Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 42(5): September 2016 and Gerhold (2003) found the Building with Trees seminar, hosted by The Arbor Day Foundation, to be effective in increasing knowledge of construc- tion practices in wooded areas. University extension agencies and state departments of forestry have pro- duced comprehensive guides available for free, such as those in Minnesota (Johnson 1999), Pennsylva- nia (Elmendorf 2005), Oregon (Ries et al. 2009), and other locations. The information and training was and still is available if builders are motivated to pursue it. CONCLUSIONS Many practices that builders were using when con- structing homes on wooded sites in 1980 have not changed in the recent study. This stagnation in builder practices is in stark contrast to the prolifera- tion in understanding of the impacts of construc- tion activities near trees in the arboriculture field. Although efforts to educate builders have been made (Johnson 1999; Elmendorf 2005; Ries et al. 2009), the knowledge isn’t being applied. As the po- tential negative impacts to trees due to construction activities are huge, the weight of this issue is critical. Builders continued to trench and place drive- ways near trees. They were much less likely to place foundations near trees, however, placing fill near trees and raising the grade became more common. Interestingly, most builders knew plac- ing fill near trees was improper, yet they were more likely to do so today. Thus, many builders apparently understand some basic tree biology, yet fail to act upon the best management practice. Builders’ poor knowledge of tree preservation practices remains constant, and they have limited interest in receiving training on the topic. However, as evidenced through the revolution of energy effi- ciency in new homes over the last 20 to 30 years, builders actually are quite adaptable in their skills and knowledge and will modify practices if the marketplace or buyers ask for such (Tinker et al. 2006). Further, working proactively with builders and developers before and during construc- tion can help mitigate or prevent damage to trees from development (Ames and Dewald 2003). Builders are motivated by profit and market demand (Vigmostad 2003; Tinker et al. 2006). Custom-built homes are common in this area, which is more likely to ensure a profit in all rea- sonable circumstances. This leaves market demand 297 (client request) as the primary influence on build- ers’ actions. Vigmostad (2003) states, “Develop- ers do not want to do what is unpopular and have shown that they will respond to changes in public values.” Builders in Michigan understood home- buyer preference for different forms of ecological versus conventional designs (Westbrook 2010). Their perception of the profitability was a barrier for deviating from conventional practice especially in low to mid-priced markets (Westbrook 2010). If homebuyers were educated on tree preservation and requested that an arborist or other professional trained in tree preservation were included in the design and construction process, the builder would almost certainly comply. Homeowner request or builder use of tree preservation experts was lim- ited, even though national standards specify they should be used in tree preservation projects. Thus, either there is a lack of knowledge or use of stan- dards, such as the ANSI A300, or tree preser- vation is not an objective during development. Builders themselves may also then be motivated to pursue training, which could result in a boon for tree preservation by filling the current gap in incen- tive. This gap is characterized by builders who have hardly changed their practices or advanced their knowledge of tree preservation over this 28-year span, and a total lack of regulation in the study area. Education and regulation can be thought of as complementary means to achieving a shared goal, and in this case, regulation isn’t present, thus leav- ing education as the only option. The best hope for motivating builders to pursue education may be market demand through consumer education. Demand from educated consumers, and in some states, changes to building code, has resulted in builders learning and adopting the new skills required to use new building materials and prac- tices designed to increase home energy efficiency. A similar renaissance could occur in the practices and knowledge of builders, if proper tree preservation became the new convention during home construc- tion or if tree preservation became part of local, state, or national building code. The greatest impact on tree preservation during home construction in wooded lots may be through the education of the public on the necessity to involve tree preservation professionals during the planning, construction, and post-construction stages of home building. ©2016 International Society of Arboriculture
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
