Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Percentage of communities that involve volunteers (n = 644; individuals or groups not paid for providing services) for tree activities (n = 307; tree planting, watering, pruning, removal, and pest management) on public property.
- Figure 2.
Organizations that help communities to carry out tree care or management (n = 317).
Tables
- Table 1.
Variables used as a predictor of volunteer involvement in urban tree/forest management.
Code variable Variable description Percent or mean (standard deviation) Volt Community works with volunteers or partners 65.4% Pop Community population from 2010 census 91,871 (339,889) Foract Community conduct any kind of shade tree/urban and community forestry activities 86.0% Cetarb Community has ISA Certified Arborist staff 60.9% Degree Staff has degree (two, four, or masters) 56.5% Totemp Total employee 10.0 (16.3) Contractor Paid contractors used 87.7% Adbudget Budget adequate to meet current identified need 52.5% Trboard Community has government authorized tree board, parks board, city department, etc. 67.1% Ordinance Municipality have one or more municipal ordinances that pertain to trees 91.0% Strgplan Community have a written strategic plan for urban forestry 50.3% Voltrain Volunteers receive training 45.2% Treeinven Community have a tree inventory 66.6% Systematic Community have systematic tree care activities 45.4 (34.3) Rskmgmt Community conducts tree risk management (hazard tree identification) 57.3% Outreach Municipal staff provide educational presentation to city residents 59.4% Treecity Community is a Tree City USA 73.0% Percapita Per capita budget 0.52 (0.50) - Table 2.
Mean number of volunteers and volunteer hours along with standard error of the mean (SEM) for different population groups and geographic regions that were ascertained for information related to urban trees/forest management activities in the United States.
Classification Sample size (n) Mean number of people (#) Mean time all people (hours) Mean time per person (hours) SEM of number of people (#) SEM of time all people (hours) SEM of time per person (hours) Total, all cities 216 205.0 852.3 9.82 56.1 174.3 1.38 Population Group 2,500 to 4,999 16 34.2 270.4 26.16 18.2 124.5 13.17 5,000 to 9,999 11 31.0 158.7 6.99 14.6 71.9 1.38 10,000 to 24,999 14 37.6 158.3 8.42 15.0 69.1 3.02 25,000 to 49,999 52 211.5 368.4 9.48 151.7 139.3 2.11 50,000 to 99,999 65 119.1 631.5 9.14 52.8 209.0 2.22 100,000 to 249,999 41 251.9 1089.7 7.40 64.6 243.0 1.89 250,000 to 499,000 11 324.1 3087.2 8.03 166.7 1830.2 3.72 500,000 to 999,999 4 525.5 2606.8 3.71 311.3 1227.2 0.51 1,000,000 + 2 4068.5 12,538 4.76 3879.5 11,306 1.76 Geographic Region Midwest 77 60.9 378.5 8.42 13.7 108.7 1.40 Northeast 29 325.1 1508.6 20.75 272.8 907.4 8.45 South 46 149.0 1052.6 8.61 51.4 467.5 1.98 West 64 364.2 971.4 7.45 136.7 227.4 1.32 - Table 3.
The comparison of community sustainability index scores in locations without volunteer and those with volunteers. Sustainability index score derived from the model developed by Clark et al. (1997), n = 449.
Without volunteers With volunteers Index score Mean (SEM) Mean (SEM) F-statistic P-value Resource management 20.99 (0.44) 21.91 (0.28) 3.364 0.067 Community framework 14.60 (0.37) 16.35 (0.23) 17.652 0.000 Vegetation resource 7.13 (0.16) 7.81 (0.13) 6.376 0.012 Composite score 42.72 (0.50) 46.07 (0.43) 13.952 0.000 - Table 4.
Coefficients (log odds) and odds ratio of a logistic regression of volunteer participation in urban forest management, n = 309.
Coefficient Estimate SE P-value Odds ratio Odds ratio 95% confidence interval Intercept 0.1833 0.4166 0.6599 1.2012 0.5308–2.7183 Adbudget −0.6736 0.2783 0.0155 0.5099 0.2955–0.8797 Trboard 0.6492 0.3239 0.0450 1.9141 1.0145–3.6115 Outreach 0.7689 0.2919 0.0084 2.1574 1.2175–3.8231 Percapita −1.2482 0.3005 <0.0001 0.2870 0.1593–0.5173 Strgplan 0.5761 0.2892 0.0464 1.7791 1.0093–3.1361 Totemp 0.0440 0.0186 0.0182 1.0449 1.0075–1.0838
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.