International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 7, Issue 2 (February 2020), Pages: 15-19

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Addressing public dissatisfaction on urban tree management: A way to enhance landscape quality

 Author(s): Helmi Hamzah 1, *, Noriah Othman 2, Nur Huzeima Mohd Hussain 1

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Planning, and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan, Perak, Malaysia
 2Centre of Studies for Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Planning, and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Puncak Alam Campus, Malaysia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3706-6893

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2020.02.003

 Abstract:

Despite the vast research by scholars on urban tree management, little is known about the perspective of public dissatisfaction in relation to the tree management status. The overall viewpoint that emerges from the literature is negative: Slow reaction, complaint-based action, mismanagement and incompetence. To justify and fully enhance landscape quality, it is important to address and minimize public dissatisfaction factors. The aim of this initial study in Kajang was to contribute to the emerging understanding of public dissatisfaction on urban tree management performance. This study presents the analysis of 640 public applications for tree removal due to dissatisfaction derived from the Kajang Municipal Council localities of which the information originates from a public complain database. From public applications for tree removal, their dissatisfaction factors are categorized into 5 major traits on tree management performance; garbage generation, dangerousness, oldness, poor workmanship and interference or obstruction under 4 criteria; management intensity, species suitability, tree risk management and staffing. The outcomes add nuance to the understanding of the trees that have received an application for removal–it indicates that they are poorly managed. This study set the standard in urban tree management journals and differences from other studies with the addition of two variables which is the poor workmanship and interference or obstruction for indicating the performance of urban tree management. In using an untapped source of primary indicators; public dissatisfaction statement with tree management; this study will contribute to future research on similar topics and light up the existing ambiguity on tree management performance. 

 © 2020 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Dissatisfaction, Preferences and acceptances, Tree management, Tree removal

 Article History: Received 14 August 2019, Received in revised form 28 November 2019, Accepted 4 December 2019

 Acknowledgment:

The authors would like to acknowledge Tuan Kamarul Izlan bin Sulaiman, Administration Officer from Kajang Municipal Council for his input and guidance for the research. He provides not only a complete dataset but also valuable feedback regarding the extent and focus of the study. Authors also wish to acknowledge the financial support provided through Geran Khas Insentif Penyelidikan Perak (GKIPP) Grant, Universiti Teknologi Mara Cawangan Perak, Malaysia.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest:  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 Citation:

 Hamzah H, Othman N, and Hussain NHM (2020). Addressing public dissatisfaction on urban tree management: A way to enhance landscape quality. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 7(2): 15-19

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

----------------------------------------------

 References (20) 

  1. Badrulhisham N and Othman N (2016). Knowledge in tree pruning for sustainable practices in urban setting: Improving our quality of life. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 234: 210-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.236   [Google Scholar]
  2. Camacho-Cervantes M, Schondube JE, Castillo A, and MacGregor-Fors I (2014). How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city. Urban Ecosystems, 17(3): 761-773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0343-6   [Google Scholar]
  3. Clark JR, Matheny NP, Cross G, and Wake V (1997). A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture, 23: 17-30.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Conway TM and Bang E (2014). Willing partners? Residential support for municipal urban forestry policies. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 13(2): 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.02.003   [Google Scholar]
  5. DOSM (2017). Current population estimates Malaysia 2018. Department of Statistics Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia. Available online at: https://bit.ly/37xkRSk
  6. Fernandes CO, da Silva IM, Teixeira CP, and Costa L (2019). Between tree lovers and tree haters. Drivers of public perception regarding street trees and its implications on the urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 37: 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.014   [Google Scholar]
  7. Fors H, Jansson M, and Nielsen A (2018). The impact of resident participation on urban woodland quality: A case study of Sletten, Denmark. Forests, 9: 670. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9110670   [Google Scholar]
  8. Gerstenberg T and Hofmann M (2016). Perception and preference of trees: A psychological contribution to tree species selection in urban areas. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 15: 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.004   [Google Scholar]
  9. Hami A, Maulan SB, Mariapan M, and Muhammad M (2014). The relationship between landscape planting patterns and perceived safety in urban parks in Tabriz, Iran. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 8(2): 107-113. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJEST2013.1486   [Google Scholar]
  10. Hamzah H, Othman N, and Hussain NHM (2017). Tree removal application by urban dwellers: A case study of Kajang local authority. In The International Conference on Architecture, Banda Aceh, Indonesia: 124–128.   [Google Scholar]
  11. Jones RE, Davis KL, and Bradford J (2013). The value of trees: Factors influencing homeowner support for protecting local urban trees. Environment and Behavior, 45(5): 650-676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512439409   [Google Scholar]
  12. Kenney WA, Van Wassenaer PJ, and Satel AL (2011). Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 37(3): 108-117.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Maruthaveeran S (2016). The perception of social safety in a green environment: A preliminary study at the Kepong Metropolitan Park. Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 1(1): 99-111. https://doi.org/10.21834/aje-bs.v1i1.171   [Google Scholar]
  14. MPKJ (2011). Laporan inventori pokok. Kajang Municipal Council, Kajang, Malaysia: 61-62. Available online at: https://bit.ly/2STDnk3
  15. MPKJ (2015). Pelan strategik majlis perbandaran kajang 2015-2020. Kajang Municipal Council, Kajang, Malaysia. Available online at: https://bit.ly/2STDnk3
  16. Othman N, Isa MM, Mohamed N, and Hasan R (2015). Street planting compositions: The public and expert perspectives. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170: 350-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.045   [Google Scholar]
  17. Richardson E and Shackleton CM (2014). The extent and perceptions of vandalism as a cause of street tree damage in small towns in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 13(3): 425-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.04.003   [Google Scholar]
  18. Watkins SL, Vogt J, Mincey SK, Fischer BC, Bergmann RA, Widney SE, and Sweeney S (2018). Does collaborative tree planting between nonprofits and neighborhood groups improve neighborhood community capacity? Cities, 74: 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.11.006   [Google Scholar]
  19. Yang B, Li S, Elder BR, and Wang Z (2013). Community-planning approaches and residents' perceived safety: A landscape analysis of park design in the woodlands, Texas. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 30(4): 311-327.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhang Y, Hussain A, Deng J, and Letson N (2007). Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environment and Behavior, 39(6): 797-814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506292326   [Google Scholar]