Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 44(2): March 2018 of the 2011 census is unclear given the differ- ent voluntary approach used only in this census year (Statistics Canada 2015), making the cause of divergences (census issues, survey represen- tativeness, or temporal differences) uncertain. Attitudes Toward Native Species In general, respondents believe that native spe- cies are more beneficial than non-native spe- cies in urban areas: 85% said that native species are or may be more beneficial, while only 15% did not believe that native species are more ben- eficial. Based on coding of an open-ended ques- tion, the most common reasons stated as to why native species are more beneficial are: they grow better, are better suited to the climate, have a bet- ter chance of survival, are resilient, contribute to the native ecosystem, are healthier, and non- native trees can become invasive. In contrast, the most common reasons given as to why na- tive species are not more beneficial in urban areas were: urban areas are not native, trees are trees, and variety is helpful to adapt to climate change. While there was widespread recognition of the value of native species in urban areas, only 20% of respondents said native status of the tree was a pri- mary consideration when choosing a tree to plant on their property. The most common factors were: shade provision (58% of respondents), size and shape of tree species (54% of respondents), suits the aesthetic of their home (48% of respondents), and maintenance requirements of the tree (36% of respondents), suggesting that a list of “native alternatives to non-native trees” would be a use- ful education tool for municipalities to provide. Most respondents (64%) agreed or strongly agreed that their municipality should be plant- ing more trees, planting more native trees (65%), and that other homeowners should also plant more native trees (52%). In contrast, only 9% thought that their municipality should plant more non-native trees. These results are reinforced by the finding that 73% of respondents believe that their municipality is responsible for maintain- ing their natural heritage, with more respondents from municipalities with an UFMP believing (81%) that it is the responsibility of the munici- pality to maintain natural heritage. However, only 19% of respondents thought that all varieties of 107 native trees should be planted by municipalities if they could lead to added costs or hazards, and 57% thought that municipalities should not plant native trees if they require extra maintenance. Four components were retained from the atti- tude statement PCA (Table 2). Component 1 (gen- erally positive attitudes toward native species) was associated with statements that captured attitude toward native tree species issues, with more posi- tive values related to preference for selecting native species and considering them beneficial. The state- ments associated with municipalities and home- owners not needing to plant more trees were most highly, positively loaded on Component 2 (no tree planting). Component 3 (reduced hazards and future conditions) is associated with statements about tree hazards and practicing assisted migra- tion. The fourth component (plant all natives) rep- resents the statement: all varieties of native trees should be planted by the municipality, even if this leads to greater hazards and/or maintenance costs. It is interesting that this statement was only weakly associated with the first component, which is most strongly correlated to all other statements related to valuing and planting native species; sup- port to plant all species of native trees regardless of hazards and costs differs from generally appre- ciating native species and believing that home- owners and municipalities should plant them. Based on the ANOVA (Table 3), general atti- tudes toward native species (Component 1) is strongly related to education and place of birth. Specifically, respondents with higher education- levels, and those who still live in their munici- pality of birth or those born in Ontario are more likely to have positive native species attitudes. Additionally, place of birth is related to the idea that homeowners and municipalities should be planting more trees (Component 2); Immigrants were more likely to feel that homeowners and municipalities do not need to plant more trees (Component 2). Immigrants to Canada were also more likely to be in favor of planting all variet- ies of native trees (Component 4), even if it leads to greater hazards and maintenance costs. Results from Component 3 (reduced hazards and future conditions) were not significantly related to place of birth. The ANOVA indicated no sig- nificant relationships between the presence of an ©2018 International Society of Arboriculture
March 2018
| 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
