$5-

'2?
g,”
9’

t

v

«3‘95
151* gig;

 

.
, 4 . n.3,?
wm .Jumx 0.9.5.:
32: ..

£5;

 

 

E???

:

”v.5,
I“ t u.
can.

‘0.

n?

F

 

in! a...
z

bu

$34
.: ..
., .ahw.

.aA...‘

2:
a
to.
r

 

 

R O.
Irv?
£9311.

 

an it)

; .2. 3::
I.) .3:\.\.
151‘. o. {A

 

   

.cK

,. “$3.33:

 

1g; .2

.\ 29.5:

 
 
 

Kama-u..."

Y:

 

 

u. 5.»

 

‘II

l'v

 

 

{HESS
'7

2063
5‘7’03H3l

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Partnerships in Urban Forestry:
Cities and Nonprofit Tree Planting Organizations
In the Northeastern United States

presented by

Katherine E. Armstrong

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master degree in Science

 

 

 

/ Wajor Professor’s Signature

77/ 7/03

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

.UBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClRC/DateDuepGEerS

 

PARTNERSHIPS IN URBAN FORESTRY:
CITIES AND NONPROFIT TREE PLANTING ORGANIZATIONS
IN THE NORHTEASTERN UNITED STATES
By

Katherine E. Armstrong

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Departments of Forestry and Urban Studies

2003

ABSTRACT

PARTNERSHIPS IN URBAN FORESTRY: CITIES AND NONPROFIT TREE
PLANTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

By Katherine E. Armstrong

Trees in cities are important resources that have long commanded the attention
and efforts of tree care professionals and volunteers alike. Volunteer involvement is
often through nonprofit tree planting groups. Questionnaires were sent by mail to tree
planting groups and the city forestry programs under whose jurisdiction they operate.
The study area was the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area, encompassing 20 states
and the District of Columbia. How tree groups and city forestry perceive the urban
forest and the role and importance of volunteers was examined. Additionally, the
relationship and quality of communication between the groups was explored. Generally
speaking, there were very few differences in the way the two groups responded. Both tree
groups and city forestry programs shared similar perceptions of the urban forest and
valued volunteers highly. Cities rated the quality of work performed by tree groups

highly and both groups reported communicating well with the other.

Dedicated to Dr. J. James Kielbaso
Thanks for inspiring me to become an urban forester.

iii

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to my committee, Dr. J. James Kielbaso, Dr. Maureen McDonough, and Dr.
John Schweitzer. I’m very lucky to have had such a supportive and understanding
committee, especially during the final stretch.

Thanks to those who reviewed by survey: Paul Bairley, Kerry Boris Gray, Chris Pargoff,
Phillip Rodbell, Steve Shurtz, Trees Atlanta, and Friends of the Urban Forest.

Thanks to Juli Kerr for all of her assistance (especially in the extension department).
The Greening of Detroit, the encouragement and support of my coworkers will never be
forgotten. A special thanks to Rebecca Salminen Witt for being such an accommodating
boss.

Jessica Dooley thank you for always reminding me to ‘just play the game’.

Thanks to Kerry Gray for showing me how it’s done.

Thanks to my computer helpers, Cedrick Heraux and John Nachreiner. I could never
have completed this without your invaluable help.

A special thanks to Clint Babcock whose love (and discipline) has gotten me through this
challenge. Thank you for being so unselfish and thoughtful. I love you.

A very special thanks to Jon, Gerri and Colleen, my wonderful family who never faltered
in their belief that I would finish. I’m glad all the pestering has finally paid off. I love
you very much

iv

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Literature Review

Introduction

Management of the Urban Forest

Budgetary Constraints in Urban Forestry

Non Profits in the United States

Volunteers, Volunteer Management and Citizen Participation
Partnerships

Conclusion & Hypotheses

Methods

Study Area

Selection of Subjects
Instrumentation

Survey Administration

Survey Returns

Information on Non Respondents
Data Analysis

Results & Discussion

City Department and Program Background Information

Nonprofit Background Information

Comparing the Groups

Perceptions of the Urban Forest

Perceptions of the Roles and Importance of Volunteers
in Urban Forestry

Communication and Relationship between Nonprofit
Tree Groups and City Forestry Programs

Discussion of Open Ended Questions

Conclusions

Recommendations for Future Study
Survey Limitations

Conclusions

20
2O
20
21
23
23
25
26

28
28
32
37
4O
45

49

56

59
59
60

Bibliography 62

Appendices
Map of Study Area 69
Email to State Coordinators 70
Posting to Internet Listserves 71
Survey Review Form 73
Nonprofit Organization Survey 74
City Forestry Survey 84
Responses to Open Ended Questions 95

UCRHIS Approval Letter 100

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Positive and Negative Aspects of Nonprofits
and City Forestry (Shurtz 2001)

Table 2 Survey Question Number and Corresponding Research
Objective (2002)

Table 3 Number of Surveys Returned/Not Returned (all mailings)
from Each City Size Category (2002)

Table 4 Geographic Location (within the USFS Northeast Area) of
Responding and Non Responding Cities & Nonprofits (2002)

Table 5 Percentage of Cities that Contract Various Forestry
Activities (2002)

Table 6 Clauses Included in Tree Ordinances in Responding Cities (2002)

Table 7 Tree Gain/Loss Over Five Years as Reported by City Forestry
Respondents (2002)

Table 8 Significance of the Relationship between Select Variables and the
Number of Volunteers Used in 2000 (2002)

Table 9 Locations Responding Nonprofits Plant Trees (2002)
Table 10 Activities Led by Nonprofit Survey Respondents (2002)

Table 11 Summary of City and Nonprofits Responses to Perceptions
of the Urban Forest Survey Section (2002)

Table I2 Significance of Employment of a F ulItime City Forester or Arborist
as Related to Selected Variables(2002)

Table 13 Perceptions of the Urban Forest Survey Section Summary of
Significance: Nonprofit Tree Groups x City Forestry Programs (2002)

Table 14 Percentage of City and Nonprofit Respondents that Reported
Using Volunteer Labor to Accomplish Urban Forestry Tasks (2002)

vii

18

22

26

26

28

29

30

34

36

37

41

43

45

46

Table 15 Summary of City and Nonprofit Responses to Volunteer
Survey Section (2002)

Table 16 Volunteers in Urban Forestry Summary of Chi-Square
Results: Nonprofit Tree Groups x City Forestry Programs (2002)

Table 17 Summary of Responding City Opinions Regarding Aspects of
Nonprofit Activities (2002)

Table 18 ‘Working Together’ Section of Survey Summary of Chi-Square:

Results Nonprofit Tree Groups x City Forestry Programs (2002)

viii

47

49

53

55

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Status of City Forestry Budgets as Provided by City
Forestry Respondents (2002)

Figure 2 Comparison of Time and Budget Allocation Spent on
Urban Forestry Activities (2002)

Figure 3 Reported Ages of Nonprofits that Responded to
the Survey (2002)

Figure 4 Funding Sources of Responding Nonprofits in 2000 (2002)

Figure 5 Mean Number of Trees Planted by Responding
Cities and Nonprofits 1997-2001 (2002)

Figure 6 Size of Stock Planted by Responding Nonprofits and Cites (2002)

Figure 7 City and Nonprofit Response to the Statement “A strong
concern for the urban forest exists in my community” (2002)

Figure 8 Reactions of Cities and Nonprofits to the Statement “ Volunteer
Plantings are Well-Maintained ” (2002)

Figure 9 Percentages of Cities and Nonprofits that Reported Giving and
Receiving Urban F orestry-Related Assistance (2002)

Figure 10 Percent of Cities and Nonprofits that Gave a ‘Good’ Rating to
Selected Aspects of their Relationship (2002)

ix

31

32

33

35

38

38

42

48

51

52

I. Introduction

Urban forestry and the quality of life in urban areas are inextricably connected.
A healthy urban environment is dependent upon the presence of a well-maintained and
properly managed urban forest. The ‘urban forest’ can be defined as, “the sum of all
woody and associated vegetation in and around dense human settlements, ranging from
small communities in rural settings to metropolitan regions (Miller 1997227). Estimates
vary as to how much urban forest exists in the United States. In 1998 the US Forest
Service reported that urban forest lands occupy more than 70 million acres in the United
States (USDA 1998). The task of managing this resource is referred to as urban forestry.
The role of the urban forester includes “the planning for and management of a
community’s forest resources to enhance the quality of life. The process integrates the
economic, environmental, political and social values of the community to develop a
comprehensive management plan for the urban forest” (Miller 1997:31).

The responsibility for caring for urban trees is great, especially when one
considers the myriad benefits enjoyed by those who live among trees. Trees provide
many benefits such as shade, oxygen, wildlife habitat, noise and air pollution reduction,
floodwater control and beauty. Urban trees also provide jobs, rejuvenate soils and
provide much needed recreational opportunities (Bock 1997). Because of these facts. the
benefits of urban forests are coming to be viewed as “essential components of the
economic, social and environmental well-being of our communities” (Bock 1997).

The benefits of the urban forest do not come without cost. Urban foresters
maintain trees that are contending with conditions and challenges quite different than

would be encountered in a rural forest. These conditions can be extreme and can require

intensive management. Urban forestry program costs include maintenance expenses such
as fertilization, pruning, tree protection, cabling and bracing, insect and disease control,
as well as wound and cavity treatment (Miller 1997:261). Additional program costs
include tree planting and removals as well as other department expenses such as staffing
and equipment. In order to meet the needs of the urban forest, funding for the urban
forestry program must be sufficient. Without adequate funding to cover costs, the urban
tree resource will not provide the desired benefits (Kuser 2000:] 19). It has been
suggested that when there is not enough urban forestry funding, volunteers can help by
supplementing the work of professionals and by providing advocacy and support for the
program (Fazio No.36).

The volunteer labor force in the United States is strong and dedicated. In 2000.
Independent Sector estimated 83.9 million Americans volunteered their time, for a total
of 15.5 billion volunteer hours (Independent 2002). Volunteers are Often engaged
through the efforts of tax exempt, or nonprofit, organizations. In 1998 there were over 1.5
million nonprofit organizations registered with the Internal Revenue Service WCCS
2002). It is uncertain how many these volunteer hours or organizations are dedicated to
urban forestry pursuits, but it is certain that the potential for increasing nonprofit and
volunteer involvement in urban forestry exists.

Today there are many well-established nonprofit organizations dedicated to urban
forestry throughout the country. Nonprofit tree groups involve their staff and volunteers
in a wide range of urban forestry activities. These groups vary in size and sophistication,

but all have a common concern for the urban forest.

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship and levels of partnership
between nonprofit tree-planting organizations and city forestry programs. To accomplish
this, nonprofit tree planting groups and city forestry programs in the northeastern United
States were surveyed. Surveys gathered data in four main focus areas, characteristics of
responding organization or department, perceptions of the urban forest, the role of
volunteers in urban forestry, and communication and interaction between the two groups.
The research objectives of this study are to determine with whether there are differences
in how nonprofit tree planting groups and city forestry programs perceive the urban
forest, the role and importance of volunteers in urban forestry and how the two groups
interact and communicate. Additionally, information provided by the survey respondents
about their organizations and forestry programs is presented to create a ‘profile’ of
respondents.

The need for vibrant, healthy and well-maintained urban forests is so great, it is
vitally important to maximize efforts through effective partnerships. The level of
partnership between city forestry programs and nonprofit tree groups is not currently
known. It is hoped that the information gathered through this study will be used to help

these two groups work together to care for our urban forests.

II. Literature Review

Introduction

A large body of literature was reviewed to provide direction and a framework for
this study. Areas explored include the field of urban forestry, the nonprofit sector, and
volunteerism, with attention given to related studies and surveys. The review of the
literature begins with a look at the management of the urban forests with key terms
defined and a discussion of budgetary constraints. Nonprofits are then discussed and
defined, with an overview of the role of the nonprofits sector and tree planting groups.
Literature concerning volunteers, their management and citizen participation is reviewed

with an emphasis on the role Of the volunteer and tree planting groups in urban forestry.

Management of the Urban Forest

The management of trees in the American landscape began in earnest during the
early 18‘h century. It was during this period that New England town squares were
converted from pasturelands into more park-like spaces, complete with lawns and trees
(Younker 199027). With the arrival of City Beautiful movement later in the century,
foresters and landscape architects, such as Frederick Law Olmstead, moved toward a
more measured, long term approach that put emphasis both on planning and conserving
existing resources (Younker 1990:7).

The development of what would grow to become ‘urban forestry‘ was a gradual
progression. Miller identifies three events that led to the concept of urban forestry. First.
the increased interface between urban centers and rural woodlands stemming from

greater numbers of people concentrated in cities. Second. the influence of urbanites’

social values on the management of rural land helped to shape the development Of urban
forestry. Thirdly, the negative effects on vegetation in urban areas, interface zones, and
rural forests caused by the urbanization process led in part to the concept of urban

forestry (199721). The tremendous losses sustained from Dutch elm disease in urban
areas were another impetus toward ‘urban forestry’. Dutch elm disease emphasized the
“deplorable state of urban trees in most cities and towns. This ultimately led to the rise of
the urban forestry movement following federal regulation to stimulate more large-scale

tree planting” (Campana 19992218).

Historical Timeline -
The following section highlights major events or advances in the field of urban forestry.

Late 18008

0 1872 J. Sterling Morton founded Arbor Day in Nebraska. Arbor Day would go on to
play a critical role in building a new urban forest in the Untied States (Campana
1999259).

