UFMP User Input-Survey1

You are here--->Home>About the toolkit>User Input

Urban Forest Management Plan elements survey

Between October 14 and December 1, 2008, we conducted an online survey on various urban forest management plan elements. The survey was directed to urban foresters and other urban forestry professionals. The survey listed a number of common management plan elements as well as various management actions and tools. For each item, respondents were asked to indicate:

A. whether it is part of your current urban forest management system (yes/no)

B. how effective/useful it has been, choosing from the following categories:
1- very useful/effective
2- moderately useful/effective
3- somewhat useful/effective
4- not very useful/effective
5- not at all useful/effective

Respondents generally interpreted this question as "how effective/useful do you consider [the element] to be". Respondents provided ratings on elements that they did not have.

C. how important you feel it would be to address in the Urban Forest Management Plan Toolkit, choosing from the following categories: 1-high, 2-medium, 3-low, 4-not needed

Survey results are summarized in the tables below. To simplify data interpretation, we combined the positive ratings. For question B, “very” and “moderately” effective/useful ratings were combined. For question C, the “high” and “medium” priority responses were combined. We also subdivided the ratings into two groups: respondents that had the item in their current plan (blue background) and those that didn't (green background).

For almost every item listed, those that used a particular item rated that item more positively than did the non-users. This result may be due to one or more reasons. Those that didn't use an item may have rated its usefulness lower because they did not have direct experience with the item. In other words, they didn't know what they were missing. Alternatively, they may have previously used an item and found it to be ineffective, and so no longer use it.

Overall, most of the elements were viewed as relatively useful/effective, especially among respondents that currently used those elements. Even the three elements that got the lowest positive ratings overall ("Historical context", "Long term tree rotation schedule", "Regulation of tree care on private properties") were viewed positively by large majorities among the actual users of these elements. The most widely used management tool overall was "Tree protection standards/ordinance" (86% of respondents).

The results showed a wide diversity in the array of elements that were included in urban forest management programs.

General urban forest management plan elements

Does your plan include this element?		yes		no
Plan elements	currently use % yes	% very or moderately useful	% high or medium priority for toolkit	% very or moderately useful	% high or medium priority for toolkit
Introductory elements
Historical context (how UF has developed over time)	52	83	68	33	22
Current management framework (including interactions between departments)	74	78	94	72	87
Tree benefit value estimates (storm water, air quality, C offset, etc)	43	81	65	72	100
Integration of UF management plan with General/Specific Plans	46	79	100	67	82
Canopy cover ratings by area / situation	28	91	100	53	68
Planning elements
Needs assessment	78	89	100	76	100
Overall plan goals	78	90	99	74	100
Assessment methods and progress reporting	63	83	94	54	84
Implementation/action plan for meeting goals	67	97	100	58	90
Timetable for meeting goals	61	82	98	62	88

Urban forest management tools and actions

Does your program include this action or tool?		yes		no
Tools and actions	currently use % yes	% very or moderately useful	% high or medium priority for toolkit	% very or moderately useful	% high or medium priority for toolkit
Inventory
Tree inventory (complete or partial)	82	91	99	62	93
Inventory of empty planting spaces	57	87	94	71	88
Tree inventory-based work scheduling/reporting	48	90	94	61	83
Tree sample survey(s)	39	79	94	44	63
Selection and planting
Canopy cover goals by area / situation	30	87	100	53	73
Overall tree species selection list	77	75	91	50	72
Tree species selection list by area / situation	66	87	91	47	67
Species diversity goals by area / situation	52	87	96	58	67
Planting standards (including site preparation)	74	95	97	59	77
Planting stock standards	67	90	93	62	70
Maintenance and removal
Tree care standards	73	92	98	62	76
Wood / greenwaste recycling/utilization	44	75	83	60	68
Tree hazard assessment program	67	97	98	65	79
Long term tree rotation schedule / expected life	23	70	85	41	58
Budgeting
Annual tree planting cost projections	52	87	98	39	72
Annual pruning cost projections	48	81	95	52	85
Annual tree removal cost projections	41	94	94	66	82
Use of external grant funding for programs/projects	70	91	96	36	75
Regulatory
Tree protection standards/ordinance	86	83	98	60	67
Design standards for trees in new development	67	84	96	55	73
Permit process to allow residents to prune, remove, or plant community street trees	59	68	91	42	63
Regulation of tree care on private properties (e.g., anti-topping, oak pruning)	29	66	92	40	52
Community interactions
Tree commission/advisory board	58	77	96	35	55
Interaction with citizen nonprofit / volunteer groups	77	75	93	57	65
Citizen education / outreach programs and materials	69	73	94	68	82

Survey demographics

We received 92 responses to this survey. Among those who provided the information:
Organization:
57 % City
7 % County
4% District
10% Nonprofit organization
7% State
7% consultants
2% educational institutions
plus 6% others at no more than 1% each.

Where responses came from:

State / Country	Count	Percent of responses
CA	23	31
CO	1	1
FL	2	2
IL	3	4
KS	1	1
KY	3	4
LA	1	1
MA	2	2
MD	1	1
ME	1	1
MI	12	16
MN	1	1
MO	2	2
NC	2	2
NM	1	1
NV	2	2
OR	2	2
PA	1	1
TN	1	1
TX	3	4
UT	2	2
VA	2	2
WA	4	5
WI	1	1
Canada	1	1