Filetype PDF | Posted on 20 Jan 2023 | 2 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
157x 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.