0 The American Forestry Association (AFA) was founded in 1875, America’s oldest
nonprofit focused on trees (Johnston 1996:262). The AFA was behind the public
concern that led to the creation of the US. Forest Service (M011 1986).

Early 1900s
0 Arborists and foresters began to manage urban trees and forests (Miller 1997:33).

1920s
. The National Shade Tree Conference was founded in 1924 to plan a conference
focusing on street tree maintenance (Johnston 19962259).

1930s
0 1930, The detection of Dutch elm disease in Cleveland, Ohio was the first case in
North America (Campana 1999:2122).

0 Throughout the decade pressure built for management of the urban forest, especially
necessary to deal with emerging and devastating urban tree diseases (Johnston
1996:258).

19508
0 Passage of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of I950.

19608

Emergence of the concept of “urban forestry” as the management of the total urban
forest system (Johnston 1996225 8).

The National Shade Tree Conference changed its name in 1961 to the International
Shade Tree Conference (Campana 19992154).

In 1967, it was recommended to the President by the Citizen’s Committee on
Recreation and Natural Beauty that, “an urban and community forestry program be
created in the US. Forest Service to provide technical assistance, training and
research (Miller 1997:33).

American foresters began to recognize the population and resulting power shift to
urban areas (Johnston 19962258).

19708

Urban forestry became a recognized discipline within the field of forestry (Miller
1997233).

In 1972 Congress passed the Urban Forestry Act. This bill called on the Secretary of
Agriculture to assist states by providing technical assistance for the management of
trees in urban areas (Miller 1997233).

In recognition of the ever-increasing importance of urban areas, the Society of
America Foresters formed an Urban Forestry Working Group in 1972 (Johnston
1996:260).

Also in 1972, the Cooperative Forest Management Act was authorized, but not
funded (Morgan 1989).

The International Shade Tree Conference became the International Society of
Arboriculture in 1974 (Campana 19992159).

The National Arbor Day Foundation established the Tree City USA program in 1975
(Johnston 19962271).

Cooperative Resource Act of 1978 increased the commitment to urban forestry.
Section 6 of this act gave the Secretary of Agriculture the authorization to provide
both technical and financial assistance to state foresters (Miller 1997234, Morgan
1989).

Also in 1978, the First National Urban Forestry Conference was held in Washington
DC. (Johnston 19962261).

19808

Los Angeles-based TreePeople’s ‘Million Tree Campaign‘ was the first to utilize
advertising and marketing to further a major urban forestry project (Johnston
19962266).

In 1989, the American Forestry Association launched the national Global ReI.eaf
campaign. This program put a focus on the importance of local action as a way of
addressing global environmental concerns (Johnston 19962266).

19908

The 1990 Farm Bill amended the Cooperative Forestry Act, vastly augmenting the
government’s commitment to urban forestry. Included in this bill: increased Forest

Service’s authority to work with States on technical assistance and grant
administration, the creation of a 15 member National Urban and Community Forestry
Advisory Council, and a boost in funding from $2.7 million in 1990 to $25 million by
1993 (Miller 1997234).
Over time, the following terms have evolved to describe different aspects or
responsibilities in the field. The definitions given are those that have been used in for the
purpose of this study.

The urban forest: "The trees in and around the living spaces Of cities, suburbs
and rural communities” (Moll 1988235).

Urban forestry: “The planning, establishment, protection and management of
trees and associated plants, individually, in small groups. or under forest conditions
within cities, their suburbs and towns” (Miller 521997).

Urban & community forestry: “Urban forestry is also referred to as urban and
community forestry, or simply community forestry, since many residents of villages,
towns, and small cities do not consider themselves urban” (Ball 1997).

Municipal, or city forestry: “The establishment, protection, and maintenance of
trees and associated vegetation on public land in communities” (Miller 1997:33). “Tree
programs are an investment in a community’s future by maintaining the existing urban
forest, removing safety hazards. and planting trees that will benefit future generations”
(Reeder 1993).

Managing the urban forest: "The planning for and management ofa
community's forest resources to enhance the quality of life. The process integrates the
economic. environmental, political and social values of the community to develop a

comprehensive management plan for the urban forest” (Miller 3121997).

City forester: “Overall program manager whose role is to integrate the work of

public agencies and the private sector” (Lipkis 1521990).

Budgetary Constraints in Urban Forestry
Although urban forestry itself has grown into a widely established profession, funding

available to support efforts to maintain urban forests is often insufficient. Kielbaso
reported in the 1988 study, ‘Trends in Urban Forestry Management’, that the biggest
obstacle to effective management of the urban forest is “inadequate funding for proper
maintenance”. In a 1994 follow-up to Kielbaso’s study, Tschantz & Sacamano found.
“funding for municipal tree management in on the decline. Only a small percentage Of
municipalities have tried to offset that funding decrease through public education
programs or partnerships with public or private groups” (1994210). Tate's article in the
Handbook of Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast (Kuser ed.) commented
that urban and community forest funding has decreased over the past decade. He further
noted that without sufficient funding. “the urban tree resource cannot optimize and
provide the social, aesthetic, and economic benefits...” (200021 19). Tate stated that the
responsibility for, “the health and survival of the urban forest is directly proportional to
the ability of the resource manager to obtain funding”(Kuser 20002107). If resource
managers are increasingly unable to Obtain funding (ability aside) it stands to reason that
the health and survival of our urban forests will suffer.

O’Brien et a1. (19922307) pointed out the unfortunate fact that. "all too often.
municipal services that care for trees are viewed as expendable during tough financial

times”. A variety of strategies exist for increasing budget allocations. I'lager et al. (1980)

suggested. “a long-range management plan based on a tree survey should be tailored to a
specific town and could be used to justify funding”. Additionally, the authors observed
that without adequate funding, municipalities would not be able to plan and operate a
program that maintains, repairs, removes and replaces the trees they are responsible for.
“Citizens not only influence decisions on how tax dollars are spent, but they can
also contribute money, labor and other resources to the urban forest through volunteer
programs” (Tschantz & Sacamano 1994210). “If municipal forestry programs aim to be
less reliant on fluctuating municipal budgets. alternative sources of funding and support
through partnerships will become increasingly important” (Tschantz & Sacamano

19943).

Non Profits in the United States
Nonprofits in the United States continue to grow in number and prominence. This
is certainly the case in the field of urban forestry. A Nonprofit Group can be defined as:
any “formally incorporated organization that is exempt from federal corporate income
taxes under sections 501 (c)-(t) or 521 under Title 26 of the United States Tax
Code. . . [The nonprofit sector also] includes community-based organizations,
neighborhood associations, social movement organizations, and other voluntary
associations that are not formally incorporated” (Hula & Jackson-Elmoore 200023). For
the purpose Of this study. a Nonprofit Tree Group is defined as a tax-exempt
organization dedicated in large part to the advocacy for, or the planting of. trees.
Nonprofit organizations can be divided into two basic categories, those that serve

their membership as compared to those that serve the public (’Solamon 1999223). For

9

example professional organizations such as the International Society of Arboriculture
serve their members by providing training, networking and certification opportunities,
whereas a local nonprofit tree-planting organization would fall under the latter category.
A community-based organization can be described as “a geographically focused
participatory organization rooted in local community institutions. 1f the market
represents exchange and the government represents authority, then it is appropriate to
think of the nonprofit sector as a mechanism for cooperation” (Hula & Jackson-Elmoore
2000)

Cabarle and Heiner (1994) examined the role of non-governmental organizations
(N GO) in forestry. They define a non-govemmental organization as, “a group of people
united together into a formal, not-for-profit organization to pursue a social objective”.
They recognized that the, “common thread in all NGOS is the goal of influencing a social.
economic, or environmental problem at the local, national or international level."
Like the domestic relationship between nonprofits and municipalities, the relationship of
NGOS with governments, “at times is one of collaboration - effectively extending
coverage and complementing the impact of official programs. At other times it is one of
animosity, distrust and vigorous campaigning to change official policies” (Cabarle and
Heiner I994). Hula and Jackson-Elmoore observe that the rise of the nonprofit sector is
more than a reaction to failures in the market and the govemment. Rather, these authors
perceive the actions of nonprofits in a more proactive light, as agents ofchange striving
to affect the environment in which they operate (200023-5).

According to Salamon’s Partnership Model, govenmients and nonprofits are

drawn to partnerships because the two entities complement one another. where one is

10

strong, the other is weak, and vice versa (Hula & Jackson-Elmoore 2000265). Swanstrom
and Koschinsky assert the important idea that “governments and nonprofits can
accomplish more if they work together” (Hula & Jaekson-Elmoore 2000265). This
simple, yet crucial notion may seem like common sense. but is Often difficult in practice.
The groups must work together in order to set goals and priorities, in addition to
identifying areas of strengths and weakness. An advantage of working with nonprofit
tree-planting groups is their ability to take the onus of volunteer recruitment, and much of
the coordination efforts, away from the municipality. The more well organized the tree-
planting group, the more able to provide a reliable source of volunteer labor.

It is useful to consider the costs and benefits associated with the urban forest,
particularly when comparing the views of a nonprofit tree planter with a municipal
forestry program. More often than not. tree-planting organizations are free to focus
entirely on the benefits of the trees they plant. Conversely. municipal tree programs are
burdened with the majority of cost (i.e. major pruning. remOVals).

Sustainability is a consideration for both the manager and citizen alike. Clark et
al. (1997) defined sustainability as, “the ability to produce and/or maintain a desired set
of conditions or things for some time into the future, not necessarily forever”. Their
study offered a number of criteria and indicators to gauge the sustainability of an urban
forestry program. Two criteria worth noting relate to involvement on the community
level and the interaction between citizens, government and businesses. Community
involvement was considered sustainable in part if “citizens understand and participate in

urban forest management” (Clark et al. 1997). Interactions are deemed sustainable if,

11

“public agencies, private landholders. the green industry and neighborhood groups all
share the same vision of the city’s urban forest”(Clark et al. 1997).

Nonprofit tree planting groups appear to be a sustainable presence in urban
forestry. Well—established groups such as Los Angeles’ TreePeople have been active for
over 20 years. Such groups can provide invaluable support to forestry programs as well

as encourage great numbers of volunteers to participate in urban forestry activities.

Volunteers, Volunteer Management and Citizen Participation

As stated in the introduction, volunteers are an important force in America that
numbered 83.9 million strong in 2000 (Independent 2002). The author of People Power,
Brian O’Connell refuted what he called the pervasive view that Americans are less likely
today to help one another and to become involved in public issues and causes than in
earlier times. On the contrary, O’Connell stated that a “far larger proportion and many
more parts of our population are involved in community activity today than in any time in
our history” (1994).

Ames (1980) examined the need for community participation, types of citizen
participation and the impacts of community participation on tree-planting. He found that
community participation was crucial in gaining public acceptance of the trees. This
acceptance helps to avoid the common lack of support faced when outsider (read:
municipal forestry) goals are forced on community residents. This study did not discount
the necessity of municipal tree planting programs, yet recognized the niche in which

community tree-planting groups are needed. When compared to a tree that simply

12

appears. common sense tells us that a resident will care more for a tree they lobbied for.
chose the species of and helped to plant.

Lynne Westphal (1993) of the US Forest Service has examined why it is that
people volunteer. She found that leading motivators are, “a desire for an improved
connection with nature, an ability to do something tangible to help the environment. and a
deep appreciation of the aesthetic and emotional benefits of nature”. Additional
motivators include recognition, altruism or a sense of public duty, social interaction,
achievement, the desire for influence and a sense of environmental responsibility (Fazio
NO. 36).

Dwyer, Schroeder and Gobster (1991) suggest the following reasons for the
strong interest in tree planting: 1) Tree planting as a demonstration ofeommitment to the
future; 2) Tree planting as a means of improving the environment: and 3) Tree planting as
a possible major impact on the landscape over time. They further noted that,
“unfortunately, the deeply held values that motivate people to plant trees often do not
find expression in a desire to care for the trees on a regular basis” (1991).

Voltmteers enjoy a large range of activities related to urban forestry.
Opportunities include tree planting, pruning, performing and maintaining inventories.
various maintenance tasks such as remulching and watering. distributing literature,
monitoring and reporting vandalism. fundraising, administrative assistance, speaking
engagements, service on boards, etc. (Fazio No. 36, Kuser 2001, Westphal and Childs
1994, Wellman and Tipple 1992).

When working with volunteers. managers of municipal tree care programs must

consider which tasks are appropriately performed by volunteers. Numerous articles

13

examine volunteer, nonprofit, or citizen participation in more complex tasks such as
large-scale planting projects (Ip I996, Dawe 1993), street tree inventories (Bloniarz &
Ryan 1996) and utility line clearance programs (Barnes 1988). How extensive a role
volunteers should play in a forestry program is dependent upon many variables. In
Bloniarz and Ryan’s 1996 study of volunteer involvement in street tree inventories, they
listed costs associated with volunteers as: recruitment, training, mobilization, and
logistical support. According to a study by Tschantz & Sacamano (1994), municipalities
noted that nonprofit groups Offer the greatest assistance in the following areas:
“assistance with planting programs, written/vocal support, funding support, assistance
with maintenance, and assistance with educating the public on the importance of trees
and tree management”.

