270 Kuhns and Reiter: Utility Pruning trees topped did it solely for aesthetic reasons. It is important to note in the current study that showing preference for the appearance of a practice does not necessarily equate to en- dorsement of that practice; it may just be the least objection- able of the choices they were presented. All of the respondents were living in cities served by elec- Figure 6. Proportion of respondents who think A, B, C, or D looks the worst without and with the brochure (choosing only one; hatched and solid black bars) and who think A, B, C, or D look like the utility-pruned trees in their area (they could choose more than one; white bars). to one over the V. The brochure had no effect on preference for the look of the L versus the one-sided tree; either way people preferred the L. Receiving a brochure did significantly decrease disapproval of the one-sided tree (215.215, P < 0.019) (Figure 6). Without the brochure, respondents were seven times more likely to feel that the pruning done for the topped tree was better for the tree than that done for the V’ed tree (Figure 5). With the brochure, however, which focused heavily on these issues, those proportions changed with slightly more thinking the V pruning was better than the topping. This significant effect of a simple educational brochure (2 63.235, P < 0.0001) is encouraging, although we had hoped the brochure would have had an even greater effect. Respondents felt that the V’ed tree was better for line clearance with the brochure increasing this feeling almost two to one over the topped tree (2 11.467, P < 0.009). Presumably this is because the nearest branches to the lines were farther away on the V’ed tree than the topped tree. Schroeder and Cannon (1983), as mentioned previously, found that people preferred streetscapes with trees with a fairly natural appearance and utility lines not showing, and Schroeder (1989) mentioned that people preferred broad- spreading tree canopies. This could help explain peoples’ dislike of the V, L, and one-sided trees we presented but does not explain their preference for the topped look. It could be that the idealized topped tree appearance may have looked the least harsh or unnatural. Fazio and Krumpe (1999) found that very few people who topped trees or had them topped did it because they like the look of it. Close et al. (2001) reported that 16% of people in several Illinois towns who had their ©2007 International Society of Arboriculture tric utilities that had received the Tree Line USA award from the NADF for multiple years. Presumably topping of trees under the electric lines happens little, if at all, because pro- gram requirements implicitly forbid topping. In fact, the V- look was chosen by the greatest proportion of respondents as the look of utility pruning in their area (Figure 6). However, close behind the V was the topped tree; over 40% of respon- dents felt that the topped tree looks like the utility pruning they are seeing in their area. Perhaps this relates to the two- dimensional representations used in the survey versus the three-dimensional trees people would actually see. Often por- tions of a tree’s crown or other trees’ crowns obscure the V shape depending on one’s point of view. It also could be that some people have viewed properly pruned excurrent-form trees that are not easily pruned into Vs and may appear to have been topped. Substantially fewer thought they were see- ing Ls, and very few were seeing one-sided trees, reflecting our observation that such trees are relatively rare. Tree Line USA and Tree City USA All utilities included in this study were recipients of the Tree Line USA award that recognizes utilities for treating trees right (NADF 2006a). Because this program seemed to have great potential to increase trust and perceived professionalism of utility foresters and arborists, we asked respondents about their familiarity with the program. We also asked whether they were familiar with the Tree City USA program, because all six cities are long-time Tree City USA awardees. Tree City USA is a NADF program that recognizes cities for hav- ing active, quality urban/community forestry programs (NADF 2006b). It appears that utilities and cities may not be fully using the potential of the Tree Line USA and Tree City USA programs for generating public support. Most respondents (90% over- all) had definitely never heard of the Tree Line USA pro- gram, and only four individuals had definitely heard of it and knew what it was (Figure 7). Recognition, indicated by the percentage who had at least possibly heard of the program, varied from 4% to 15% and was highest in Salt Lake City with Rocky Mountain Power and lowest in Albuquerque with New Mexico Public Service. Results were better for Tree City USA, but still 74% had definitely never heard of the program (Figure 7). Tree City USA recognition varied widely, with Cheyenne having 48.5% recognition and 22 years in the program, Boise 18.1% and 26 years, and Albu- querque 12.5% and 7 years.
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
