Article Figures & Data
Tables
Amelanchier (serviceberry) Pyrus calleryana (Callery pear) ‘Autumn Brilliance’ Aristocrat™ ‘Cumulus’ ‘Autumn Blaze’ ‘Princess Diana’ ‘Bradford’ ‘Robin Hill’ ‘Capital’ Tradition® Cleveland Pride® ‘Cleveland Select’ Crataegus (hawthorn) ‘Redspire’ Crimson Cloud ‘Superba’ Valiant® ‘crusgalli-inermis’ ‘Whitehouse’ ‘Ohio Pioneer’ Phaenopyrum Syringa reticulata (tree lilac) ‘Vaughn’ ‘Ivory Silk’ ‘Winter King’ ‘Regent’ ‘Summer Snow’ Malus (crabapple) ‘Adams’ American Masterpiece® American Spirit™ American Triumph™ Brandywine® Centurion® ‘Donald Wyman’ Harvest Gold® Madonna® ‘Prairifire’ ‘Red Barron’ Red Jewel® ‘Sentinel’ ‘Snowdrift’ ‘Spring Snow’ Sugar Tyme® Velvet Pillar™ zumi ‘Calocarpa’ - Table 2.
Status of tree program components and progress stimulated by MTRP, reported by community representatives.
Program component Percentage of communities in which the component now exists was stimulated Active ordinance 76 35 Inactive ordinance 9 Tree commission, committee, or person 83 37 Tree inventory 52 35 Tree management plan 20 11 Planting increased 68 Inspections started 30 Tree budget increased 32 Residents more supportive of trees 61 Progress in any of the tree program components 91 - Table 3.
Number of questionnaires delivered to residents, number of responses, and percentage of responses for each question, genus, and response categories 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive).
Category No. delivered No. responses Percentage response Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1,293 595 46 Question 1 1,293 585 45 7 5 5 24 58 Question 2 1,293 455 35 8 11 11 18 51 Question 3 1,293 522 40 2 6 14 30 47 Question 4 1,293 540 42 4 3 41 23 29 Amelanchier 214 85 40 Crataegus 81 39 48 Malus 561 273 49 Pyrus 259 116 45 Syringa 178 82 46 Category No. responses Percentage response Age Below 30 27 4.6 30–49 193 33.0 50–69 211 36.0 70 or older 155 26.5 Property type Residential 544 94.8 Commercial 18 3.1 Both 12 2.1 Gender Female 320 56.8 Male 243 43.2 - Table 5.
Attitudes of residents toward removals, and toward plantings of Amelanchier (Am), Crataegus (Cr), Malus (Ml), Pyrus (Py), and Syringa (Sy); and of municipal representatives toward their MTRP trees not specific to genus.
Question and responses Am Cr Ml Py Sy MTRP Do you like or dislike planted trees? 4.27 4.21 4.22* 4.38 4.32 4.64 4 = like them somewhat 5 = like them very much How do you feel about removals? 4.01 4.06 4.05* 4.22 3.70 4.68 3 = indifferent 4 = somewhat in favor How did the project affect the neighborhood? 4.26 3.95 4.17* 4.22 3.98* 4.63 4 = somewhat beneficial 5 = very beneficial How did your attitude change toward the utility company? 3.57 3.78 3.74* 3.72 3.79 4.32 3 = did not change 4 = became somewhat more favorable Number of communities 10 5 27 11 10 43 ↵* Significant at the 95% level among communities that had cultivars of the same genus; some of the Syringa figures may have been distorted by a single response from one municipality.
- Table 6.
Positive comments by residents about MTRP projects, expressed as percentage of the number of questionnaires returned for each genus and all genera.
Category Am Cr Ml Py Sy All Number of responses 85 39 273 116 82 595 Removal of older trees 1 3 1 1 4 1.9 Replacement of large trees with small 2 5 5 3 6 4.2 Tree placement 1 0 1 0 1 0.7 Maintenance concerns 9 0 2 5 4 4.1 Utility company 1 0 2 2 0 1.0 Tree characteristics 71 62 66 89 72 71.7 All categories 86 69 77 99 87 83.6 - Table 7.
Negative comments by residents about MTRP projects, expressed as percentage of the number of questionnaires returned for each genus and all genera.
Category Am Cr Ml Py Sy All Number of responses 85 39 273 116 82 595 Removal of older trees 4 5 3 0 4 3.1 Replacement of large trees with small 2 0 2 2 4 2.6 Tree placement 12 10 7 5 5 7.9 Maintenance concerns 6 8 14 16 0 8.5 Utility company 2 3 <1 1 1 1.5 Tree characteristics 31 33 47 26 50 37.4 All categories 56 59 74 49 63 60.3 - Table 8.
Positive comments by residents about tree characteristics, expressed as percentage of the number of questionnaires returned for each genus.
Characteristic Am Cr Ml Py Sy Number of responses 85 39 273 116 82 Fruit 2 3 3 0 0 Flowers 21 10 26 20 16 Odor/scent 0 3 <1 0 10 Leaves 4 3 1 3 5 Aesthetics 24 31 23 46 27 Size 13 5 7 3 12 Shade 7 8 5 16 2 Suckers 0 0 <1 0 0 - Table 9.
Negative comments by residents about tree characteristics, expressed as percentage of the number of questionnaires returned for each genus.
Characteristic Am Cr Ml Py Sy Number of responses 85 39 273 116 82 Fruit 8 13 23 1 0 Flowers 0 0 <1 0 4 Odor/scent 0 0 <1 4 0 Leaves 4 8 1 1 2 Aesthetics 1 5 1 1 5 Size 6 5 8 14 23 Shade 5 3 8 4 16 Suckers 7 0 5 1 0
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.