Volunteers and citizen involvement are important components of urban forestry,
however their involvement is not always appropriate or sought after. Westphal and
Childs (1994) noted that, “professional urban foresters may feel that volunteers aren’t
capable of highly skilled work, that they can’t consistently count on volunteers, or that
volunteers may challenge their professional authority and judgement”. It has also been
stated that some tree managers, “in trying to develop community support, urban foresters
may be crossing the line into political activity” (Wellman and Tipple 1992). Such

reservations could be overcome through successful partnerships.

I4

Partnerships

Certainly some partnerships will bring about success, while others are less than
effective. Wellman and Tipple (1992) suggest that urban forest managers seek out
partnerships with citizen groups that exhibit the three following characteristics:

1) Interests which complement those of the urban forestry program;

2) A purpose linked to some overarching social value in the community;

3) The ability to contribute to the strategic advancement of the urban forestry

program.
Wellman and Tipple (1992) go on to state that, “if the time and energy citizens devote to
improving their urban forests is to be well-directed, efficient and productive enough to
encourage further action, it must be carried out in partnership with urban forest
management professionals”.

Coordinating efforts often translates into coordinating volunteers. In 1986 Ball
reported that few urban foresters have had training in volunteer management. This
sentiment was echoed by Wellman and Tipple(l992), “unfortunately, there has been little
in most professional education to prepare practicing public sector managers for working
with citizens and community groups”. Ball’s 1986 article offered the following
suggestion for volunteer management:

1) There must be a mutual trust and an open exchange of expectations. In Ball’s case
study, the volunteer group was formed around dissatisfaction with the city's service.

Unfortunately, this likely is not an uncommon motivating factor.

2) Volunteers Should be treated with the same consideration as a paid employee. This
includes supervision and clear, ideally written job descriptions. He further lists
motivating factors, responsibility, challenge and recognition (Ball 1986).

Properly trained volunteers provide a host of benefits for an urban forestry program.

Nichnadowicz in Kuser (20022127) Offers five such benefits:

1) Volunteers who are committed to the mission of the program can provide

new Skills.

2) Volunteers can provide different perspectives and contacts.

3) Good volunteers are a kind and committed audience.

4) Enthused volunteers can be trained to assist in more complex tasks.

5) Volunteers can help expand a tree program.

Westphal and Childs (1994) note that in order to get the maximum benefit from

volunteers. “it is important that urban foresters receive appropriate training and have the

necessary time and commitment to work with volunteers”.

The literature does contain discussion beyond the general push to get volunteers
to serve as free labor. Kuhns et. al. (19952186) comment that. “all too often, community
involvement is viewed as simply enlisting volunteers to supply labor for planting. .
Kuhns recognized the importance of involving residents who will be impacted from the
beginning to ensure some modicum of citizen control over the process (1995:186).
Additionally, he made the important point that any education effort should be viewed as a
two-way interaction, as “urban natural resource professionals may have as much to learn
and as great a need to change perspective as the community impacted by a project”
(19952187).

Foster’s (2001) Journal of Forestry article, “Nonprofits in Forestry” is
informative. “Unlike public agencies. which are there for the long haul. nonprofit

organizations tend to gravitate toward projects with relatively limited time frames. the

16

result of their dependence on short-terrn philanthropic resources.” Foster lists positive
and negative aspects of nonprofit involvement. The beneficial aspects of nonprofits
include, nonprofits can “avoid bureaucratic impediments and raise funds, recruit
adherents, provide in-kind and other supplemental services, and effect public-private
cooperation across agency, disciplinary, and even state lines.” In addition, nonprofits can
be risk-takers and innovators. On the cautionary Side of partnerships, Foster (2001)
offers five major pitfalls:

1) If nonprofits play too prominent a role, agencies can lose stature and visibility;

2) Agency autonomy and individualism may be threatened when power sharing occurs;
3) Shared decision-making is oftentimes more time-consuming, complex and costly;

4) When responsibilities and roles are blurred, public accountability could be reduced;
and 5) “There is also the specter of reduced public appropriations if the task can be
accomplished with non-govemmental resources” (Foster 2001). Additionally, Foster
notes that as a result of their perpetual search for members and funding, nonprofits are
required to remain competitive and unique. He follows that this may lead to problems
with territorial behavior and an unwillingness to Share credit (Foster 2001). Furthermore,
it is reasonable to assume that the need to raise funds would not be conducive to
divulging the details of unsuccessful projects.

Shurtz (2001) addresses some of the issues that arise when municipal foresters
and community foresters (nonprofit tree planters) work side-by-side. Table 1 summarizes
the positive and negative aspects that he feels each group can bring to the interaction.
The Shurtz list touches on many of the relationship aspects that will be explored by the

following. It is encouraging that in both cases the positive list is longer than the

17

negative. Certainly, no organization or department will possess all Of the characteristics,

be it positive or negative, but the lists serve as a valuable source of discussion and self-

examination for the two groups.

Table 1 Positive and Negative Aspects of Nonprofits and City Forestry Programs

(Shurtz 2001)

 

Nonprofit Positives

Nonprofit Negatives

 

Can access grant & tree planting funds

Lack of in-house professionals

 

Add infrastructure value without directly
impacting municipal funds

Don’t always chose the ‘right tree for the
right place’

 

Offer educational programs

High visibility can detract from
professionally run city programs

 

Have high visibility

 

Can improve support base of municipal
foresters

 

Lack the limitations Of government
agencies

 

 

 

City Forestry Positives

City Forestry Nggatives

 

Professional, experienced staff

Can be bureaucratically entrenched

 

Grasp of long range goals and needs

Can be resistant to change and new ideas

 

Political mandate to function in a public
safety/health role

Over worked, underpaid, understaffed

 

Interface with other municipal agencies

Constrained by ‘red tape’

 

 

Know ‘the system’ well

 

 

Conclusion & Hypotheses:

The management of this nation’s 70 million acres of urban forest is clearly a large

and important job. To accomplish this task the field of urban forestry and professional

tree managers have come about. Concerned citizens. and the tree groups they lead and

volunteer for, have also emerged to take their place in the field of urban forestry. It is the

intersection of these two groups that drives this study. The literature lacks studies that

focus on how tree-planting groups and city forestry interact. It is important to know how

these two groups compare in their activities, views of the urban forest, usage and

perception of volunteers, as well as how well they are communicating with each other. To

 

accomplish this, four null hypotheses were developed and tested through data analysis.

The hypotheses are:

1) H(0) There are no significant differences between city forestry and
nonprofit tree-planting groups’ perceptions of the urban forest.

2) H(0) There are no significant differences in the way city forestry and
nonprofit tree-planting groups view the role and importance of volunteers in
urban forestry.

3) H(0) City forestry will rate highly the quality of work performed by
nonprofit tree-planting groups.

4) H(0) City forestry and nonprofit tree-planting groups have good levels of
communication with each other

These hypotheses are further discussed and tested in Chapter IV, Results and Discussion.

19

11]. Methods

Study Area

The United States Forest Service Northeastern Area was selected as the region
of focus. This area was selected because it is an established unit utilized by the federal
government. A regional focus was necessary to make this study feasible in terms of cost.
Twenty states fall within the Northeastern Area, with the addition of the District of
Columbia. States in the study area include: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa,
Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont. West

Virginia, and Wisconsin. A map of the study area is included in the appendix.

Selection of Subjects

Efforts were made to identify and survey as many tree groups (as defined as a
nonprofit organization dedicated. at least in part, to the planting of trees) in the study area
as possible. Tree groups were found through a variety of sources. Nonprofit tree group
contact information was gathered from: the National Tree Trust local tree planting
organizations list. the National Alliance for Community Trees member list, the Citizen
Forestry Support System’s publication “How do Tree Groups Train Volunteers”,
Growing Greener Cities (M011 1992), Internet searches, requests for information posted
on the URBNRNET and Trees listserves, and through word of mouth. In addition, the
State Urban Forestry Coordinators for each of the 20 states included in this study were

sent an email describing the project along with a request to provide contact infonnation

for any tree groups they were aware Of. In total, contact information was gathered for 81
tree groups in 43 cities located in 18 states. All tree groups identified were mailed
surveys and the corresponding cities under whose ‘jurisdiction’ they operate were mailed
surveys.

Once tree groups had been selected, the contact information for the city
department responsible for tree care in their home city was sought. The Society of
Municipal Arborists (SMA) provided a membership contact list. Sixteen of the cities had
a member with a title, address and telephone number. Beyond the SMA list, an Internet
search for city contact information was conducted. City home pages were located and
searched for the department and primary contact person responsible for tree care. This
method provided nearly all of the needed contact information. For the remaining cities,

the city hall or chamber of commerce was telephoned for the appropriate contact.

Instrumentation

Surveys were developed over the course Of a number of years. Questions were
inspired by a review Of urban forestry literature, related questionnaires, experiences of the
author and committee feedback. Questionnaires that proved particularly helpful were
those used by Kielbaso (1988), Clark (1996), and Schroeder ct al. (1998). A breakdown
of how survey questions correspond to research Objectives is below. Surveys mailed to
the nonprofits and cities were similar but catered to gather information specific to each
entity. For example, cities were asked to provide departmental information and tree
groups were asked questions specific to their efforts as a nonprofit. Please note that
complete copies of both surveys can be found in the appendix. The survey questions

were designed to capture information that falls under one of the following four

21

categories: department/organization information, perceptions of the urban forest.
communication and relationship. and the role and importance of volunteers. These four
categories correspond with the research objectives. Please see Table 2 for a breakdown
of questions and the objective for which they relate.

Table 2 Survey Question Number and Corresponding Research Objective (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City Survey Nonprofit Survey
Department/Organization 1-19, 28 (open-ended) 1-17, 23 (Open-ended)
Information
Perceptions of the Urban 26(a)- 26(t) 22(a)- 22(f)
Forest
Communication and 20, 21(a)—21(t), 22(a)— 18(a)-18(f), 19(a)-19(e),
Relationship 22(e), 23(a)- 23(d), 27/29- 23/25-27 (open-ended)
31 (open-ended)
Role and Importance of 24(a)- 24(g), 25 20(a)-20(f), 21
Volunteers

 

Prior to being sent out to cities and nonprofits, a pilot test was performed.
Questionnaires were sent to reviewers representing city foresters, nonprofit tree planting
groups and experts in the field. Survey reviewers were:

Paul Bairley, Urban Forester, City of Ann Arbor, Michigan

Friends of the Urban Forest, a nonprofit tree-planting organization
based in San Francisco

Kerry Boris Gray, MS Forestry-Urban Studies, Arbor Day Coordinator,
State of Michigan

Chris Pargoff, City Forester, City of Livonia, Michigan

Phillip Rodbell, Urban Forester, USDA Forest Service

Steve Shurtz, City Forester, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, former president of the
Societyof Municipal Arborists

Trees Atlanta, a nonprofit tree-planting organization

Reviewers responded favorably to the survey, with two suggestions for changes. First, a
number of reviewers commented that the survey took 30 minutes to complete, rather than
the twenty minutes originally thought. This was adjusted was made on the cover letter

sent to cities and nonprofits. The second suggestion was to add clarifying information

 

concerning tree boards and nonprofit tree groups. Because this suggestion had not
previously been offered by the committee and was not mentioned by other reviewers, it

was decided to leave the survey as it was.

Survey Administration

A total of 124 surveys were mailed, with 81 (65%) to nonprofit organizations and
43 (35%) to cities. Surveys were mailed from Detroit, Michigan in the spring of 2002
and were addressed by hand and mailed in brown craft 9x12 envelopes. The surveys
were copied, two-sided on a natural granite shade of 1 1x17 paper. Complete copies of
both city and nonprofit surveys are located in the appendix. Respondents were asked to
fold and seal the survey with an attached sticker. Surveys were stamped and self-
addressed.
Survey Returns

The return rate for the initial mailing was 20% for nonprofits and 41% for cities.
Follow up telephone calls were made in the summer Of 2002. Contacts were reminded
that they had been sent a survey regarding partnerships in urban forestry. They were then
asked whether they had returned the survey, and if not, were asked about their
willingness to fill out the survey should another be mailed to them. Addresses were
verified and a second call back mailing was sent soon thereafter. From this second
mailing, an additional 14 surveys were returned, resulting in a total return rate of 40%.
A total Of 49 of surveys were returned. Of the 81 surveys mailed to nonprofits, six were
returned as ‘undeliverable’, two were inadvertently mailed to groups not fitting the

project criteria. or were unreachable due to faulty contact information during as

23

discovered when telephoning first-round non-respondents. With these 18 surveys
subtracted from the total number of nonprofit surveys. the number used to calculate the
return rate becomes 63.

The 23 surveys from nonprofit organizations then represent a return rate of 37%.
The 26 returned by cities represent a return rate of 60%. Sixteen states and the District of
Columbia were represented. Elmendorf and Luloff report that response rates for mail
surveys are commonly below 50% (2001). By this standard, nonprofit returns were
disappointing, while city returns were relatively high. The latest survey methodology
developed by Don Dillman is entitled the Tailored Design Method (TDM). The TDM
process produces average mailed survey return rates of 74% (Dillman 1999226). By this
standard, return rates for both cities and nonprofits are low. Dillman’s method and how it
relates to this study will be discussed in the limitations section in Chapter 5.

