The Wooded Lot: Homeowner And Builder Knowledge And Perception

Homeowner questionnaire

The homeowner questionnaire consisted of 28 questions to explore: 1) the relative importance of various factors influencing the buyer’s purchase of a wooded lot; 2) homeowner attitudes affecting the management of wooded lots; and 3) the level of knowledge possessed in respect to the protection and management of trees and associated vegetation on their lots..A preliminary questionnaire and letter of explanation was distributed in a trial run to 15 homeowners living on wooded lots outside the study area. Revised questionnaires, along with a cover letter, were randomly distributed to 67 homeowners with 64 returns.

Builder questionnaire

The builder questionnaire consisted of 29 questions designed to examine common construction practices and the level of knowledge builders possess in respect to the protection of trees and associated vegetation. A trial run was not made as the number of builders which could be contacted was limited. All builders in the area were contacted, 22 questionnaires distributed, and 1 5 returned.

Factors influencing purchase

To determine the importance of factors influencing the purchase of wooded lots, 12 factors were presented to property owners. They were asked to rate the importance of these on a 5-point Likert scale: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree. Table 1 indicates that the presence of trees was clearly the most important factor influencing the purchase of their property. Homeowners were also asked, “What percent of the total sales price of your home and lot can be attributed to vegetation?” A figure between 5 and 10 percent is commonly accepted in assessing the contribution of trees to the value of improved property (5, 2). Thirty-seven percent estimated values within the range described above, while 46 percent of the respondents overestimated the value which trees and associated vegetation contribute to their property. Resale value was also found to be important, and this too may be an indication of the desirability of wooded home sites.

Tree attributes

A list of selected tree attributes was presented and prefaced with the statement, “Trees and associated vegetation are valued because they enhance living conditions and the use of your property in the following manner.” The attribute most valued in trees was that of lending beauty to property (Table 2). The second most important attribute was that of enhancing resale value, while remaining factors show that the homeowner has some recognition of the tangible role trees play in modifying and enhancing the physical environment. Some caution should be taken here, as homeowners might not give these responses if they were not listed.

Associated vegetation and wildlife

Respondents were given an opportunity to comment on wildlife and vegetation other than trees. Surveyed homeowners felt the amount of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation found on their properties was adequate. The amount of trees found on homeowner properties was also characterized as adequate. While these results seem to indicate that homeowners place as much importance on shrubs and herbaceous vegetation as on trees, this observation should be tempered by noting that most lots in these subdivisions had a profusion of trees, while understory vegetation was almost nonexistent. The lack of understory vegetation and homeowner characterization of this as adequate substantiates the observations of Schmid (8) and Odum and Davis (3) who noted that homeowners have a penchant for removing understory vegetation to create a “parklike” atmosphere.

Homeowners were asked to characterize the amount and variety of wildlife found on their property, and responses indicate that both the amount and variety were adequate. Though homeowners appreciate the presence of wildlife, they were often unable to distinguish one species from another.

Tree size

Van der Grinten et al. (9) noted that homeowners preferred larger trees, and in some instances saved dominant fast growing, shortlived species during development at the expense of the slower growing long-lived understory species. To determine preference in tree removal homeowners were asked, “In the development of your property what percent of the following occurred with respect to vegetation?” Homeowners reported that thirty-five percent of small diameter trees were removed, while 19.3% of large diameter trees were removed. However, it is unknown whether the developer or the homeowners selected trees for removal.

Homeowner knowledge

A number of questions dealing with trees, tree maintenance, and wildlife were included to examine homeowner knowledge in these areas. Table 3 lists these questions according to subject and correct responses. All questions had one correct answer, with the exception of question 11, “What kind of trees exist on your lot?” and question 19, “List the types of wildlife most common to your lot.” These questions were scored according to the respondent’s degree of success in identifying tree and wildlife species. (Base line data on species composition were available from a previous survey in the study area.)

The mean score in correctly answering the questions listed on Table 4 was 37.7%. Homeowners scored lowest on wildlife identification and determining the value of a 25-inch red oak. Respondents failed to identify more than half of their trees correctly, and this could have implications for tree management on the lot.

More than half of the respondents could not identify the proper pruning techniques of cutting branches nearly flush with the trunk or parent branch. Nearly flush is used in the questionnaire to describe pruning at the shoulder ring. Only 10% of respondents realized pruning paint was cosmetic and did not prevent decay. Sixty percent did not know that fertilization late in summer can harm trees and the same number felt that sod or bare ground was preferable to mulch around the base of a tree. Seventy-three percent correctly identified nesting sites for local songbirds, a task made easy due to the obvious lack of understory vegetation.

The overall performance reflects that though natural features influence the purchase of the lot, the main component of this influence revolves around aesthetic or ornamental considerations, and homeowners are lacking in sufficient knowledge to adequately manage the lot environment.

Soils

In general, builders scored high on questions pertaining to soils. When asked to arrange three soil textures according to air and water movement, 93.8 percent answered correctly. The majority of builders also realized that compaction is most severe when the soil is wet, that fill over existing soil levels hinders exchange of air and water with tree roots, and that waste water from mixing cement has the potential for increasing soil alkalinity. However, only 18.8% of the builders were able to correctly arrange sand, loam, and clay soils according to the degree of susceptibility to compaction. This inability to recognize soils prone to compaction is troublesome as 81.3% reported that typically their heavy equipment passes near trees and 50 percent store building materials around the base of trees.

Pruning

Questions pertaining to pruning dealt with pruning techniques and the effectiveness of pruning paint in preventing decay. The technique of pruning nearly flush with the trunk or branch was selected by 56.3% of the builders, while only 18.8 percent stated that pruning paint did not prevent decay.

Tree-understory relationships

The majority of builders (62.5%) correctly stated that mulch was preferable to grass around the base of trees. Twenty-five percent assumed mulch was used only for cosmetic purposes, and 12.5% felt it had a detrimental effect on trees. Half the respondents felt the presence of grass around the base of a tree is beneficial to the tree, and 18.8% answered that grass competition can be detrimental to trees. The benefits of native understory vegetation were realized by 43.8% of the builders, while 12.5% felt removal of this vegetation was beneficial.

Roots and root damage

The majority of builders (75%) were aware that fill inhibited air and water exchange with tree roots. However, 18.8% of the builders felt fill would have no effect on tree roots, and 6.3% thought fill would improve exchange of air and water with roots. Half the builders recognized that heavy equipment passing near trees can damage both exposed and underground roots, while 18.8% thought heavy equipment would not damage roots, and 31 % felt heavy equipment could only damage exposed roots. A large number of builders (81.3%) felt tree roots generally extend laterally at least as far as above ground branches, while the remainder considered this statement to be false.

When roots are damaged, half of the builders agreed a portion of the crown should be pruned. Most builders (87.5%) assumed that the recovery of a tree with damaged roots would be improved by the application of a fertilizer high in nitrogen. Only 6.3 percent properly recommended the application of a fertilizer high in phosphorus, while 6.3% recommended fertilizer high in potassium.

Longevity and shade tolerance

Though there are many factors to consider in favoring a particular tree species, two characteristics, longevity and shade tolerance, were presented in the questionnaire. Longevity is important, especially when determining the length of time remaining for existing trees, and shade tolerance is important when selecting a species that will grow beneath other trees or which will respond favorably to release. Builder scores on questions 27 and 29 in Table 5 dealing with longevity and tolerance clearly indicate potential problems as builders seem to lack sufficient knowledge to make decisions regarding tree removal.