| Of 468 surveys mailed, 206 responses were completed
and returned, resulting in a 44% response rate. Survey findings are grouped
into four major sections: urban forest health, training and information needs,
preferred educational outreach methods, and detection and evaluation needs. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Urban Forest Health Survey respondents were asked several questions about their attitudes toward the general issue of urban forest health. They were asked to give their assessment of the current condition and overall health of urban forests within their city or state, cite specific problems or issues adversely impacting urban forest health, identify urban forest health management strategies they deemed critical to preserving the health and sustainability of urban forests, and state to what extent urban forest health management strategies were currently being implemented within their city or state. Their reactions were sought to gauge their degree of interest or perceived need to improve the health and sustainability of urban forests, their perception of important urban tree health issues and management strategies, and their perception of whether preserving the health and sustainability of urban forests was currently an integral component of Urban and Community Forestry programs within their city or State. Assessment of Urban Forest Health |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sixteen percent felt the general health was variable
within their State, by location, and ranked it lower in smaller, rural
communities that suffered from lack of program funds and urban forest health
expertise. Four percent of persons surveyed did not answer this question. Specific factors cited to be adversely affecting the health of the forests were of interest and were recorded (Table 1). Nearly all of the factors cited related to specific tree health problems. Lack of tree care and maintenance was the single most common factor cited by respondents to be adversely affecting the health of urban forests. Post-planting neglect of young trees (lack of water and pruning), and the lack of pruning and maintenance of mature trees were the most frequently cited tree maintenance problems. Environmental stress associated with urban sites was the second most frequently cited factor adversely affecting urban forest health. Soil compaction, poor soil quality, pedestrian traffic, construction and sidewalk reconstruction damage were the most frequently cited environmental stress problems. Insect and disease pests were the third ranked factor adversely affecting urban forest health with Dutch elm disease, oak wilt, hemlock woolly adelgid, ash decline and oak decline being the most frequent cited pest problems. Improper tree and site selection, improper planting techniques, lack of species diversity, and old age were also cited as factors adversely affecting the health of urban forests. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Long-Term Tree Care Critical To Urban Forest Health When asked to identify long-term tree care and maintenance strategies they deemed to be critical to the health and preservation of urban forests, over 95% of respondents selected seven strategies: proper tree pruning techniques, proper site and species selection, minimizing construction damage, insect management and control, tree health monitoring, disease management and control, and hazard tree evaluation and management (Table 2). Fertilizing and watering needs (88% of respondents) and natural disaster planning and mitigation (44% of respondents) were also selected to be critical urban forest health management strategies. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preservation and
Sustainability of Urban Forests
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Training and
Information Needs Survey respondents were asked to review a list of long-term tree care and maintenance subject areas and identify those in which they would like to receive training or printed information. Respondents were then asked to identify specific topics, within the major subject areas, in which they would like to receive training and printed information. This information was sought for use in developing educational outreach programs that specifically target identified training and printed information needs of urban forestry professionals and their constituents within the Northeastern Area. Respondents expressed interest in receiving training within all long-term tree care and maintenance subject areas listed in the survey (Table 3). Approximately 30-40% of respondents requested training in the areas of hazard tree evaluation and management, disease management, tree health monitoring and natural disaster planning and mitigation. Approximately 20-30% of respondents requested training in the areas of insect management and control, minimizing construction damage, and proper site and species selection. Proper tree pruning techniques (19% of respondents) and proper fertilization and watering techniques (17% of respondents) were identified as training needs. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondents expressed interest in receiving printed information within all long-term maintenance subject areas listed in the survey (Table 4). Approximately 70-75% of respondents requested printed information in the subject areas of insect management and control, tree health monitoring, minimizing construction damage, and disease management and control. Approximately 60-70% of respondents requested printed information on proper fertilization and watering techniques, hazard tree evaluation and management, and proper tree pruning techniques. Printed information on proper site and species selection (58% of respondents) and natural disaster planning and mitigation (57% of respondents) were also requested. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hen asked to identify specific topics they were in need of training and printed information, respondents selected the following topics within the major long-term maintenance subject areas (Table 5). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Preferred Educational Outreach Methods Survey respondents were asked to review a list of educational outreach methods and rank the degree of effectiveness for each method (Table 6). This information was sought for use in developing educational outreach programs that deliver information to clients using methods they prefer and feel are most effective. Over 90% of respondents agreed that one- to two-page fact sheets, How To informational brochures, and workshops were effective educational outreach methods. Pest alerts, reference books, State conferences, videos, regional conferences, and popular magazine articles were selected by approximately 80-90% of respondents as effective methods. Slide sets and press releases were selected by 77% and 70% of respondents, respectively. Just over half of respondents agreed that posters, Internet, interactive videos, and CD-ROMs were effective methods. The Internet and interactive videos and CD-ROMs may gain popularity as people become more familiar with them and discover the full range of capabilities of the Internet or interactive computer software. Other methods suggested (8%) included radio and TV spots (3%), field demonstrations (1%), public presentations (1%), newsletters (1%), grants (1%), and distance learning techniques such as teleconferencing and video conferencing (1%). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Respondents were asked to state their opinion as to whether it is more effective to produce two versions of informational pieces: one tailored for homeowners and another more technically oriented for professionals. Fifty seven percent of respondents strongly agreed, 29% agreed, 7% disagreed, and 3% strongly disagreed that producing two versions was the most effective approach. When asked to identify key partners in the development and distribution of urban forest health management information, respondents listed twenty entities (Table 7). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Detection and Evaluation Needs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Table of Contents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Urban Forestry Publications and Info. | On-line Publications and Info. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||