Cities returned their surveys at a higher rate than the nonprofits. The lower return
rate for nonprofits was to some degree expected due to the relative instability and
mobility of nonprofits as compared to a city department. The six questionnaires returned
as undeliverable and the additional 10 contact numbers no longer in service provide
evidence of this. It is possible that some of the nonprofits on the mailing list may have
been a one-time recipient of a National Tree Trust tree-planting grant, rather than a full
time tree planting organization. These grant recipients are listed under the National Tree
Trust’s local tree planting organization list, which was a source used to compile the 81
groups identified. In attempt to avoid error when selecting groups, the National Tree
Trust’s group descriptions were read to determine whether the group ‘fit’ under the

nonprofit tree groups category. Those such as schools that appeared on the list. but were

24

clearly not a tree group (as defined for this study) were not selected. Selection error was
identified when follow up telephone calls led to the discovery that one group focused

exclusively on urban gardening and another was actually a tree nursery.

Information on Non Respondents

As mentioned, of the 81 surveys sent to nonprofits. 18 were invalidated, and 40
were not returned. Of the 46 surveys mailed to cities, 15 were not returned. In an
attempt to identify any characteristics non-respondents may have had in common, both
the method of their selection and any available information Obtained in their selection
was revisited.

The source Of contact information was explored first. Of the 16 cities that were
contacted using information provided by the Society of Municipal Arborists. nine (56%)
returned surveys. This figure is lower than the groups return rate of 63%. This lower
return rate came as a surprise as surveys with Society of Municipal Arborist contact
information had been confirmed with an up-to-date address and contact name
information. Although nonprofit contact information came from a wide array of sources
difficult to recheck, it was clear which addresses were obtained from the National Tree
Trust local tree planting organizations list. Of the 81 groups, 23 were identified from this
source. The rate Of survey return for this segment of the group was 30% (7/23). This
figure is consistent with, but slightly higher than, the return rate of 28% for the entire
nonprofit universe. See Table 3 for a breakdown of survey returns as related to city
population. City populations have been divided into four sizes: small cities <35,000,

small to medium 35.001-50.000. medium to large 50,001-100.000, and large cities over

25

500,000 residents. Medium/large and large cities returned surveys at higher rates. This
difference in return rates is discussed in Chapter 5.

Table 3 Number of Surveys Returned/Not Returned (all mailings) from Each City Size
Catgory (2002) *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Small Small/Medium Medium/Large Large Total
C ig Returned 7 8 8 3 26
City Not Returned 10 2 2 3 l7
Nonprofit Returned 4 4 6 9 23
Nonprofit Not Returned 13 10 6 1 l 40
Total 34 24 21 25 106

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Totals do not include the 18 undeliverable. unreachable or improperly selected nonprofits
Geography of returns has also been considered. See Table 4 for an analysis of location as
related to number Of surveys returned or not returned. Please note that "North Central’
includes Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin and Illinois. The area designated
‘Midwest’ includes Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia. The ‘Mideast’ section
includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Lastly, the
‘Northeast’ area includes Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire,
New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts,

Table 4 Geographic Location (within the USF S Northeast Area) of Responding and Nan
Responding Cities & Non rofits (2002) *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Midwest Mideast Northeast Total
Central
City Returned 6 8 6 6 26
City Not Returned 2 5 7 3 l7
Nonprofit Returned 5 4 6 8 23
Nonprofit Not Returned 9 IO 10 l l 40
Total 22 27 29 28 106

 

 

* Totals do not include the 18 undeliverable. unreachable or improperly selected nonprofits

Data Analysis

Data collected from questionnaires was coded and analyzed using SPSS 11.0.

This program was selected due to its availability and its appropriateness for such analysis.

The most commonly used means of analysis in this study were the examination of
frequencies. cross tabulations, chi-square tests, t-tests, correlations and various
descriptive statistics. The results of correlation analysis were consistent with chi-square
tests unless otherwise noted, with chi-square being the primary tool used for data

analysis.

27

IV. Results and Discussion

City Department and Program Background Information

Of the 26 cities that responded, 46% possesses a full time city forester or arborist.
These city foresters and arborists were housed in the Department of Public Works
(42.3%), Parks and Recreation Department (38.5%), Forestry Department (11.5%) or
worked out of other departments (7.6%). Of responding cities, 46% reported that the
individual primarily responsible for tree care decisions was an International Society of
Arboriculture Certified Arborist and 62% had attained a minimum of a four year degree
in forestry or a horticultural related science. Cities that employed a part-time or no urban
forester often had an ISA certified arborist on staff making tree care decisions. This puts
the ISA in a good position to positively influence the quality of tree care, at least in the
northeastern Untied States.

Cities often contract out portions of their urban forestry duties. This survey found
that cities were most likely to contract out removals and least likely to contract for
routine park maintenance. Table 5 details the percentage of cities that contract out for
specific aspects of tree care.

Table 5 Percentages of Cities that Contract Various Forestry Activities (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%

Removals 61 .5

Pruning 50.0
Emergency work 46.2
Planting 46.2

Routine street 42.3 A
maintenance

Routine park 34.6
maintenance

 

Cities were likely (77%) to report positively on whether they had street tree
ordinances. This high percentage of cities that reported having ordinances relating to
trees can be interpreted as a strong base of concern for urban trees. Tree ordinances were
most likely to address tree removals as well as provide for tree protection during
construction. A full listing Of responses is listed in Table 6.

Table 6 Clauses Included in Tree Ordinances in Responding Cities (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prohibition of removals 54%
Prohibition of topping 46%
Guidelines for developers 46%
Tree protection during construction 42%
Prohibited species 39%
Insect and disease control 27%
Wood waste 8%

 

 

 

 

A surprisingly few of the city’s tree ordinances addressed woodwaste and
insect/disease control. These two areas should not be overlooked, especially in light of
recent problems in New York and Chicago with the Asian Long-Hom Beetle
(Anoplophora glabripennis) and the emerging crisis in Southeast Michigan with the
Emerald Ash Borer (A grilus planipennis). It is crucial to have the legal framework in
place to give tree care managers the means and authority to spring into action when such
crises hit.

Cities reported having an inventory of street trees 62% Of the time (16 cities),
although only half of these 16 cities (8 cities) were able to provide the year it was last
updated. Thirty-four percent (34%) Of respondents’ inventories had been updated in the
last five years. This leaves many cities ill prepared to deal with routine maintenance as
well as emergency situations. In order to properly manage a resource, one must know

what it is.

29

Estimates of the number of trees along city streets ranged from 100 to 250,000.
Cities were asked to list the number of trees both planted and removed during the
previous five years. These numbers were averaged and then combined by year to reveal
rates of tree gain or deficit. Figures are listed in Table 7.

Table 7 Tree Gain/Loss Over Five Years as Reported by City Forestry
Respondents (2002) *

 

Year 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 5 Year
Totals

 

Mean Number of 699 (21) 653 (21) 691 (21) 564 (19) 690 (18) 3,297
Trees Planted

 

Mean Number Of 797(20) 623 (20) 613 (18) 777 (15) 774 (13) 3,584
Trees Removed

 

 

Mean Number of -98 +30 +78 -213 -84 -287
Trees
Gained/Lost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Number of cities that responded given in parentheses

Cities were asked to characterize their departments’ budget as increasing,
decreasing or remaining stable. The largest percentage of respondents viewed their
budgets as Stable (34%). Thirty-one (31%) percent felt their budgets were decreasing,
while 23% actually saw their budgets increasing and 12% did not respond. Figure 1
illustrates the reported budget statuses. Statements describing urban forestry budgets as
decreasing are often simply stated, assumed to be common knowledge that need not be
cited. Cities that responded, however. did not concur that their budgets were
endangered. With fifty-seven percent of respondents reporting their budgets as either

stable or increasing. it would seem the outlook might not be as bleak as commonly.

30

No Answer
12%

Increasing

23% g 7 _
‘ Increasing ,'
' I Decreasing . -
,0 Stable '
it] No Answer

  

. Decreasing
31%

Figure 1 Status of City Forestry Budgets as Provided by City Forestry
Respondents (2002)

Also explored was budget allocation in comparison to how time was spent.
Maintenance activities were allocated the greatest amount of time and money. The
percentage of budget and time spent on maintenance were equal at 33%. Removals,
planting and continuing education demanded a greater percentage of time than money.
Administration activities required a slightly greater proportion of time than budget. See
Figure 2 for comparison. It is useful to note that 12% of the time spent was in the ‘other’
category, while the corresponding budget percent was only 3%. Whatever these activities
are, tree managers should attempt to minimize the amount of time spent or support the
activities in the budget.

This study’s respondents differed in the how money was budgeted compared to
Moll’s recommendation of an ideal budget breakdown of 20% administration, 20%
planting. 20% removals and 40% maintenance (1988235). Respondents spent nearly 10%
more than Moll’s ideal on removals and nearly 10% less on maintenance. These figures

reflect programs that are less proactive and more reactive.

31

35%
30%
25%
20% EITime ‘
15% IBudget .
10%
5%
0%

Pecent Allocated

Figure 2 Comparison of Time and Budget Allocation Spent on Urban
Forestry A ctivities (2002)

Several of the responding cities reported that they did not have a tree-planting group in
their community (35%), or were unsure (11%). In other words, a mere 54% of the
respondents were aware of a tree-planting group in their community. This low
percentage is puzzling considering the fact that cities in the sample were selected based

on the presence of a nonprofit tree-planting group in their community.

Nonprofit Background Information

The nonprofits that responded to this questionnaire were generally older
organizations. As can be seen in Figure 3. thirty-five percent (35%) were more than 21
years old. 39% were 1 1 - 20 years old, 9% were 7—10 years old, and just 4% were under

three years old.

32

 

13%

    
 

 

4% 35% D 21+
9% k I 11 thru 20
El 7 thru 10
El <3
I Unsure

 

 

 

39%

 

 

 

Figure 3 Reported Ages of Nonprofits that Responded t0 the Survey (2002)

The age of the organization is not a significant factor in the relationship between cities

and nonprofits. This is evidenced in part by the paired cities that were unaware of the
tree planting organizations that were between 1 1 and 20 years old. Most of the nonprofit
groups reported having a 501(c)3 tax exempt status (78%). 18% reported they did not
and 4% were unsure. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the nonprofits employ full-time
staff. Staff sizes ranged from 1 to 74, with a mean staff size of17. The vast majority
(91%) of responding nonprofits reported having a mission statement.

When asked about the number of volunteers they worked with in 2000. nonprofits
gave numbers ranging from 0 to 30,000. The relationship between the use of volunteers
and various activities was explored. Respondents were asked to supply the number of
volunteers they worked with in 2000. These numbers were paired with key variables and
t-tests were run to look for significant relationships. To accomplish this with accuracy,
the one outlier case that reported working with 30.000 volunteers in 2000 was excluded.

The number of volunteers that the organizations worked with did not have a significant

33

relationship with any of the variables tested. A summary of test results can be found in
Table 8.

Table 8 Significance of the Relationship between Select Variables and the Number of
Volunteers Used in 2000 (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable N Significance
Number of trees planted 16 .052
Level of concern for the urban forest in the community 16 .093
Estimated survival rate 8 .277
Age of the organization 19 .359
How often the organization initiates tree planting 17 .413

 

The relationship that most closely approached significance (.052) was that between the
number of tree planted and the number of volunteers used. Although this table does not
display numbers of statistical importance it has been included to highlight the fact that the
relationships are not significant. Because volunteers are so often viewed as a labor force
it was suspected that the selected variable would share a direct relationship with the
number of volunteers used. This, as can be seen in Table 8, was not the case.

The total number of trees planted by organizations varied widely. Twenty-two
percent (22%) of respondents have planted between one and 1000 trees; 22% have
planted between 1001 and 5000; 9% have planted between 10,001 and 20,000; 17% have
planted between 20001 and 40,000 and 22% have planted over 40,000 trees. No groups
reported planting in the 5,001-10.000 range and 8% did not answer.

Nonprofits were asked whether they evaluate the trees planted by their
organization for health and survival after planting. Twenty groups (87%) responded that
they did indeed monitor their trees. When asked if survival rates were tracked, 14 (61%)
answered ‘yes’. However, only 12 (52%) were able to estimate survival rate. Estimated

survival rates varied from a low of 65% to a high of 95%, on the whole high, with a mean

 

of 82%. Groups were also asked about the interval(s) at which they evaluate their
plantings. Twenty-six percent (26%) of respondents reported a six—month check after
planting, 13% checked at one year, 13% at two years and 31% reported checking at an
'other’ interval. Seventeen (17%) percent did not respond.

Nonprofits were asked to provide a breakdown of their funding sources for the
year 2000. The means were calculated from each funding category and combined for a
total. Those means combined resulted in a total of 90.5. The mean for each funding
category was then divided by 90.5 to yield the percentage of the funding total. The
largest sources of funding for tree-planting groups were municipalities and foundations.
The smallest proportion of funding was received from individuals or private donors.

Figure 4 exhibits the breakdown of respondents’ funding sources for the year 2000.

 

Other Federal
1 1 % 10%
State
Foundation 18%
20%
Corporate
14% / Municipal
Individuals 21%
6%

 

 

 

Figure 4 Funding Sources o/‘Responding
Nonprofits in 2000 (2002)

Maximum funding levels for each of the categories demonstrated diversity. The
percentage of the budget attributable to individual donations was reported at 15%. Both
municipal and ‘other’ sources were reported at maximum levels of 100% of the budget

source. The corporate funding maximum was 90%. with the foundation max at 83%.

35

The reported high point of state funding was 85%. Federal funding did not account for
more than 60% of funding for any of the respondents.

