Attitudes of Municipal Officials Toward Street Tree Programs in Pennsylvania, U.S.

Article Figures & Data

Table 1.

Tree program elements in three types of programs and likelihood of adding elements within 3 years.^{^z}

Program element	Sustained		Developing		Undeveloped
Program element	Exists	Likely	Exists	Likely	Exists	Likely
Ordinance^*	87	7	59	23	35	27
Commission^*	88	3	68	12	29	25
Inventory^*	64	25	32	41	9	34
Management plan^*	58	32	27	44	11	41
Budget greater than $2 per capita^*	44	18	19	19	4	15
ISA Certified Arborist^*	46	20	14	28	8	13
Tree City USA^*	56	18	26	27	3	19
Arbor Day^*	59	20	27	33	8	24
Number of respondents	152–172		125–133		176–190

Table 2.

Tree program elements reported by three types of officials and likelihood of adding elements within 3 years.^{^z}

Program element	Elected official		Public works		Solicitor
Program element	Exists	Likely	Exists	Likely	Exists	Likely
Ordinance*	57	20	64	19	51	17
Management plan*	37	36	28	43	27	32
Budget greater than $2 per capita*	23	16	26	18	10	15
ISA Certified Arborist*	30	20	21	19	13	17
Number of respondents	159–164		221–230		91–96

↵^zPercentages reported by respondents.
*Significant differences among types of officials at 0.05 level. Differences among other elements were not significant.

Table 3.

Tree program elements in municipalities differing in population size, and likelihood of adding elements within 3 years.^{^z}

			Population category
Program element exists	Less than 2,500	2,501–5,000	5,001–10,000	10,001–20,000	Greater than 20,000
Ordinance^***	45	59	59	67	80
Management plan^*	25	29	38	26	42
ISA Certified Arborist^**	18	11	26	26	40
Tree City USA^***	23	12	28	37	48
Arbor Day^***	21	16	34	46	51
Element likely to be added Ordinance^***	19	19	22	18	13
Management plan^*	36	46	31	45	38
ISA Certified Arborist^**	22	24	15	16	17
Tree City USA^***	17	29	20	17	21
Arbor Day^***	22	39	23	17	21
Number of respondents	129–132	94–108	104–111	70–79	58–61

Table 4.

Attitudes toward street trees by type of tree program.^{^z}

Statements about street trees		Type of program
Statements about street trees	Sustained	Developing	Undeveloped
Benefits of street trees outweigh any problems they cause^**	76	60	49
Ordinance is needed to regulate maintenance and removal of street trees^*	74	68	58
Benefits of street trees outweigh maintenance costs^**	71	59	46
Municipal budget should support planting, maintenance, and removal of street trees^*	62	52	39
Inspections for hazardous street trees would reduce municipal liability^*	61	45	43
Officials need more information about benefits of street trees to a municipality^*	52	59	69
Residents of our municipality consider tree maintenance a high priority^**	27	21	8
Residents would be willing pay higher taxes for better tree care^**	9	7	3
Number of respondents	168–170	134–139	191–202

Table 5.

Attitudes toward tree care practices by type of tree program.^{^z}

		Type of program
Importance of tree care practices	Sustained	Developing	Undeveloped
Annual removal of dangerous street trees*	90	77	73
Annual inspections to find unhealthy or dangerous street trees*	84	70	60
Standards applied for pruning, planting, and removals*	84	71	55
Ordinance specifies responsibilities for planting, pruning, and removals*	81	66	54
Tree commission manages tree care practices*	79	67	43
Inventory quantifies species, tree condition, and work needs*	65	50	35
Number of respondents	170–173	137–139	195–200

Table 6.

Attitudes toward pruning of street trees by type of tree program.^{^z}

Statements about pruning		Type of program
Statements about pruning	Sustained	Developing	Undeveloped
Proper pruning improves health, structure^*	95	91	85
Only a qualified person should prune^*	78	70	62
Benefits of pruning outweigh costs^**	62	47	41
Topping is not an appropriate practice^*	58	44	42
Number of respondents	169–172	134–138	195–196

Table 7.

Helpful sources of assistance to three types of tree programs during the past 3 years.^{^z}

		Type of program
Helpful sources of assistance	Sustained	Developing	Undeveloped
Municipal budget^**	59	35	19
Volunteers^**	57	43	23
Technical assistance, Penn State Extension^**	50	45	20
Urban forestry grants^**	46	37	19
Local donations^**	37	22	15
Technical assistance, Bureau of Forestry^**	35	31	16
Fundraising^*	16	11	11
Number of respondents	154–170	125–136	182–188

Table 8.

Attitudes about municipal responsibilities for tree programs by type of program.^{^z}

		Type of program
Statements about street tree programs	Sustained	Developing	Undeveloped
I favor spending municipal funds for planting, pruning, and removal of street trees^*	85	67	60
I favor starting or improving a tree program in my municipality^*	84	78	62
It is achievable to start or improve a program in my municipality^*	68	60	42
My support for a municipal tree program can create a positive legacy^*	64	56	41
We need more information before starting or improving a program^*	47	49	66
Strong public support for a street tree program exists in my municipality^*	44	32	12
A well-funded tree program is important compared with other municipal programs^*	42	27	20
Adjacent property owners should be responsible for planting, pruning, and removals^*	41	53	55
Planning and caring for street trees is not the role of my municipality^*	9	15	19
Number of respondents	170–175	137–140	200–202

Table 9.

Barriers to the start or improvement of a street tree program perceived by three types of officials.

		Type of official
Barriers to programs	All three	Elected official	Public works	Solicitor
Insufficient funding	86
Personnel lacking	70
Inadequate equipment	67
Low public support	62
Tree problems: leaf-fall, sidewalks, birds^*		70	69	57
Liability concerns^*		55	60	37
Technical assistance needs^*		51	39	59
Lack of information^*		46	41	59
Number of respondents	493–498	167–168	226–228	100–101