294 O'Herrin et al.: Homebuilder Practices and Perceptions on Wooded Lots built homes putatively visit the site before and during construction to add their input, which conceivably results in few surprises. Most builders gave no preference to the size of trees they remove, but those that did tended to leave large trees standing, which was consistent with the desire of the majority of homebuyers. Despot and Gerhold (2003) found that an over- whelming majority of builders agreed that cli- ents will pay extra for large trees to be preserved on-site. Similarly, removing about half of the trees on the lot was consistent with homebuyers’ overwhelming desire for a finished lot that was both partially landscaped and partially natural. These findings are also consistent with Schro- eder and Green (1985) and Yang et al. (2009), who found large trees and moderately dense (park-like) environments are visually attractive and highly rated. The preference for what a site looks like did vary by the person’s age, education level, occupation, and personal level of interest in a natural environment (Brush 2000; Bjerke et al. 2006; Nassauer et al. 2009; Miller et al. 2015). Knowledge The results confirm that most builders did not con- sult a tree preservation expert (78%), such as an arborist or forester, and they ranked ‘consulting with tree preservation experts’ as the very least im- portant activity when preserving trees on wooded lots (index 2.58). Similarly, Olsen et al. (2014) found that 77% of construction professionals in Alabama, U.S., seldom (41%) or never (26%) work with a cer- tified arborist before beginning construction on a project with trees to be preserved. The remaining 33% seldom worked with certified arborists and no one said they always or almost always do such. The use of certified arborists to review construction plans for tree protection and preservation was also uncommon in the Alabama study, with 100% saying they sometimes (37%), seldom (9%), or never (54%) consult with this credentialed expert. This exempli- fies why it is so important that homeowners become educated and begin requesting proper tree preser- vation practices and the involvement of those that have the necessary skills and knowledge (Fite and Smiley 2008a). Olsen et al. (2014) found that the primary barrier to implementing tree preservation on a project was that clients do not request it, with ©2016 International Society of Arboriculture over 90% sometimes (52%) and seldom or never (41%) requesting tree protection. If clients requested that proper tree preservation practices be followed, builders could presumably find a way to comply. Many mechanisms exist to educate homeowners and builders through outreach programs, includ- ing local municipal foresters, extension personnel, university educators, professional organizations, non-profit groups, private companies, and others (Nichnadowicz 2007; Hauer and Johnson 2008; Miller et al. 2015). Builders themselves could develop knowledge of best management practices for construction practices in wooded environ- ments, but interest in a workshop was limited. This could change if homeowners began requesting those practices more frequently, since builders are motivated by market demand (Tinker et al. 2006). A regulation through local ordinance or state statute is another way to force adherence to tree preservation standards (Abbey 1998; Galvin et al. 2010; Miller et al. 2015). Woodland protection ordi- nances have become more common. Duerksen and Richman (1993) reported that 100 tree protection ordinances existed in the entire United States in the early 1980s. By the end of that decade, over 80 such ordinances existed in the state of California alone. Today, nearly 50% of communities (n ≈ 650) that responded to a national municipal tree management survey indicated they have an ordinance that details some level of tree preservation during development on public and/or private land (Hauer and Peterson 2015). Schmied and Pillman (2003) found 74% of 34 contacted cities in Europe had tree protection leg- islation for public and/or private areas. Elmendorf et al. (2003) found in Pennsylvania, U.S., that most shade tree commission respondents had the attitude that tree preservation ordinances (81%) and pre- serving trees in development (87%) was important. In practice, however, approximately 20% had a tree preservation or landscape ordinance, and 20% prac- ticed approaches to preserve trees in construction. In this study area, no local ordinances or state laws regulate construction near trees. One possible reason for a lack of tree preservation regulations is that the study area has much residual forested area that has not been developed, and any visual impact of tree loss from either removal or later construction- induced mortality is minimal. There is an example of one covenant from the study area that regu-
September 2016
| 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