Nonprofits were asked to provide all of the locations that they plant trees. Parks
were the most common planting locale, with private property being the least often
planted. Table 9 below demonstrates where the nonprofits focus their planting efforts.

Table 9 Locations Responding Non rofits Plant Trees (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location Percent
Parks 74%
Streetside 70%
School grounds 70%
Vacant lots 40%
Other 35%
Churches 30%
Brownfields 26%
Private Property 13%
Yards 9%

 

 

Trees were planted by nonprofits in a variety of locations. The most common
planting locations were parks and streetsides, areas that fall under the realm of city
responsibility. It should be highlighted that the tree groups focus a large portion of their
efforts on public right-of-way locations. Because these trees ultimately fall under the
care of the city forestry program it is all the more important that these groups are in
communication. If tree groups are planting trees in the public right-of-way unbeknownst
to the department responsible for their care. it signals not only a lack of communication,
but also a lack of oversight.

To determine in what activities the responding nonprofits engaged, they were
asked to indicate how often the organization, or members of their organization initiated,
or led, the following: tree-planting, youth education, neighborhood beautification, tree

watering, tree maintenance (other than watering), tree sales, seedling give-aways,

36

community workshops, contact with local tree board or commission, contact with State or
Federal agencies, and Arbor Day celebrations. Respondents indicated how often, if ever.
certain activities were initiated. The responses of ‘monthly’, ‘at least twice a year’, and
‘at least once a year’ were combined to provide the percentage that initiate the activity on
a fairly regular basis. Table 10 displays the results.

Table 10 Activities Led by Nonprofit Survey Respondents (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activity Initiated Percent
Tree Planting 83%
Arbor Day Celebration 70%
Seedling Give-Aways 65%
Community Workshops 57%
Tree Maintenance (other than watering) 51%
Neighborhood Beautification 39%
Tree Sales 39%
Tree Watering 30%
Youth Education 26%
Contact with State or Federal Agencies 26%
Contact with Local Tree Board or Commission 17%

 

Tree planting was the activity most likely to be initiated by the nonprofit groups. Arbor
Day Celebrations were also a very common activity, as were seedling give-aways. The

actions initiated by the fewest groups were communication related.

Comparing City Forestry and Nonprofit Responses

This section reports and discusses the responses to question that were asked to
city and nonprofit respondents for the purpose of comparison.

Both nonprofits and cities were asked how many trees they were responsible for
planting annually over the last five years. It should be noted that when arriving at the
mean number of trees planted annually by nonprofits, one case was excluded. This was

necessary as this organization planted over a quarter of a million trees yearly. an

37

inordinately large number. Nonprofits consistently planted more trees. See Figure 5.
Over the five-year period addressed, the mean number of trees planted by these
nonprofits grew steadily, more than quadrupling between 1997 and 2001. Over this same

period, the number of trees planted by cites varied only slightly from year-to-year.

 

3500
3000 '

D Nonprofits ‘
I Cities

Year

 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Number of Trees

 

 

 

Figure 5 Mean Number of Trees Planted by Responding
Cities and Nonprofits 1997-2001(2002)
These numbers may look impressive; however. the size of the stock planted must
be taken into consideration. Respondents were asked to specify the size of stock they
plant the majority of the time. A comparison of planting stock size has been represented

below in Figure 6.

 

80%

E 70% ,

g 60% ,. ,

4; 3:” ‘ ENonprofits
0 7 ..

S 30% ,7 ICrties

2 20%

w I

D. 10%

 

0%

Seedlings Bare Root Container 8&8
Planting Stock

 

 

 

Figure 6 Size of Stock Planted by Responding Nonprofits and Cites (2002)

38

The nonprofits were far more likely to be planting seedlings, while the majority of cities
planted balled-and-burlapped trees. Bare root was the primary planting stock for more
cities than nonprofits, while more nonprofits planted containerized stock in a greater
proportion than cities.

A strong area of concern was the relatively small percentage of cities that were
aware of a nonprofit tree-planting organization in their community. As stated in the
introduction, cities were selected on the basis on the presence of a nonprofit tree-planting
group. In the entire group, only 54% of city officials were aware of a nonprofit sharing
their urban forestry commitment. It is possible that this can be explained in part by the
number (1 8) of nonprofit surveys that were removed from the total due to the inability to
reach the target organization or improper selection. Of the 43 cities that were identified
as having nonprofit organizations, responses were received from both the city and the
nonprofit in nine instances. It was hoped that matched pairs of city-nonprofit surveys
would be returned at a higher rate.

A separate set of analyses was performed on the 'sets’ that were returned. Of the
nine pairings two of the cities responded that there was not a nonprofit tree-planting
group and one city was unsure. In other words, fully one third of the matched pair cities
were unaware of the nonprofit group active in their community. All three of the
nonprofits that were performing urban forestry activities unbeknownst to the city were
between 1 1 and 20 years old and regularly plant trees. Interestingly. when asked to
describe the relationship with their city’s tree manager two of the 'unknown’ tree groups

responded that the relationship was good. These same two groups also felt that

39

communication with the city’s tree manager was good. Clearly there is a disconnection

between the two groups. literally and perceptually.

Perceptions of the Urban Forest

As previously stated, it is hypothesized that city foresters and nonprofit. tree
groups perceptions of the urban forest will differ significantly. The following results and
discussion focus on the two groups’ perceptions of the urban forest. The hypothesis is
stated in null form and tested lastly by reviewing the responses to a block of six
statements labeled ‘Your Urban Forest’ in the surveys. This set of questions appeared in

both the city and nonprofit surveys.

Results and Discussion:

 

Respondents were given a series of statements about their community’s forest and
asked to indicate the degree to which they agree. Nonprofits were more likely to agree
that their community’s forest was in decline 70%, compared to the 40% of city
respondents who agreed that the urban forest was in decline. See Table 11 for a summary

of results to the entire block of questions concerned with perceptions of the urban forest.

40

Table 11 Summary of City and Nonprofits Responses to Perceptions of the
Urban Forest Survey Section (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City
Nonprofit
Agree Neutral Disagree
My city’s urban forest is 40% 16% 44%
in decline 70% 20% 10%
Planting is the most 52% 28% 2V
important to reforest 63% 32% 5%
More trees are needed in 83% 13% / 4%
my city 100% --- ---
Trees in my city are 32% 28% 40%
pruned regularly 37% 16% 47%
Trees in my city are 42% 21% 37%
properly maintained 29% 14% 57%
Strong concern for the 76% 12% 12%
urban forest in my town 33% 29% 38%

 

 

 

 

Nonprofits were, in fact, Significantly more likely to agree (p=0.04), as can be seen in
Table 13 located on page 45. This response is logical because if these organizations did
not see their city’s urban forest in some sort of jeopardy. the motivation to act would
certainly be lessened. Additionally. city foresters whosejob it is to ensure their
community’s forest is not in decline, would seemingly be less likely to report that it is in
decline. Furthermore, a city forester with on the job and most often, formal, education in
the field, may be better equipped to gauge whether the urban forest is in decline.

Nonprofits were also more likely to agree with the statement, ‘planting is the most
important step in reforesting a city’. Sixty-three percent (63%) of nonprofits agreed that
planting was the top priority in reforesting a city, while 52% of city forestry respondents
agreed.

When asked to react to the statement. ‘more trees are needed in my city’, 83% of
cities agreed, while 100% of nonprofits also agreed that more trees were needed. This

relationship was below the significance level (p———0. 1 3); however. the relationship

41

 

approaches significance. Nonprofits were more likely to feel that their community was in
need of more trees.

When responding to the statement 'trees in my city are pruned on a regular cycle'.
city respondents expressed a greater degree of neutrality than nonprofits. Forty-seven
percent (47%) of nonprofits did not agree that trees were pruned regularly, compared
with 40% ofcity respondents. Thirty-two percent (32%) of cities agreed that their trees
were pruned regularly, while 37% of nonprofits agreed.

A greater percentage of cities agreed that the trees in their city were properly
maintained. Just 29% of nonprofits agreed that the trees in their city were properly
maintained. compared to 42% of cities. Table 8 summarizes the responses for the entire
section of questions.

Opinions about the concern felt for the urban forest in the community differed

considerably. As can been seen in Figure 7, cities were far more likely to feel

 

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
1 0%

0%

1 E] Nonprofits .
I Cities

Disagree Neutral Agree

 

 

 

Figure 7 City and Nonprofit Response to the Statement “A strong
concern/or the urbanforest exists in my community " (2002)

that the community shared a strong concern for the urban forest (76%). On the other
hand, nonprofits agreed that a strong concern existed at a rate of 33%. Nonprofits were

far more likely than city forestry departments to perceive a lack of concern for the urban

42

forest. Differences between the two groups also arose when reacting to the statement, “a
strong concern exists for the urban forest in my community”. Cities were significantly
more likely to feel that there was a strong concern for the urban forest (p=0.0l). Much
like the previous question regarding perception of urban forest decline, such differences
may be explained by the nature of the groups. Nonprofits who devote themselves to
planting trees, likely feel the need to raise the level of concern for the urban forest. One
might suspect that the manager of a city’s trees would feel that a stronger concern exists
because if there was not a high level of concern, their position might not exist. This did
not ring true, however, as there was no statistical relationship between employing a full
time city forester and the perception of concern for the urban forest in the community
(p=0.23). See Table 12 for a summary of relationships.

Table 12 Significance of Employment of a F ulltime City Forester or Arborist as Related
to Selected Variables(2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Your City Employ a Fulltime City Forester or Arborist Pearson
Chi-Square
A strong concern for the urban forest exists in my community .229
The trees in my city are propem maintained .971
More trees are needed in my city .356
My city's urban forest is in decline .346
Trees in my city are pruned on a regular cycle .553
Planting is the most important stepfor re-foresting a city .155

 

 

 

Testing Hypothesis One:
H(0) There are no significant differences between city forestry and nonprofit tree-
planting groups’ perceptions of the urban forest.

H(a) Not as H(0)

As previously mentioned, this first hypothesis was tested by analyzing the

responses to the block of statements labeled ‘Your Urban Forest“ in the surveys.

Responses to statement one of six, ‘A strong concern for the urban forest exists in my
community", did in fact demonstrate significant differences between the two groups. See
Table 12 for a list of chi-square significance levels. City forestry respondents were
significantly more likely to perceive a strong concern for the urban forest in their
community. Reactions to statement two of six, ‘The trees in my city are properly
maintained’, were varied, but not to a statistically significant level. In general, nonprofits
found the maintenance of their city’s trees to be less satisfactory than city forestry
respondents. Statement three of six, ‘More trees are needed in my city’, produced results
very close to statistical significance. Nonprofits agreed with this statement 100% of the
time, while cities agreed 83%. These results tend toward significance.

Reactions to the fourth statement of the set, ‘My city’s urban forest is in decline’,
were significantly different between the two groups. Nonprofits were likely to feel that
their urban forest was in a state of decline. Cities viewed the urban forest in a
significantly more positive light than nonprofits. Statement five, ‘Trees in my city are
pruned on a regular cycle’, did not produce reactions that differed notably, both groups
tended to disagree with this statement. The final statement, ‘Planting is the most
important step in reforesting a city’, also produced similar reactions from both sets of

respondents. A summary of reactions to this set of questions is located in Table 13.

Table 13 Perceptions of the Urban Forest Survey Section
Summary of Significance: Nonprofit Tree Groups x City Forestry Programs (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pearson
Chi-Square
Strong concern for the urban forest in my town .014*
Trees in my city are properly maintained .420
More trees are needed in my city .134
My city’s urban forest is in decline .O40*
Trees in my city are pruned regularly .632
Planting is the most important to reforest .367

 

* Significant to the (.05) confidence level

Conclusion: Although, there were differing reactions to the statements gauging
perceptions of the urban forest, statistically significant relationships were found for only
two of the six statements. H(0) is neither rejected nor retained. In other words, tree

planting groups and cities generally share similar perceptions of the urban forest.

Perceptions of the Roles and Importance of Volunteers in Urban Forestry

The next research area to be addressed is that which is concerned with volunteers
in urban forestry. It is hypothesized that city foresters and nonprofit tree groups perceive
the role and importance of volunteers significantly differently. The following results and
discussion focus first on the two groups’ use of volunteers. Next, perceptions of
volunteers are explored. Finally, the null hypothesis is stated and tested by reviewing the
responses to a block of statements labeled located in the ‘Working Together’ section of

the surveys. This set of questions appeared in both the city and nonprofit surveys.

Results and Discussion:
Respondents from both nonprofits and city forestry were likely to employ
volunteer labor for planting activities. Table 14 displays the percentages of respondents

that reported using volunteers for a variety of tree-related activities.

45

Table 14 Percentage of City and Nonprofit Respondents that Reported Using
Volunteer Labor to Accomplish Urban Forestry Tasks (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities City Nonprofit
Planting 58% 74%
Watering 46% 65%
Pruning 19% 48%
Inventory 1 5% 48%
Species Selection 23% 21%
Other Activities 27% 9%

 

Roughly half of the nonprofit respondents reported using volunteer labor to assist
both with pruning and inventories. Cities reported using volunteers for these activities at
lower rates, presumably because they require more skill and/or training. Both groups
employed volunteers in the selection of species at roughly the same rate. Nonprofits
were reported using volunteers for other, possibly non-tree related, activities at a rate
much higher than cities. Inventories in particular produced differing figures. While 48%
of the responding nonprofits indicated that they use volunteer labor to perform
inventories, only 15% of cities reported the same. Did these nonprofits perform their
own inventories? Did the cities under-report the assistance they had received? These
discrepancies are consistent with the results drawn from the questions regarding the
frequency of assistance offered as compared to assistance received discussed in the next
section.

