Second Wednesdays | 1:00 2:15 pm ET - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
second wednesdays 1 00 2 15 pm et
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Second Wednesdays | 1:00 2:15 pm ET - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 08, 2024 33 likes •285 views

Second Wednesdays | 1:00 2:15 pm ET www.fs.fed.us/research/urban-webinars This meeting is being recorded. If you do not wish to be recorded, please disconnect now. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Lara Roman Yekang Ko

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Second Wednesdays | 1:00 – 2:15 pm ET

www.fs.fed.us/research/urban-webinars

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. This meeting is being recorded. If you do not wish to be recorded, please disconnect now.

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Pete Smith

Urban Forestry Program Manager Arbor Day Foundation

Lara Roman

Research Ecologist USDA Forest Service

Yekang Ko

Assistant Professor, Urban Planning University of Texas, Arlington

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Part III: A Comparison of Survey Methods to Estimate Survivability of Energy-Saving Trees in Houston, Texas

Pete Smith, Arbor Day Foundation

slide-4
SLIDE 4

A Strategic Tree Planting Program

slide-5
SLIDE 5

&

Landing Page: Enter Address

Powered by:

slide-6
SLIDE 6

&

Tree Placement

Powered by:

slide-7
SLIDE 7

&

Tree Selection & Energy Savings

Powered by:

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Direct Delivery

&

Models of Tree Delivery

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Local Pick-Up

&

Models of Tree Delivery

slide-10
SLIDE 10

&

slide-11
SLIDE 11

&

* Projected 20 year cumulative values

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Where are we going?

slide-13
SLIDE 13

&

SurveyMonkey

  • Survey sent to 848 customers, accounting for all 1,591 trees
  • 267 surveys completed, 31.5% response rate!
slide-14
SLIDE 14

&

SurveyMonkey

Results

trees planted at recipient's address & ALIVE 76.4% trees planted at recipient's address & DEAD 6.4% trees planted elsewhere & ALIVE 10.5% trees planted elsewhere & DEAD 0.9% trees not planted

  • r still in pot:

5.8%

Centerpoint Surveymonkey: Reported Disposition

  • f Trees by Household

(267 households)

  • High ‘survivability’

for the intended address

  • 11% of trees

distributed planted elsewhere

  • 6% of trees ‘not

planted’

slide-15
SLIDE 15

469 300 426 420 342 277 405 60% 91% 88% 72% 60% 86% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 trees planted in the ground protected trunk during transport trees planted away from power lines watered weekly added mulch around root zone avoided staking trees trees left unpruned

Centerpoint EST SurveyMonkey: Reported Stewardship &

SurveyMonkey

slide-16
SLIDE 16

&

Field Audit

  • 320 trees randomly chosen
  • 289 tree audits completed = 18.2% sample
slide-17
SLIDE 17

trees planted at recipient’s address & ALIVE 50.5% trees missing from recipient’s address 39.1% trees not planted

  • r still in pot

10.4%

Centerpoint Field Audit: Survivability Statistics (289 trees) &

Field Audit

Results

  • 50% of trees ‘alive’

at the registered address

  • 10% of trees ‘not

planted’

  • 40% of trees

‘missing’

slide-18
SLIDE 18

146 145 126 116 113 88 108 146 99.3% 86.3% 79.5% 77.4% 60.3% 74.0% 100.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 trees planted in the ground ALIVE trees w/o utility conflict trees w/o 'fine twig dieback' trees w/o 'lower trunk damage' trees w/ 'vigor' rating ='good' trees w/ 'mulch' trees w/o 'staking' trees w/o pruning evidence

Centerpoint EST Field Audit: Condition & Stewardship Statistics &

Field Audit

slide-19
SLIDE 19

trees planted at recipient's address & ALIVE 76.4% trees planted at recipient's address & DEAD 6.4% trees planted elsewhere & ALIVE 10.5% trees planted elsewhere & DEAD 0.9% trees not planted

  • r still in pot:

5.8%

Centerpoint EST Surveymonkey: Reported Disposition

  • f Trees by Household

&

‘Survivability’ Comparison

trees planted at recipient’s address & ALIVE 50.5% trees missing from recipient’s address 39.1% trees not planted

  • r still in pot

10.4%

Centerpoint EST Field Audit: Survivability Statistics

slide-20
SLIDE 20

&

Comparison of Methods

SurveyMonkey

  • Quick and easy
  • Inexpensive
  • Supports good

customer relations

Field Audit

  • Requires planning,

time & $$

  • Credible third-party
  • Requires persistence
slide-21
SLIDE 21

&

What’s Next?

  • Continue monitoring using

both methods

slide-22
SLIDE 22

&

What’s Next?

  • Continue monitoring using

both methods

  • Improve systems to improve
  • utcomes
slide-23
SLIDE 23

&

What’s Next?

  • Continue monitoring using

both methods

  • Improve systems to improve
  • utcomes
  • Evaluate planting location

data

slide-24
SLIDE 24

&

What’s Next?

  • Continue monitoring using

both methods

  • Improve systems to improve
  • utcomes
  • Evaluate planting location

data

  • Make regulatory case for

Energy-Saving Trees

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Thanks!

Lara Roman

USFS Northern Research Station

Yekang Ko

University of Texas @ Arlington

Jason Henning

The Davey Institute

Erica Smith Fichman

Philadelphia Parks & Recreation

Gretchen Riley & staff

Texas A&M Forest Service