Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Proportion of communities contacted (light hatched bars) and responding (dark hatched bars), and survey response rate (solid bars) by population class. This was a census (questionnaires were mailed to all 237 incorporated Utah communities); therefore, the population distribution of contacted communities is identical to the population distribution of Utah communities. The dashed line is the overall response rate of 58.2%; solid bars below the line indicate lower response in that population class relative to the overall response rate, and bars over the line indicate a greater relative response rate.
Tables
- Table 1.
Mean community tree budget totals, per capita and per tree funding, and ratio of general funding to grant funding for communities that had a tree budget, by population class and for all towns. Standard errors are given in parentheses for the mean totals.
Tree budget Town population class 118–500 (N = 13) 501–1K (N = 6) 1K–3K (N = 16) 3K–10K (N = 18) 10K–50K (N = 17) > 50,000 (N = 6) All towns (N = 76) Mean total $1,630 $3,034 $3,639 $5,856 $64,825 $294,070 $40,387 (335) (1,639) (1,205) (2,192) (20,059) (202,478) (17,813) Per capita fundingz $6.26 $1.90 $1.35 $1.08 $2.70 $2.40 $2.58 Per tree fundingz $41.00 $11.43 $23.88 $26.57 $20.25 $15.57 $25.16 General fund/granty 1.4 2.0 11.5 1.5 47.9 20.0 17.2 - Table 2.
Average percentage of last fiscal year’s community forestry budget spent on performing certain types of tasks, and the maintenance/planting ratio. Standard errors are given in parentheses.
Task Town population class All towns (N = 77) 118–500 (N = 13) 501–1K (N = 6) 1K–3K (N = 17) 3K–10K (N = 19) 10K–50K (N = 17) > 50,000 (N = 5) Planting 22.7% 60.8% 33.7% 50.5% 27.2% 15.0% 35.5% (4.0) Maintenance 52.7% 20.8% 25.9% 29.6% 39.2% 49.0% 35.4% (3.8) Removal 8.9% 16.8% 14.2% 8.8% 10.4% 13.0% 11.3% (2.4) Maintenance/planting ratio* 2.7 0.6 1.2 0.8 1.8 4.1 1.6 Equipment 0.8% 1.7% 0.6% 0.5% 4.4% 8.8% 3.2% (0.6) Administration 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.5% 5.9% 13.6% 2.6% (0.7) Other 7.3% 0.0% 6.5% 4.7% 12.9% 0.6% 6.7% (2.7) ↵* Maintenance/planting ratio is the sum of maintenance and removal divided by planting.
- Table 3.
Average total number of trees and trees per capita in communities by type of location and overall (with standard errors in parentheses). Per capita figures were obtained by dividing a community’s total number of trees by its population. Overall mean community tree number was 2,300 (standard error = 749).
Tree location Town population class 118–500 501–1K 1K–3K 3K–10K 10K–50K > 50,000 Streets 18 26 124 428 3,307 11,420 Parks 19 28 71 166 1,799 4,259 Golf courses 0 1 19 47 243 680 Building grounds 5 6 6 18 66 286 Cemetery 14 16 36 63 212 275 Other* 0 4 405 43 0 6,844 Average community tree no. (s.e.) 57(10.2) 285(173) 662(405) 1,225(604) 5,564(2080) 20,470(10,562) Average trees per capita 0.21 0.37 0.43 0.23 0.22 0.22 ↵* Other locations include schools, churches, river corridors, utility rights-of-way, undeveloped greenspace, landscape strips, and streetscapes.
- Table 4.
Proportion of communities with an employee responsible for tree management, plans, ordinances, and tree inventories, by population class and for all towns. Percentages indicate the proportion who indicated having a particular program attribute within a population class. Number of towns (N) is shown in parentheses under percentages.
Community has a … Town population class 118–500 501–1K 1K–3K 3K–10K 10K–50K > 50,000 All towns Municipal employee in charge of community trees 25.8% 26.3% 40.0% 44.4% 55.0% 85.7% 44.3% (8) (4) (12) (12) (11) (6) (54) Master tree and landscaping plan 10.3% 0.0% 14.8% 7.7% 40.0% 57.1% 30.2% (3) (0) (4) (2) (6) (4) (19) Tree ordinance 13.3% 11.1% 32.1% 34.6% 88.9% 85.7% 56.8% (4) (2) (9) (9) (16) (6) (46) Landscaping ordinance 13.3% 5.9% 37.9% 37.5% 70.6% 71.4% 48.1% (4) (1) (11) (9) (12) (5) (42) Municipal tree inventory* 10.0% 22.3% 26.7% 25.9% 72.2% 71.4% 45.2% (3) (4) (8) (7) (13) (5) (40) ↵* Combines those that indicated “partial” inventory with respondents who said “complete” inventory.
- Table 5.
Overall rating and future projection for the next 5 to 10 years of strength or quality of urban/community forestry program in community (on a scale where 1 = very weak/poor and 6 = very strong/good). Standard errors are shown in parentheses for the mean strength scores, and number of towns (N) is shown in parentheses for percentages.
Town population class 118–500 501–1K 1K–3K 3K–10K 10K–50K > 50,000 All towns Strength/quality mean score 1.9 (0.2) 2.1 (0.3) 2.3 (0.2) 2.4 (0.3) 2.8 (0.3) 3.9 (0.4) 2.4 (0.1) Will get worse 3.3% (1) 11.1% (2) 3.4% (1) 3.8% (1) 0.0% (0) 14.3% (1) 5.4% (6) Will stay the same 50.0% (14) 50.0% (9) 44.8% (13) 34.6% (9) 35.0% (7) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (53) Will get better 46.7% (14) 38.9% (7) 51.7% (15) 61.5% (16) 65.0% (13) 85.7% (6) 54.6% (71)
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.