The only other paper we found on peoples’ es- thetic perceptions of utility forestry practices was one titled “Esthetic perceptions of the urban forest: A utility perspec- tive” by Schroeder (1989). Schroeder summarized research from a number of studies related to people’s perceptions and preferences about urban trees and speculated on the implica- tions of those feelings for utility arboriculture. He felt that because of peoples’ preferences for large street trees with wide, spreading crowns, and because those trees are the ones most affected by utility pruning, “there are no easy solutions to the utility arborist’s task.” Other refereed, research-based literature on social aspects of utility forestry is almost non- existent. We found almost no literature describing research on peoples’ feelings about or trust of utility forestry person- nel, although Flowers and Gerhold (2000) mention dissension and resentment directed at utility companies over pruning and unnatural tree appearance in their introduction. Also, McGil- livary et al. (1996) indirectly indicated that the Kansas elec- tric utilities they surveyed experienced problems with tree owners and poor public image. Respondents’ amount of past thought about utility pruning was significantly associated with their estimation of pruning officials’ concern for their safety (2 34.512, P < 0.001) and officials’ caring for trees (2 42.965, P < 0.0001); those who had thought a lot about utility pruning were less trusting (Figure 3). The proportion of respondents agreeing (agree or strongly agree) with the statements “The people who do utility pruning in my area care a lot about my safety” and “I trust the people who do utility line pruning in my area to treat the trees properly” dropped by almost half and by well over half, respectively, as the amount of thought about utility pruning went from none to a great deal. Level of past thought about utility pruning also was significantly associated with agreement about whether pruning officials show concern for trees when they prune (227.479, P < 0.007). Agreement with the statement “Utility pruning in my area is done without concern for how it affects the trees” almost tripled as thought went from none to a great deal (Figure 3). This relative lack of trust that trees would be treated right from those who had thought a lot about utility pruning indi- cates that those thoughts tended to be negative. It is not possible to tell whether people who think a lot about utility pruning are predisposed for some reason to perceiving actions like utility tree pruning negatively or whether their thinking a lot about utility pruning is just a function of some bad pruning ©2007 International Society of Arboriculture
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
