jagomart
digital resources
picture1_Forest Pdf 159059 | Urbanforestryattitudessurvey


 144x       Filetype PDF       File size 0.05 MB       Source: mdc.mo.gov


File: Forest Pdf 159059 | Urbanforestryattitudessurvey
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 ...

icon picture PDF Filetype PDF | Posted on 20 Jan 2023 | 2 years ago
Partial capture of text on file.
                 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 
The words contained in this file might help you see if this file matches what you are looking for:

...Notes for forest managers missouri department of conservation report december urban forestry in characteristics a sustainable abstract communities community self administered attitudes and knowledge survey mailed to the national arbor day foundation s local officials tree city usa program certifies commu com nities that have met four basic elements munities found better understand offi most those budget no dollars cials motivation behav are good tool use assess care activities ior question ing seventy five percent naire was would surveyed indicated who they do not members municipal board or foresry an employee league overall response rate spends someone legally responsible majority their time mailing list with public trees designed by ordinance on related activ responding from ities determines policies planting written our goal characterize maintenance removals ordi management plan agencies charged managing nance also designates comprehensive budgets personnel levels writing determine ...

no reviews yet
Please Login to review.