It is apparent that all parties felt that volunteers provide a valuable service. The
next section, ‘Working with Volunteers’, asked respondents to register their level of
agreement with a set of statements relating to volunteers. When asked to react to the
statement, ‘volunteers are important in urban forestry’, 92% of city respondents and 95%

of nonprofits agreed. The remaining respondents were neutral. with no respondents from

46

either group disagreeing that volunteers are important. A summary of all responses to
this question set can be viewed in Table 15.

Table 15 Summary of City and Nonprofit Res onses to Volunteer Survey Section (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City
Nongofit
Agree Neutral Disagree
Volunteers are important 92% 8% ---
in urban forestl 95% 5% ___
Volunteers can improve 83% 17% ---
my forestry program 81% 19% ---
Volunteer plantings are 50% 23% 27%
well-maintained 55% 27% l 8%
Volunteers are a helpful 78% 13% 9%
labor force 100% m ---
Volunteer plantings are 61% 26% 13%
well-executed 86% 1 4% ---

 

Although some city respondents disagreed (9%), 100% of the nonprofits agreed that
‘volunteers are a helpful labor force’. Thirteen percent (13%) of the cities were neutral,
but 78% did agree that volunteers provide a valuable labor force. Both groups tended to
agree that volunteers improve a forestry program, with 81% of nonprofits and 83% of
cities agreeing.

Nonprofit organizations agreed with the statement, ‘volunteer plantings are well-
executed’ at a rate of 86%. City forestry, however, agreed with this statement in only
51% of cases. In fact, 13% of city respondents disagreed with this statement. The
greatest levels of disagreement were registered toward the statement, ‘volunteer plantings
are well maintained’. Please see Figure 8. In this case not only the cities, but also the
nonprofits agreed less readily. Figure 8 shows both lower levels of agreement and higher
percentage of both groups who felt either neutral or disagreement with the notion that

volunteer plantings are well maintained.

47

 

 

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%1 , ,, . ,
10%
0% _. -
Disagree Neutral Agree

‘ 1:1 Nonprofits .
I Cities

 

 

 

Figure 8 Reactions of Cities and Nonprofits to the Statement “ Volunteer
Plantings are Well-Maintained” (2002)

Testing Hypothesis Two:

H(0) There are no significant differences in the way city forestry and nonprofit
tree-planting groups view the role and importance of volunteers in urban forestry.

H(a) Not as H(0)

Hypothesis two was tested by analyzing the responses the set of questions which
fell under the ‘Working Together’ section of the surveys. Question one asked
respondents to react to the statement, ‘Volunteers are important in urban forestry’. Both
groups agreed overwhelmingly, producing no statistically significant relationship.
Significance levels are listed in Table 16. The next statement, ‘Volunteers can improve
my forestry program’, also produced no evidence of a difference, with both respondent
groups agreeing in nearly all cases. When asked to respond to the statement, ‘Volunteer
plantings are well maintained”, responses once again were very similar from both groups.
Respondents from both groups showed the greatest variation of opinion when responding

to this statement; however. no statistically significant difference existed.

48

Table 16 Volunteers in Urban Forestry
Summary of C hi-Square Results: Nonprofit Tree Groups x City Forestry Programs(2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pearson
Chi-Square
Volunteers are important in urban forestry .632
Volunteers can improve my forestry program .835
Volunteer plantings are well-maintained .766
Volunteers are a helpful labor force .061
Volunteer plantings are well-executed .219

 

Reactions to the statement, “Volunteers are a helpful labor force’ produced
reactions that tended toward statistical significance at the (.05) level of confidence. The
source of the divergence was the number of city forestry respondents who either did not
agree or gave a neutral reaction to this statement. All nonprofits agreed that volunteers
were a helpful labor force. When asked to react to the statement, ‘Volunteer plantings
are well executed’, the responses of the two groups again were quite similar. similar

enough to produce no significant relationship.

Conclusion: When responses to statements regarding volunteers in urban forestry, there
were no statistically significant differences between city forestry and nonprofit responses.
The null hypothesis, H(0), has been affirmed. Both cities and nonprofits place a high
value on the role of volunteers in urban forestry. Additionally the work of volunteers is

viewed to be important and of high quality.

Communication and Relationship between Nonprofit Tree Groups and
City Forestry Programs
The last research area to be addressed focuses on the communication and

relationship between city forestry programs and tree groups. In this section two

49

hypotheses were tested. The first, stated in null form, is that city forestry programs will
rate highly the quality of work performed by nonprofit tree-planting groups. To test this
hypothesis, city respondents were asked to give their opinions regarding the quality of
work performed by nonprofit tree planters. This set of questions appeared only in the city
and survey.

The second hypothesis tested, stated in null form, asserts that city forestry and
nonprofit tree-planting groups have good levels of communication with each other. To
test this hypothesis, the reactions to six statements were analyzed. Five of the statements
made up a block of questions found in the ‘Working together’ section. Respondents
were asked to rate the quality of five measures of communication.

The results of the two question sets mentioned above are presented and discussed.
Next the hypotheses are stated and the appropriate responses reviewed to reach
conclusions. Finally, the responses relevant the communication and relationship between

the two groups are discussed.

Results and Discussion: Communication and Interaction

 

To help gauge how the two groups interact and communicate, five types of
assistance were listed with check boxes for frequency given or received. Nonprofits
were asked how often they provided assistance, while city forestry respondents were
asked how often they received assistance from a nonprofit tree—planting organization.
Respondents could choose, 'monthly’, ‘at least twice a year’, ‘at least once a year’.
‘rarely’, never’, or ‘n0t applicable’. The responses ‘monthly’. ‘at least twice a year’ and
‘at least once a year’ have been grouped to provide the percentage that either gave or

received assistance on a moderately regular basis. Figure 9 illustrates the percentage of

50

respondents who indicated they gave assistance compared with the percentage that
received assistance. The category in Figure 9 labeled ‘support’ represents written and

vocal support, such as for budget hearings.

80%
70% 2.. _
60% .. a.-. _

50%

 

  
   
  

lICity % that Receive
400/ ‘ ‘ Assistance l
t a l Nonprofit % that Give
0 . ”-2. .s... ”A. :> W . .4; 1 l
. 30 /° ‘ ' " f , Assistance
20% ”

10% ,
0%

 

Figure 9 Percentages of Cities and Nonprofits that Reported Giving and
Receiving Urban F orestry-Related Assistance (2002)
The education category refers specifically to education provided to residents. As can be
seen in Figure 9, cities consistently reported receiving less assistance than nonprofits
reported giving. The largest discrepancies were in the pruning and maintenance
categories. The fact that nonprofits are providing assistance that the city is unaware of is
not consistent with how positively the two groups portray their communications in the
next section.
Results and Discussion: Cooperation and Communication

The final set of questions for cities and nonprofits sought to gather and compare
information regarding how they viewed their interactions with each other. Respondents

were asked to indicate their opinion on the quality of five areas of their relations. It

51

should be noted that 12 (46%) of the cities did not respond to this series of questions.
City responses reflect the opinions of those who did, in fact. respond. The first question
requested feedback on the general relationship between the two. As can be seen in Figure
10, 65% of the nonprofits rated the relationship with the city as good. One hundred
percent (100%) of the city respondents rated the relationship with the nonprofit group as

good.

 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% if. ,
30%
20%
10% » .22.;

0% _

13:1 Nonprofitl

 

 

 

 

Figure 10 Percent of Cities and Nonprofits that Gave a ‘Good’ Rating to Selected
Aspects of their Relationship (2002)

The commitment of nonprofits to obtaining the permits and/or permission to plant trees
received the lowest positive score. Even the lowest score of the five was quite high at
71%. When asked about the amount of cooperation, scores were again high, with the
93% of cities giving a good rating. Favorable ratings were again given toward the
possibility of greater levels of collaboration, with 80% of nonprofits and 93% cities
responding in favor of such. Finally, lines of communication were rated good by 70% of

nonprofits and 79% of cities.

52

Testing Hypothesis Three:

H(0) City forestry will rate highly the quality of work performed by nonprofit

tree-planting groups.

H(a) Not as H(0)
To test this hypothesis, city respondents were asked to give their opinions regarding the
quality of work performed by nonprofit tree planters. Four urban forestry related tasks
commonly performed by nonprofit tree-planting organizations were listed. Cities then
gave opinion of the quality of work as ‘very poor’, ‘poor’, ‘neutral’, ‘good’ or ‘very
good’. As can be seen in Table 17, the responses were heavily weighted on the positive
end. A test for chi-square significance test was not performed for this question set
because it was only appeared on the city survey.

Table 17 Summary of Responding City Opinions Regarding Aspects ofNonprofit
Activities (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very Poor Poor Neutral Good Very

Good
Species Selection --- 7% 36% 21% 36%
Planting Techniques --— --- 14% 50% 36%
Tree Maintenance 14% 7% 29% 29% 21%
Volunteer Training --- --- 14% 57% 29%

 

Species selection and planting techniques received the highest marks. While not
indicating that they were necessarily displeased, some room for improvement was seen
by the cities when responding to the quality of volunteer training. Cities responded that
nonprofits could use the most work in the area of maintenance. Even in the maintenance
category, where nonprofits received the lowest rankings from the city, 79% of cities

responded either neutrally or positively.

Conclusion: City forestry holds almost universally positive opinions of the quality of
work performed by nonprofits. Therefore, H(0) is retained. City forestry programs are

pleased with the quality of work performed by tree groups.

Testing Hypothesis Four:
H(0) City forestry and nonprofit tree-planting groups have good levels
communication with each other.

H(a) Not as H(0)

To test this hypothesis, the reactions to six statements were analyzed. Five of the
statements made up a block of questions found in the ‘Working together’ section.
Respondents were asked to rate the quality of five measures ofcommunication. The
sixth statement was also found in this section, but was located in a different block of
questions. Respondents reacted to this statement by providing their level of agreement.

Statement one, asked respondents to rate their relationship with each other. This
statement demonstrated a statistically significant relationship at the .05 confidence level
as found by the Pearson Chi—Square test. See Table 18. Cities that responded to this
question gave the relationship high ratings 100% of the time. Cities were far more likely
to rate communication highly, yet as previously discussed, often were unaware of the

nonprofit functioning in their community.

Table 18 ‘Working Together ’ Section of Survey Summary of Chi-Square
Results: Nonprofit Tree Groups x C i9) Forestry Programs (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pearson

Chi-Square
Organization/city relationship .045*
Commitment level for obtaining permits and/or permission to plant .530
Cooperation between the organization and city forestry staff .320
Possibilities of greater levels of collaboration .111
Status of communication lines between the two .246
Communication with org/city with volunteers is unclear .625

 

*Significant to the (. 05) confidence level

When respondents were asked to gauge the level of commitment to obtaining the
proper permits and permission to plant. Responses indicated that there was no significant
relationship; both respondent groups gave nonprofits high marks. Respondents reacted
similarly to the statement regarding the level of cooperation between the two groups.
Both nonprofits and cities responded with almost universally high marks. Possibilities for
greater levels of collaboration also were seen favorably, with some variation between
groups. While 20% of nonprofits responded neutrally, 100% of cities rated the
possibilities for greater levels of collaboration as, ‘good’.

Reaction to the question about the status of communication revealed some
variation within, but not between the groups. Even accounting for the variation, 3 strong
majority of both groups rated the lines of communication positively. The sixth and final
measure used to test this hypothesis asked respondents to react to the statement,
‘Communication between my organization/department and volunteers is unclear’.
Reactions to this question were not statistically significant in terms of differences
between the two groups (p=.625). It is important to note. however, 71% of respondents
agreed that communication with volunteers is unclear. It is strongly suspected that the

results to this question reflect more the fact that it was the only question of the set to be

55

 

stated in the negative. In other words, this was the only question that by agreeing the

respondent was giving a negative response.

Conclusion: The conclusions drawn from the set ofquestions focused on measuring the
quality of communication between the two groups supports the hypothesis being tested.
Nonprofits and cities do have good levels of communication, therefore H(0) is retained.
Responses clearly demonstrated that both groups were happy with levels of
communication and cooperation and see possibilities for greater levels of collaboration in

the future.

Open-Ended Ogestiog Discussiogg

In the final section of the survey, respondents were asked to share their opinions in an
open-ended question section. Please note that responses to the open-ended section were
transcribed and can be found in the appendix. Other than information that would have
identified the respondent, answers appear exactly as they were given.

The first question asked how partnerships between nonprofit tree-planting groups
and city forestry could be enhanced. Common themes arose in the city responses such
as, more education for the volunteers, better communication and more involvement of the
nonprofits in city projects. Nonprofits provided a variety of responses including a desire
for the city to have more resources, less bureaucracy, and a realization that both groups
are working toward the same goal.

Respondents were then asked to provide what they saw to be the benefits of

working together with the other. Nonprofits acknowledged that cities were important for

56

providing the long-term maintenance of trees. One nonprofit replied that when working
together with the city, “ ...we are getting close to making systemic changes rather than
‘top dressing’ with plantings here and there.” The city respondents’ most commonly cited
benefit of working with nonprofit tree groups was free labor. Also recognized were the
increased awareness and support of the urban forest that nonprofit involvement can bring.

