-
-
- Urban Forest Management Plan elements survey
Between October 14 and December 1, 2008, we conducted an online survey on various urban forest management plan elements. The survey was directed to urban foresters and other urban forestry professionals. The survey listed a number of common management plan elements as well as various management actions and tools. For each item, respondents were asked to indicate:
A. whether it is part of your current urban forest management system (yes/no)
B. how effective/useful it has been, choosing from the following categories:
1 — very useful/effective
2 — moderately useful/effective
3 — somewhat useful/effective
4 — not very useful/effective
5 — not at all useful/effective
Respondents generally interpreted this question as "how effective/useful do you consider [the element] to be". Respondents provided ratings on elements that they did not have.
C. how important you feel it would be to address in the Urban Forest Management Plan Toolkit, choosing from the following categories: 1-high, 2-medium, 3-low, 4-not needed
Survey results are summarized in the tables below. To simplify data interpretation, we combined the positive ratings. For question B, "very" and "moderately" effective/useful ratings were combined. For question C, the "high" and "medium" priority responses were combined. We also subdivided the ratings into two groups: respondents that had the item in their current plan (blue background) and those that didn't (green background).
For almost every item listed, those that used a particular item rated that item more positively than did the non-users. This result may be due to one or more reasons. Those that didn't use an item may have rated its usefulness lower because they did not have direct experience with the item. In other words, they didn't know what they were missing. Alternatively, they may have previously used an item and found it to be ineffective, and so no longer use it.
Overall, most of the elements were viewed as relatively useful/effective, especially among respondents that currently used those elements. Even the three elements that got the lowest positive ratings overall ("Historical context", "Long term tree rotation schedule", "Regulation of tree care on private properties") were viewed positively by large majorities among the actual users of these elements. The most widely used management tool overall was "Tree protection standards/ordinance" (86% of respondents).
The results showed a wide diversity in the array of elements that were included in urban forest management programs.
General urban forest management plan elementsDoes your plan include this element?
yes
no
Plan elements
currently
use % yes% very or moderately useful % high or medium priority for toolkit
% very or moderately useful % high or medium priority for toolkit Introductory elements
Historical context (how UF has developed over time) 52
83
68
33
22
Current management framework (including interactions between departments) 74
78
94
72
87
Tree benefit value estimates (storm water, air quality, C offset, etc) 43
81
65
72
100
Integration of UF management plan with General/Specific Plans 46
79
100
67
82
Canopy cover ratings by area / situation 28
91
100
53
68
Planning elements
Needs assessment 78
89
100
76
100
Overall plan goals 78
90
99
74
100
Assessment methods and progress reporting 63
83
94
54
84
Implementation/action plan for meeting goals 67
97
100
58
90
Timetable for meeting goals 61
82
98
62
88
Urban forest management tools and actions
Does your program include this action or tool?
yes
no
Tools and actions
currently
use % yes% very or moderately useful
% high or medium priority for toolkit
% very or moderately useful
% high or medium priority for toolkit
Inventory
Tree inventory (complete or partial)
82
91
99
62
93
Inventory of empty planting spaces
57
87
94
71
88
Tree inventory-based work scheduling/reporting
48
90
94
61
83
Tree sample survey(s)
39
79
94
44
63
Selection and planting
Canopy cover goals by area / situation
30
87
100
53
73
Overall tree species selection list
77
75
91
50
72
Tree species selection list by area / situation
66
87
91
47
67
Species diversity goals by area / situation
52
87
96
58
67
Planting standards (including site preparation)
74
95
97
59
77
Planting stock standards
67
90
93
62
70
Maintenance and removal
Tree care standards
73
92
98
62
76
Wood / greenwaste recycling/utilization
44
75
83
60
68
Tree hazard assessment program
67
97
98
65
79
Long term tree rotation schedule / expected life
23
70
85
41
58
Budgeting
Annual tree planting cost projections
52
87
98
39
72
Annual pruning cost projections
48
81
95
52
85
Annual tree removal cost projections
41
94
94
66
82
Use of external grant funding for programs/projects
70
91
96
36
75
Regulatory
Tree protection standards/ordinance
86
83
98
60
67
Design standards for trees in new development
67
84
96
55
73
Permit process to allow residents to prune, remove, or plant community street trees
59
68
91
42
63
Regulation of tree care on private properties (e.g., anti-topping, oak pruning)
29
66
92
40
52
Community interactions
Tree commission/advisory board
58
77
96
35
55
Interaction with citizen nonprofit / volunteer groups
77
75
93
57
65
Citizen education / outreach programs and materials
69
73
94
68
82
Survey demographicsWe received 92 responses to this survey. Among those who provided the information:
Organization:
57 % City
7 % County
4% District
10% Nonprofit organization
7% State
7% consultants
2% educational institutions
plus 6% others at no more than 1% each.
Where responses came from:State / Country Count Percent of responses CA 23 31 CO 1 1 FL 2 2 IL 3 4 KS 1 1 KY 3 4 LA 1 1 MA 2 2 MD 1 1 ME 1 1 MI 12 16 MN 1 1 MO 2 2 NC 2 2 NM 1 1 NV 2 2 OR 2 2 PA 1 1 TN 1 1 TX 3 4 UT 2 2 VA 2 2 WA 4 5 WI 1 1 Canada 1 1
- Create an account
submit
- Log In
-
submit
- Password Help?
- Need Your Password?
submit
If you have already registered and do not remember your password, type your email address here. We will email your new password.
- Need Your Password?
Please Wait ...
This is a project of California Urban Forests Council, and the Inland Urban Forest Council.
-
Sponsor: 