144x Filetype PDF File size 0.05 MB Source: mdc.mo.gov
Notes For Forest Managers Missouri Department of Conservation Report #6 December 2003 Urban Forestry in Missouri Characteristics of a sustainable ABSTRACT Communities: community A self-administered Attitudes and Knowledge survey mailed to The National Arbor Day Foundation’s local forestry officials of Local Officials Tree City USA program certifies commu- in 602 Missouri com- nities that have met four basic elements of munities found that To better understand local forestry offi- most communities a community forestry program. Those four budget no dollars for cials’ knowledge, motivation and behav- elements are a good tool to use in assess- tree care activities. ior, a self-administered survey question- ing a community’s forestry program. A Seventy-five percent naire was mailed to local forestry officials of the communities sustainable community would have: surveyed indicated in 602 Missouri communities who are that they do not members of the Missouri Municipal 1. A tree board or foresry department – have an employee League. The overall response rate for the who spends the someone legally responsible for care of majority of their time mailing list was 60 percent, with 364 public trees designed by ordinance. on tree related activ- communities responding from the 602 ities. Most Missouri surveyed. communities do not 2. A tree care ordinance that determines have a public tree public tree care policies for planting, ordinance, a written Our goal was to characterize the local maintenance and removals. The ordi- community forest management plan, agencies charged with managing urban nance also designates the board or or a comprehensive trees, their budgets and personnel levels, department responsible for writing and tree ordinance that and to determine which urban forestry implementing an annual community addresses tree preservation during issues local forestry officials found to be forestry work plan. development. This most pressing. This information is useful points to the need in targeting the Missouri Department of for greater publicity 3. Annual spending of at least $2 per of the value of trees, Conservation’s Community Forestry capita for tree management. the value of planning Program. The program is designed to for proper care and advise, coordinate and facilitate the efforts the necessity to edu- 4. An annual public education program or cate communities. made by many jurisdictions and entities event. that own and affect community forests. tree ordinance are more likely to partici- Characteristics of an average Missouri community pate in state cost-share programs; Survey results show that most St. Louis suburban communities seem communities: to utilize cost-share programs more than communities in the suburbs of Kansas Are reactive in caring for their commu- City. nity forest with the majority budgeting no dollars for tree care activities – well below the $2 per capita benchmark that Most community officials the Tree City USA program sets; charged with tree care and maintenance: Do not have a full-time person employed to care for that community’s Do not feel that they have enough trees and are unlikely to have even one resources to adequately mange and person who deals with trees maintain publicly-owned trees; occasionally; Do not employ anyone with a degree in Feel that their community does not have forestry, horticulture or a related enough publicly-owned trees but do not subject; feel that tree planting is very important; and Do not have a public tree ordinance or a Feel that pruning and removing hazard written community forest management trees is important. plan; Fund or budget tree activities from gen- Recommendations eral revenue; and The survey results show that most May locate tree care responsibilities in Missouri communities do not meet the many different departments including guidelines that The National Arbor Day Maintenance, Public Works, and Parks Foundation requires for Tree City USA and Recreation. certification. The survey and analysis leads to the following recommendations: Communities with a population under Most communities lack basic informa- 5,000 and those with a population tion on tree planting, pruning, hazard greater than 150,000 feel the most tree identification, etc. A concerted strongly that their community is not effort should be made to provide adequately addressing tree care during training of this nature. development; Communities with a population under The responsibility for tree care in a 5,000 seldom participate in community given community could be in any num- forestry cost-share programs; ber of departments. It is critical to ask questions to get information to the per- Communities that are willing to budget son or work team who really needs the for tree care activities or have a public training and information. The goal should be to deliver targeted and coor- maximize greenspace and conserve dinated assistance. watersheds should be enhanced. Since most communities do not current- 1999 Urban Tree Survey ly hire anyone to work directly with trees and their budget for trees is often A comparison of data between a 1999 zero, it may be necessary to begin work urban tree survey and a similar one done by meeting with the decision makers in in 1989 shows significant changes in a community (i.e. Mayor, City Missouri’s community forests. Results Administrator) to stress the value of the show: community’s tree infrastructure, the importance of personnel and dedicated There are more trees on public property funding for maintenance trees. but a decline in their condition. Information on how to diversify funding Missouri’s urban forests are becoming and secure more stable sources of more diverse. The top six tree species income will prove valuable when meet- constitute 37 percent of those surveyed ing with community leaders. A commu- in 1999, as compared to 53 percent nity forestry fact sheet that includes found in 1989. advice on these issues could be developed. The average value of a Missouri street State agencies should form or strength- tree increased by $642, using the en partnerships with non-governmental Council of Tree and Landscape organizations, such as municipal Appraisers’ formula. leagues and community betterment There has been little or no data that could councils. These partnerships would be used to attribute these changes to com- facilitate the distribution of information munity forestry programs, to demographic on the value of trees to a community, changes in the communities, to changes in creative funding mechanisms and tree local urban tree management department care techniques. operations or budgets, or to changes in Cost-share dollars should continue to be local officials’ attitudes. made available to communities to fund Reviewing the public official’s attitudes in community forestry activities, with an light of the physical tree data collected in emphasis on increasing participation a 1999 urban tree survey shows some among communities with a population interesting challenges: under 5,000. Emphasis on pruning and hazard tree Seventy-one percent of respondents removal may be a way to engage non- thought that their community’s trees were in good condition. This contrasts traditional communities. with the 36 percent of public trees that were found in Good to Excellent cate- Interest in tree preservation during gories in the 1999 re-inventory. development is high in most communi- ties. Efforts to provide information on Public officials had relatively little development principles that preserve or interest or concern over topped trees. This, combined with the fact that only 12 percent of trees surveyed in the 1999 re-inventory of street trees were topped, is encouraging. Topping, which is com- mon on private property, is not a con- cern for municipalities. Most communities (64 %) rate removal of hazardous trees as very important and 52 percent feel that hazardous trees are a problem in their community. The 1999 resurvey found 7.4 percent of trees in a hazardous condition or dead. Forty-one percent of respondents indi- cate they feel their community does not have enough public trees yet there is not a strong interest in tree planting. The 1999 survey of existing conditions indi- cate that most communities have 33 planting locations available per mile in their community. For more details see Gartner, Treiman, and Frevert, 2002, Missouri Urban Forest - A Ten Year Look. Journal of Arboriculture. Vol. 28(2), pp. 76-83. Principal Investigators Thomas Treiman Natural Resource Economist, Resource Science Division, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia Justine Gartner Field Program Supervisor, Forestry Division, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.