Urban wildlife and arborists: environmental governance and the protection of wildlife during tree care operations

Q2 Social Sciences Journal of Urban Ecology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1093/jue/juad002
A. Martin, Andrew D. Almas
{"title":"Urban wildlife and arborists: environmental governance and the protection of wildlife during tree care operations","authors":"A. Martin, Andrew D. Almas","doi":"10.1093/jue/juad002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n When working with urban trees, arborists can negatively impact urban wildlife. There have been recent efforts to strengthen wildlife protection and conservation during arboricultural practices, both legislatively and voluntarily through arboriculture organizations. To examine arborists’ perceptions of these environmental policies and understand their experiences with urban wildlife, we conducted an international online survey of 805 arborists. Many respondents (n = 481, 59.8%) reported being involved in tree work that resulted in wildlife injury or death, despite most respondents reportedly modifying work plans or objectives after encountering wildlife (n = 598, 74.3%). Decisions to modify or cease work were most heavily influenced by the legal protection of species, wildlife having young, and the overall management objectives. Support for new wildlife best management practices (BMPs) was high (n = 718, 90.3%), as was awareness of wildlife and arboriculture-related legislation (n = 611, 77.2%). The findings demonstrate support amongst arborists for the implementation of wildlife policies to protect wildlife in urban forestry; however, implementation of such policies would require a non-prescriptive approach that is relevant to a diversity of wildlife concerns globally, causing concern amongst arborists about the applicability of such a document. Concerns also included the economic impacts of voluntary wildlife protection policies in arboriculture, where competitors may not adhere to industry standards or best practices. Given the support of arborists for increased wildlife protection policies, we recommend the development of international wildlife-focused BMPs for arboriculture, especially as an intermediary until legislation can be implemented or more rigorously enforced.","PeriodicalId":37022,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urban Ecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urban Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juad002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

When working with urban trees, arborists can negatively impact urban wildlife. There have been recent efforts to strengthen wildlife protection and conservation during arboricultural practices, both legislatively and voluntarily through arboriculture organizations. To examine arborists’ perceptions of these environmental policies and understand their experiences with urban wildlife, we conducted an international online survey of 805 arborists. Many respondents (n = 481, 59.8%) reported being involved in tree work that resulted in wildlife injury or death, despite most respondents reportedly modifying work plans or objectives after encountering wildlife (n = 598, 74.3%). Decisions to modify or cease work were most heavily influenced by the legal protection of species, wildlife having young, and the overall management objectives. Support for new wildlife best management practices (BMPs) was high (n = 718, 90.3%), as was awareness of wildlife and arboriculture-related legislation (n = 611, 77.2%). The findings demonstrate support amongst arborists for the implementation of wildlife policies to protect wildlife in urban forestry; however, implementation of such policies would require a non-prescriptive approach that is relevant to a diversity of wildlife concerns globally, causing concern amongst arborists about the applicability of such a document. Concerns also included the economic impacts of voluntary wildlife protection policies in arboriculture, where competitors may not adhere to industry standards or best practices. Given the support of arborists for increased wildlife protection policies, we recommend the development of international wildlife-focused BMPs for arboriculture, especially as an intermediary until legislation can be implemented or more rigorously enforced.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
城市野生动物和树艺师:树木养护期间的环境治理和野生动物保护
在处理城市树木时,树艺师会对城市野生动物产生负面影响。最近,在树艺实践期间,通过立法和自愿方式,通过树艺组织,加强了野生动物的保护和养护。为了调查树艺师对这些环境政策的看法,并了解他们对城市野生动物的体验,我们对805名树艺师进行了一项国际在线调查。许多受访者(n = 481,59.8%)报告称参与了导致野生动物伤亡的树木工作,尽管据报道大多数受访者在遇到野生动物后修改了工作计划或目标(n = 598,74.3%)。修改或停止工作的决定受物种的法律保护、有幼崽的野生动物和总体管理目标的影响最大。对新的野生动物最佳管理实践(BMP)的支持率很高(n = 718,90.3%),以及对野生动物和树木栽培相关立法的认识(n = 611,77.2%)。研究结果表明,树木学家支持在城市林业中实施野生动物保护政策;然而,实施此类政策将需要一种与全球野生动物关注的多样性相关的非规范性方法,这引起了树木学家对此类文件适用性的担忧。关切的问题还包括树木栽培中自愿野生动物保护政策的经济影响,因为竞争对手可能不遵守行业标准或最佳做法。鉴于树木学家对加强野生动物保护政策的支持,我们建议为树木栽培制定以野生动物为重点的国际BMP,特别是作为一种中介,直到立法得以实施或更严格地执行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Urban Ecology
Journal of Urban Ecology Social Sciences-Urban Studies
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Beyond the metropolis: street tree communities and resident perceptions on ecosystem services in small urban centers in India Comparing fear responses of two lizard species across habitats varying in human impact Perceived and desired outcomes of urban coyote management methods Garbage in may not equal garbage out: sex mediates effects of ‘junk food’ in a synanthropic species Effects of landscape cover and yard features on feral and free-roaming cat (Felis catus) distribution, abundance and activity patterns in a suburban area
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1