Although cities characterized the relationship with nonprofits very favorably in
the scale questions. short answers revealed a less positive relationship. Problems
mentioned included a lack of dependability, insufficient training, difficulties
coordinating, political conflicts and problems with the length of time it takes non-
professionals to do the work. One city respondent noted that nonprofits, “can work
against a good city program if [the] worst case scenario develops by causing a reduction
in city budgets.” Nonprofits provided fewer responses to this question, but certainly did
recognize disadvantages of working together. Nonprofits commented that cities were
slow to change, inefficient organizationally, sometimes possess a lack of interest.

Finally, respondents were asked to provide suggestions to the other group to help
them work together better. Cities suggested that nonprofits be more supportive of their
work, with one respondent recommending nonprofits “complement city, don’t compete or
substitute.” Additionally, it was stated that politics should be left out of the relationship.
Multiple respondents mentioned communication; one respondent cautioned nonprofits to,
“make sure the city forestry department knows the organization is there to volunteer.”
Nonprofit respondents expressed the desire to be listened to and involved. One
respondent listed the benefits of working together as, “positive public relations, better

educated citizens, trees maintained by volunteers. funding, grants and sponsorships.”

57

Open-Ended Section Conclusions:

The open-ended section provided sentiments and concerns that were not drawn
out by the other survey sections. Both groups responded frankly and at times negatively.
It is very important to note that although the open-ended section produced less positive
responses, there were no responses that reflected an outright hostility. None of the
respondents expressed an unwillingness to work together. In all, responses were

thoughtful and criticisms constructive.

58

V. Summary and Conclusions

Summm

Surveys were sent to nonprofit tree groups and the city forest programs under
whose which jurisdiction they operate. The study area consisted of 20 states and the
District of Columbia. This area corresponds with the US Forest Service Northeastern
Area. Questionnaires were mailed to 81 tree groups in 18 states and 41 cities.

Program and department background information was collected from both
nonprofits and cities. This information was used both to create a profile of survey
respondents and to look for relationships with other attitudinal variables. In addition to
this data, five identical sets of matched questions were asked of both groups. This
information was then analyzed using SPSS to compare the two groups’ opinions,
perceptions and attitudes. It was expected that these two groups not only perceive the
urban forest differently. but also have divergent view of the role of volunteers in urban
forestry. It was further expected that city forestry programs would rate the quality of
work performed by nonprofit poorly. Additionally, the quality of communication between
the two groups was expected to be poor.

Recommendations for Future Study

The gap in the literature that exists surrounding the interactions between nonprofit
tree-planting organizations and city forestry programs has not been closed by this study
alone. Further study of how these groups work together is recommended. The

opportunity exists to examine the areas of the country not included in this project.

59

Additionally, it is recommended that rather than survey by mail, a more in depth case-
study approach be taken. Case studies of matched pairs of cities and tree-planting groups
might provide more powerful information.

Survey Limitations

 

As mentioned in Chapter Three, survey response rates were lower than they might
have been. Renowned survey expert Don Dillman noted that, “responding to a
questionnaire is viewed as social exchange. People are seen as more likely to complete
and return self-administered questionnaires if they trust that the rewards of doing so will,
in the long run, out weigh the costs they expect to incur” (Dillman 1999:26). Minimizing
the following four types of survey error can also increase response rates. Although the
Dillman method was not specifically utilized, his types of survey error, and how they
were addressed in this study are discussed below.

1. Sampling Error: The result of surveying only some, and not all, elements of the
survey population. As previously discussed, the best attempts were made to
identify all of the tree groups active in the study area for inclusion.

2. Coverage Error: The result of not allowing all members of the survey population
to have an equal or known nonzero chance of being sampled for participation in
the study. Because this study sought to include all tree planting groups and their
corresponding cities, this error was avoided.

3. Measurement Error: The result of poor question wording or questions being
presented in such a way that inaccurate or uninterpretable answers are obtained.
This was a problem as it was discovered that some questions needed more

explanation only after data analysis was undertaken. For example, questionnaires

60

sent to nonprofits did not ask groups to estimate their survival rates at a set or
constant interval. Questionnaires sent to cities failed to ask for survival rates
entirely. Questions otherwise caused no interpretation problems based on
responses.
4. Nonresponse Error: The result of people who respond to a survey being different
from sampled individuals who did not respond, in a way relevant to the study.
It is not clear that this was a problem. From the available demographic
information about the two groups, no geographic differences relevant to this study
were apparent. Population size was a factor. Nonprofit responses were higher in
larger cities. This may be due to the ephemeral nature of nonprofit organizations,
especially those with smaller support bases. Additionally, nonprofits in small
communities are expected to be less likely to employ a large, full time staff. It is
important that cities of all sizes are represented. Future studies should put a focus
on increasing the response rate from smaller communities.
Conclusions
Although municipal tree planting programs and nonprofit tree plantings groups have
the same ultimate goal, they often have vastly different objectives. That is to say. all
parties want a healthy and well-maintained urban forest, but the views on how to get to
that point often differ. This study examined the relationship between nonprofit tree
planting organizations and city forestry programs.
Testing the hypotheses did not produce the expected results in any of the four
cases. Overall, remarkably few differences between the groups’ attitudes and perceptions

were borne out of the responses to this survey. The results show that nonprofit tree

61

groups and city forestry programs to a great extent share very similar attitudes toward
volunteers, perceptions of the urban forest, the value of working together and of each
other. The positive ratings given nonprofits by city respondents were less positive in
regard to their maintenance practices. Attention to maintenance responsibilities must
become a focus and a commitment for nonprofit groups. The results gathered from the
survey are made more interesting by the fact that many of the anticipated (less positive)
attitudes and perceptions were offered in the short answer section. If, in fact, nonprofit
tree planting organizations and city forestry programs share such similar views, the
possibilities for building more and better partnerships exist. It is hoped that this study
will add to the body of urban forestry literature and inform city forestry programs and

tree-planting groups alike as to how to work together better.

BIBLIOGRAPY
Aber, J. D. & Melillo, J .M. 1991. Terrestrial Ecosystems. Saunders College
Publishing. Philadelphia, PA. 429 pp.
Akbari, H. (ed) et al. 1992. Cooling our Communities: A Guidebook on Tree
Planting and Light Colored Surfacing. Washington DC: Government Printing
Office. 217 pp.
Ames, R. 1980. The Sociology of Urban Tree Planting. J. Arboriculture 6(5):120-123.

Ball, J. 1986. Urban Forestry and Volunteer Management. J. Arboriculture
12(7): 182-184.

Barnes, B. 1988. Community Involvement/Public Outreach in Line Clearance. Journal
of Arboriculture. 14(12): 298-301.

Bloniarz, D.V. & Ryan, D.P. III. 1996. The Use of Volunteer Initiatives in Conducting
Urban Forest Resource Inventories. J. Arboriculture. 22(2):75-82.

Bock, L., Fedor, K... Gangloff, D., & Lipkis, K. Building Effective Partnerships for
City Trees. Published by the Citizen Forestry Support System, Washington DC.

Bradley, G.A. (ed.) 1995. Urban Forest Landscapes: Integrating Multidisciplinary
Perspectives. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.

Cabarle, B. & Heiner, H. 1994. The Role of Nongovernmental Organizations in
Forestry. Journal of Forestry. 92(6):8-12.

Campana, R.J. 1999. Arboriculture: History and Development in North America.
Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan. 441 pp.

Casey, C.J. & Miller, R. W. 1988. State Government Involvement in Community
Forestry: A Survey. J. Arboriculture. 14(6): 141-144.

Chalkley, T. 1992. High Tops and Tree Tops. Amicus Journal. Spring Issue. 24-32 pp.

Clark, J .R. et al. 1997. A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability. Journal of
Arboriculture. 23(1): 17-30.

Clark, J. 1996. Participant Survey: A Model for Urban Forest Sustainability. HortScience,
Inc. Pleasanton, CA. 12pp.

Dawe. N. 1988. Citizens with a Vision. American Forests. July/August. 26-28,66-67 pp.

63

Dawe. N. 1991. Places of Grace. American Forests. November/December. 22-26 pp.

Dawe, N. 1993. Atlanta Goes for the Gold. American Forests. September/October.
18-21 pp.

Davis. RI. 1993. Street Tree Trends in Kansas and the Influence of Community
Factors. J. Arboriculture. 19(4): 201-208.

Dickerson, S.D.; Groninger, H.W.; & Mangun, J .C. 2001. Influences of Community
Characteristics on Municipal Tree Ordinances in Illinois, US. Journal of
Arboriculture. (7)6:31 8-3 24.

Dillman, DA. 1999 Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 464 pp.

Dwyer. J .F ., Schroeder, H.W., & Gobster, RH. 1991. The Significance of Urban Trees
and Forests: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Values. J. Arboriculture.
17(10):]7-25.

Dwyer, M.C. & Miller, R.W. 1999. Using GIS to Assess Urban Tree Canopy
Benefits and Surrounding Greenspace Distribution. J. Arboriculture
25(2):102-106.

Elmendorf, W.F. & Luloff, A.E. 2001. Using Qualitative Data Collection Methods when
Planning for Community Forests. J. Arboriculture 27(3):]39-151.

F azio, J .R. (ed.) How to Work with Volunteers—Effectively. Tree City USA Bulletin
Number 36. The National Arbor Day Foundation. Nebraska City, NE.

Flowers, Dana E. & Gerhold, H.D. 2000. Replacement of Trees Under Utility Wires
Impacts Attitudes and Community Tree Programs. J. Arboriculture
26(6): 309-317.

Foster, C.H.W. 2001. Nonprofits in Forestry: Lessons from Three New England States.
Journal of Forestry. 99(1 )227-31.

F raenkel, J. R. & Wallen. NE. 1996. How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education. McGraw-Hill, Inc: New York. 602 pp.

Getz, D., Karow, A., & Kielbaso, J .J . 1982. Inner City Preferences for Trees and Urban
Forestry Programs. J. Arboriculture. 8(10):258-263.

Guglielmino, J F 1997. Banking on Citizen Action. American Forests. 30-31 pp.

Hager, B.C., Cannon, W.N., & Worley, DP. 1980. Street Tree Policies in Ohio Towns.
J. Arboriculture. 6(7): 1 85-191.

Hula, R.C. & Jackson-Elmoore, C. (eds). 2000. Nonprofits in Urban America. Quorum
Books, Westport, Connecticut. 235pp.

Harris, R.W. 1999. Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape Trees. Shrubs
and Vines. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 687pp.

Independent Sector. 2002 “As President Bush calls for new spirit of civic engagement,
the value of volunteer time continues to climb.”
www.independentsector.org/media/voltime02PR.html

Ip, D.W. 1996. Community Tree Planting: Early Survival and Carbon Sequestering
Potential. J. Arboriculture 22(5):222-228.

Johnston, M. 1996. A Brief History of Urban Forestry in the United States.Arboricu1tural
Journal. 20:257-278.

Kidd. R. 1981. Urban Forestry Activities in Selected Michigan Communities. Master of
Science Thesis. Michigan State University. 107pp.

Kielbaso, J .J . 1988. Trends in Urban Forestry Management. Baseline Data Report 20(1).
International City Management Association, Washington DC. 17 pp.

Kielbaso, J. J. 1 990. Trends and Issues in City Forests. J. Arboriculture. Volume
16(3):69-76.

Kuhns, M. et al. 1995. Effective Community Participation in Urban Forestry
Programs. Proceedings of the 7‘h National Urban Forest Conference, pp. 1 84-1 87.

Kuhns, MR. 1998. Urban/Community Forestry in the Interrnoutain West. J .Arboriculture
24(5).

Kuser, J .E. (ed.) 2000. Handbook of Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp.444.

Lipkis, A. & Lipkis K. 1990. The Simple Act of Planting a Tree. Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc..
Los Angeles. 236 pp.

McDonough. M.H. & Vachta KB. 1995. Creating Community Forestry Partnerships:
A Participatory Approach. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. 239 pp.

Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces.
Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 502 pp.

Moll, G. 1986. Linking Arborists, Foresters. and Citizens. .1. Arboriculture. 12(’3):69-72.

65

Moll, G. 1988. Improving the Health of the Urban Forest: From Planting to Politics.
American Forests, J anuary/ F ebruary. 45-48 pp.

Moll, G. 1988. The City Forests of the United States of America. Arboricultural Journal.
12:35-41.

Moll, G. & Young, S. 1992. Growing Greener Cities. Living Planet Press,
Los Angeles, California. 126 pp.

Morgan, NR. 1989. Community and Urban Forestry in Washington and Oregon.
J. Arboriculture. 15(6): 135-140.

O’Brien, P.R., Joehlin, K.A., & O’Brien, DJ. 1992. Performance Standard for
Municipal Tree Maintenance. J. Arboriculture. 18(6):307-315.

Oswald, M. 2001. From the Editor: A Different Take. Arbor Age. February 2001.
www.greenindustry.com

Pancoast, DA. 1991. The Changing Face of Arboricultural Communications. J.
Arboriculture. 17(5): 1 23- 1 26.

Petit, J. et a1 1995. Building Greener Neighborhoods: Trees as Part of the Plan.
American Forests and Home Builder Press. 117 pp.

Reeder, E.C. & Gerhold, H.D. 1993. Municipal Tree Programs in Pennsylvania.
J. Arboriculture. 19(1): 12-19.

Reynolds, M.K. & Boivin RM. 1994. Selecting Trees for Urban Landscape
Ecosystems: Hardy Species for Northern New England Communities. State of

New Hampshire, State Forester’s Office, Concord, NH. 104 pp.

