Landscape characteristics and social factors influencing attitudes toward roadside vegetation management

Comparison of Attitudes towards Roadside Vegetation Management across an Exurban Landscape

“…A combination of Connecticut's high proportion of forest cover (72.6% of the state, [62]) and high population density (285 people/km 2 , [63]) results in the state having the greatest proportion of wildland-urban interface in the US (65.6%, [14]). Four geographically distinct study areas in Connecticut ( Figure 1) were selected based on discussions with project partners and interviews with utility employees (n = 7; author unpublished data); additional criteria included current utility provider, distribution across an urban-rural gradient, ongoing issues with vegetation-influenced power outages, and current or recent utility vegetation management activity along roadsides in that location [46].…”

“…Social science data were collected from the Northeast and Southwest study areas in 2017 [46], and the Northwest and Southeast study areas in 2019. Data were collected using a mail survey, which consisted of questions that addressed five main topics: experiences with power outages, attitudes toward roadside vegetation management, roadside tree and forest management preferences, knowledge about trees and tree health, and background information including individual relationship with the environment and sociodemographics.…”

“…Although exurban landscapes have been described as a homogeneous land use category [48], we hypothesized that social processes instead would be heterogenous given the diversity of social processes found among other land use categories; i.e., urban [9,49], suburban [50], and rural [51,52]. Ancillary evidence also suggested that exurban social processes are multi-scalar and heterogeneous [46], with variations influenced by regional histories and geographic differences [53]. More discretely, past research also suggests that decision-making about trees is influenced by individual level of knowledge about vegetation management practices [43,54], individual forest-related value orientations [55,56], local landscape characteristics [49,[57][58][59], aesthetic preferences [44,60], and sociodemographics [9].…”

“…Previous research focused on social dynamics related to vegetation management has included attitudes and knowledge of tree topping practices [42], attitudes about tree replacement and planting programs [43,44], and the importance of trees to residents [45]. Among the few studies that have evaluated public perceptions of utility vegetation management in exurban landscapes, Hale and Morzillo [46] suggested that attitudes towards vegetation management are influenced by both social-psychological and residential context variables, and Kloster [47] indicated diverse reasons for homeowner's consenting or objecting to utility removal of hazard trees, with personal affinity for individual trees being influential to the decision-making process.…”

“…More discretely, past research also suggests that decision-making about trees is influenced by individual level of knowledge about vegetation management practices [43,54], individual forest-related value orientations [55,56], local landscape characteristics [49,[57][58][59], aesthetic preferences [44,60], and sociodemographics [9]. Therefore, based on these studies and others (e.g., [46]), we also hypothesized that attitudes towards vegetation management would be influenced by knowledge about trees and vegetation management, beliefs that humans should use trees for human benefit, percentage of proximal tree cover, and sociodemographic characteristics.…”