272 Kuhns and Reiter: Utility Pruning by Schroeder (1989), “it is important to involve local resi- dents in decisions affecting their trees and utilities.” Outreach and education about pruning techniques and the importance of maintaining clearance is very important. Negative effects of topping also need to be made clear, because those who think that topping is alright for the tree will likely prefer it over directional pruning. Brochures can be effective but may need to focus more intensively than ours on the evils of topping as well as explaining that the soft hedged look of some topped trees belies hidden weaknesses and future prob- lems. Utilities also could and should make much more use of the positive aspects of their Tree Line USA designation. This could go a long way toward increasing trust of the utility and its motives in line clearance, trust that could buy public good- will in high-profile removal or pruning situations or could keep some situations from becoming high profile. Also, more research is warranted on the Tree Line USA and Tree City USA programs and how to make the most of their potential to bolster public support and knowledge. Utilities also would be well served to maintain greater trust by looking for and recognizing situations likely to result in high conflict and avoiding them when possible. Although large tree removal often is the utility’s preferred mode, some- times going to the public or a city with removal as your first preference and intention will damage credibility when direc- tional pruning is an option. For example, removal of a silver maple (Acer saccharinum), cottonwood (Populus spp.), or eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) under power lines in an alley makes a lot of sense and may be unlikely to raise widespread public concern. Removal of the same species under a power line along a city street also makes a lot of sense, because these species are unlikely to be valuable contributors to the urban forest in such a situation. On the other hand, trying to remove a row of oaks (Quercus spp.) under power lines down a main street through a historic neighborhood may make sense from an economic perspective but is much more likely to cause public outcry and may damage the credibility of the utility trying to do the removal. This might be a case in which advocating for directional pruning and accepting that “the right tree in the right place” does not always have to be a small tree may be the best way for the utility to maintain its credibility. It also is in keeping with the spirit of the Tree Line USA recognition program, which requires that “direc- tional pruning is used when possible to prevent removal of large trees” (Fazio 2002). Acknowledgments. Support for this project came from the ISA Duling Grants (now the TREE Fund), the Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism at Utah State University, and the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Logan, Utah (ap- proved as journal paper no. 7847). We thank Ms. Susan Durham for help with statistical analysis. ©2007 International Society of Arboriculture LITERATURE CITED Barnes, B. 1988. Community involvement/public outreach in line clearance. Journal of Arboriculture 14:298–301. Brunson, M.W., and D.K. Reiter. 1996. Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. Journal of Environmental Management 46: 31–41. Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics (BTCE). 1997. Measuring the Benefits of Putting Cables Underground. Report published by BTCE, Canberra, Aus- tralia. www.dcita.gov.au/cables/files/bureau_a.doc (ac- cessed 01/24/07). Close, D.D., J.W. Groninger, J.C. Mangun, and P.L. Roth. 2001. Homeowners’ opinions on the practice and effects of topping trees. Journal of Arboriculture 27:160–165. Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Fazio, J.R. 2002. Tree Line USA. Tree City USA Bulletin No. 25, J.R. Fazio, ed. National Arbor Day Foundation, Nebraska City, NE. Fazio, J.R., and E.E. Krumpe. 1999. Underlying beliefs and attitudes about topping trees. Journal of Arboriculture 25: 192–199. Flowers, D.E., and H.D. Gerhold. 2000. Replacement of trees under utility wires impacts attitudes and community tree programs. Journal of Arboriculture 26:309–318. Galvin, M.F., and D. Bleil. 2004. Relationship among tree canopy quantity, community demographics, and Tree City USA program participation in Maryland, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 30:321–327. Goodfellow, J.W. 1995. Engineering and construction alter- natives to line clearance tree work. Journal of Arboricul- ture 21:41–49. Grado, S.C., D.L. Grebner, M.K. Measells, and A.L. Husak. 2006. Status, needs, and knowledge of Mississippi’s com- munities relative to urban forestry. Journal of Arboricul- ture 32:24–32. Hunter, I.R. 2001. What do people want from urban for- estry?—The European experience. Urban Ecosystems 5: 277–284. Jarvik, E. 2007. Pruning is tricky mix of aesthetics, safety. Deseret Morning News, 8 January 2007. www.deseretnews. com (accessed 01/24/07). Jensen, E.V. 2000. The effects of information on Danish forest visitors’ acceptance of various management ac- tions. Forestry 73:165–172. Johnstone, R.A. 1983. Management techniques for utility tree maintenance. Journal of Arboriculture 9:17–20. ———. 1988. Economics of utility lateral trimming. Journal of Arboriculture 14:74–77.
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