Salamon, L.M. 1999. America’s Nonprofit Sector: A Primer. The Foundation Center.
203 pp.

Schroeder, H.W., Green, T.L., & Howe, T.J. 1998. Illinois Small Community Tree
Programs: Attitudes, Status and Needs. Final Report to the Illinois Small
Community Tree Program Survey. USDA Forest Service. 166pp.

Sharpe. G.W. et al 1995. Introduction to Forest and Renewable Resources. McGraw
Hill, Inc., New York, NY. 664 pp.

Shurtz, S. 2001. Is Urban Forestry Killing Municipal Arboriculture? City Trees. 37(4).

Tschantz, B.A. & Sacamano, PL. 1994. Municipal Tree Management in the United
States. Davey Resource Group, Kent. Ohio. 58 pp.

66

US. Bureau of the Census, 2000.

USDA Forest Service. 1997 “USDA leaders tour beetle torn Brooklyn to support re-
greening of the urban forest.” www.fs.fed.us/news/970326.htm

USDA Forest Service. 1998 “Urban forest health: identifying issues and needs within
the northeastern area.” wvvw.na.fs.fed.us/glfiflmrbs/uf/briefw8/ufassess.htm

Wellman, D.J., Tipple, T.J. 1992. Working with the Commtmity: A Conceptual
Framework for Urban Forest Managers. Forest Policy Center Report 92-3.

Westphal, L.M. 1993 “Birds do it, bees do it, but why do volunteers do it? A look at
motivations.” Proceedings of the 1993 Midwest Oak Savanna Conference.
www.epa.gov/glnpo/oak/oak93/westphal.html

Westphal, L., Childs, G. 1994. Overcoming Obstacles: Creating Volunteer Partnerships.
J. Forestry 92(10):28-32.

Whaley, RS. 1993. Working Partnerships: Elements for Success.
J. Forestry 91(3):10-11.

Younker, G.L. et a1. 1990. Urban & Community Forestry: A Guide for the Interior
Western United States. USDA Forest Service Ogden, Utah. 7-38 pp.

67

APPENDICES

68

Map of Study Area

 

USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area

69

Email posted on ‘URBNRNET’ and ‘Trees’ listserves:

Hello!

I am looking for help gathering data for my Master’s thesis.

I am a student at Michigan State University in the Urban Studies-
Forestry program. My study will explore the relationship between

city (municipal) forestry and not-for-profit tree planting organizations.

The geographic focus of the study is the US Forest Service Northeast
Area (full list of states at the end of posting). To accomplish this

I will survey by mail both the tree planting groups and the corresponding
city forestry program(s) within whose jurisdiction they operate.

At this point I am trying to create a comprehensive list of non-profit
groups in this northeastern area. Once a group has been identified

as active in an area, I will then need the contact information for

the corresponding city forester. If you are aware of organizations

active in tree planting could you please email me any contact information
you may have? (katie@greenir;gofdetroit.con_i)

I’m looking for the following:
Contact Name

Group Name

Address

Phone Number

Fax

Email

In addition, if you are a city forester or work for a forestry program
that has a non-profit tree-planting grOup in your area, please let
me know! I will need your contact information as well.

I feel confident this project will produce a very useful body of
information. As an urban forester and employee of The Greening of
Detroit, a not-for-profit tree planting organization, I know that

more information about non-profit/city relationships in the field

is much needed. Your help in making this research possible is greatly
appreciated. Blease feel free to contact me with any questions, cements
or suggestions. I look forward to hearing from you!

70

Email to State Coordinators '
Hello!

I am looking for assistance gathering data for my Master’s thesis.

I am a student at Michigan State University in the Urban Studies-
Forestry program. My study will explore the relationship between
city (municipal) forestry operations and not-for—profit tree planting
organizations. To accomplish this I will survey both the tree planting
groups and the corresponding city forestry program(s) within whose
jurisdiction they Operate. Data will be gathered by questionnaires
administered via email. The geographic focus of the study is the

US Forest Service Northeast Area.

I am asking State Coordinators for help locating and contacting active
not-for-profit tree planting organizations in their states. Corresponding city contact
information would also be very helpful. I hope to have the surveys out by mid-July.

Information requested:
Contact Name

Group Name

Address

Phone Number

Fax

Email

I feel confident this project will produce a very useful body of
information. As an urban forester and employee of The Greening of
Detroit, a not-for-profit tree planting organization, I know that

more information about non-profit/city relationships in the field

is much needed. Your assistance in making this research possible

is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to contact me with any questions,
comments or suggestions. I look forward to hearing from you!

Thank you,

Katie Armstrong
Project Manager

The Greening of Detroit
313.237.8733

katie@greeningofdetroit.com

71

Listserve Post
Page 2

Thanks so much,

Katie Armstrong

Project Manager

The Greening of Detroit
313.237.8733

313.237.8737 fx
katie@,greenig20fdetroit.egm

Area of focus:
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Illinois

Iowa

Indiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
, Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri

New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin

72

 

 

Survey Pretest
Feedback Form

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to review my survey! Please fill out your
survey as completely as you can. Feel free to place your comments directly on the
survey, in addition to providing the specific information requested below. I am
hoping to receive feedback from my reviewers no later than February 1, 2002. I
expect to complete my project early summer —,at which point I will gladly share my
data with you! ‘

This survey will be sent out to nonprofit tree planting organizations, with similar
surveys being sent to municipal forestry operations. {nonprofit testers} This
survey will be sent out to municipal forestry operations, with similar surveys being
sent to nonprofit tree planting groups. {city forestry testers} The survey area is the
US. Forest Service Northeastern Area (20 states and the District of Columbia).

Amount of time to fill out the survey

 

Were any of the questions or instructions unclear?

Are there any additional questions you would like to see included in this survey?

Other comments or suggestions:

THANK YOU!

73

 

SURVEY SENT TO NONPROFITS

74

PARTNERSHIPS IN
URBAN FORESTRY

 

 

You have been selected to participate in a study of
partnerships in urban forestry.

 

I am a graduate student at Michigan State University pursuing a Master’s degree
in a joint program of Forestry and Urban Studies. For two years I have been working for
The Greening of Detroit, a non-profit organization dedicated to reforesting the city of
Detroit. Through my work and studies I have developed a keen interest in the current
level of partnerships between non-profit tree planting organizations and the city forestry
operations within whose jurisdiction they function.

Please take about 30 minutes to answer the questions in this survey to the best of
your knowledge. The survey has been designed to collect baseline information as well as
specific data concerning levels of cooperation between non-profits and city programs.

Be assured that your responses are and will remain confidential. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Participation is voluntary and much appreciated. You indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Answer only the
questions you are comfortable answering. When finished with the questionnaire, it can
be returned sealed with the attached sticker and mailed back to me- postage is paid. The
deadline for survey return is Tuesday April 9, 2002. Every response is important. Each
returned survey increases the perspective and quality of this project.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the questionnaire, please feel free
to contact me, or the Principal Investigator, Dr. J. James Kielbaso at (517) 355-7533. If
you have questions about your role and rights as participants in this research, please

contact Dr. Ashir Kumar, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects at (517) 355-2180. I look forward to receiving your response!

Thank you,

Katie Armstrong

75

 

 

 

mu
Organization Information

 

1. How old is your organization?

[:1 Less than one year C] 1-3 years old Cl 4-6 years old

D 7-10 years old CI 11-20 years old CI 21 years or older
2. Does your organization have 501© 3 status?
C] No D In process of applying 1:] Don’t know CI Yes
Number of years
3. Does your organization offer membership opportunities?
Cl No C] Don’t know 1:] Yes

If yes, how many members?

4. How many volunteers did you work with in the year 2000?

5. Do you have a paid staff?

[3 No D Yes
If yes, how many

Please list job titles and brief description of duties:

6. Does your group have a mission statement?
D Yes CI Don’t know D No

If yes, please provide:

7. How many trees was your group responsible for planting in:

2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

76

 

8. How many trees total has your organization planted ?

Cl 1-1,000 CI 1,001 -5,000 CI 5,001 - 1 0,000
El 10,001 -20,000 El 20,001 -40,000 [3 Over 40,001

9. Which of the following provide your organization with tree care knowledge and
expertise?

CI Staff Cl Members CI Volunteers D Other Please list:

10. Do you evaluate the trees you plant for health and survival after planting?
CI No CI Don’t Know CI Yes
If yes, how long after planting?

Cl At six months Cl At one year
Cl At two years D At three years
Cl Regular checks at intervals of:

1 1. Do you keep track of the survival rate of your plantings?
[:1 No CI Don’t know D Yes

If yes, please estimate percent survival:

12. What is the source of your planting stock? (Total should equal 100%)

 

Large regional nursery

 

Local nursery

 

City nursery

 

Organization’s own nursery
Other
Total 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. What type of tree does your organization plant a majority of the time?

Cl seedlings Cl bare root CI containerized CI balled-in-burlap Cl other

77

14. Are there multiple tree planting organizations in your community?

C] Yes [:1 Don’t know 13 No

If yes, how often does your organization work with the other(s) on the following:

 

Frequently Occasionally Never

 

Plant ings

 

Obtaining volunteers

 

One-time events

 

On-going projects

 

Tree maintenance

 

 

 

 

 

Sharing technical information

 

15. From what sources did your organization receive funding in the year 2000?
(Total should equal 100%)

 

Federal grant money

 

State grant money

 

Municipal funding

 

Donations from individuals (including membership dues)

 

Corporate or business donations

 

Public/private foundations
Other

Total 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

78

 

16. Please check how often your organization, or members of your organization

initiate the following:

 

Monthly

At least

twiceayear

At least
once a
year

Rarely

Never

Not
Applicable

 

Tree planting

 

Youth education

 

Neighborhood
beautification

 

Tree watering

 

Tree maintenance
(other than watering)

 

Tree sales

 

Seedling give-aways

 

Community
workshops

 

Contact with local
tree board or
commission

 

Contact with State or
Federal Agencies

 

Arbor Day
celebrations

 

 

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17. Where does your organization plant trees?

CI streetsides
Cl brownfields

[:1 yards

CI vacant lots

Cl school grounds

[:1 parks

79

Cl
1:] other

churches

 

 

 

 

seem
Working with the City

 

 

18. Please check the box that best reflects your opinion of the following:

 

Very
good

Good

Neutral

Poor

Very
Poor

Unsure

 

Your organization’s relationship
with the manager of your city’s
trees

 

The ease of obtaining permits
and/or permission to plant

 

The amount of cooperation
between your organization and
city forestry

 

Your organization’s relationship
with elected officials (mayor, city
council, aldermen, etc.)

 

The possibility of greater levels of
collaboration between your
organization and city forestry

 

 

Lines of communication between
your organization and city forestry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. Please indicate how often your organization provides the following to your city’s
urban forestry program:
Monthly At least At least Rarely Never Not
twice a once a Applicable
year year
Assistance pruning
street or park trees
Assistance with
maintenance other
than pruning
Written or vocal
support (such as for
budgithwings)
Assistance
education residents
Assistance with
street or park tree
plantings
Other:
Other:
ME
Working With Volunteers
20. Please check the box that best represents your opinion:
Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Unsure
Agree Agree or Disagree
Disagree

 

Volunteers are important
in urban forestry

 

Communication between
my organization and
volunteers is clear

 

Volunteers can improve
my forestry program

 

Volunteer plantings are
well maintained

 

Volunteers are a helpful
labor force

 

 

Volunteer plantings are
well executed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

 

 

21. Does your organization use volunteer labor to accomplish the following?

 

 

 

 

 

CI planting Cl pruning Cl watering D species selection 1:] inventory
Cl other, please list
Section 4
Your Urban Forest
22. Please check the box that best represents your opinion:
Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Unsure
Agree Agree or Disagree
Disagree

 

A strong concern for the
urban forest exists in my
community

 

The trees in my city are
properly maintained

 

More trees are needed in
my city

 

My city’s urban forest is
in decline

 

Trees in my city are
pruned on a regular
cycle

 

 

Planting is the most
important step for
reforesting a city

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

 

 

 

 

Section 5
Short Answer Questions

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey! The following short
answer section is optional, but any additional information you can provide will greatly
enhance the quality of this research.

23. In your opinion, how could partnerships between city forestry and your
organization be enhanced?

24. My organization’s biggest obstacles to fulfilling its mission are:

25. What are the benefits of working with your city’s urban forestry program?

26. What are the disadvantages of working with city forestry?

27. Do you have any suggestions for city foresters to help them work with
organizations such as yours?

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey!

83

 

SURVEY SENT TO CITY FORESTRY

84

PARTNERSHIPS IN
URBAN FORESTRY

 

 

You have been selected to participate in a study of
partnerships in urban forestry.

 

I am a graduate student at Michigan State University pursuing a Master’s degree
in a joint program of Forestry and Urban Studies. For two years I have been working for
The Greening of Detroit, a non-profit organization dedicated to reforesting the city of
Detroit. Through my work and studies I have developed a keen interest in the current
level of partnerships between non-profit tree planting organizations and the city forestry
operations within whose jurisdiction they function.

Please take about 30 minutes to answer the questions in this survey to the best of
your knowledge. The survey has been designed to collect baseline information as well as
specific data concerning levels of cooperation between non-profits and city programs.

Be assured that your responses are and will remain confidential. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Participation is voluntary and much appreciated. You indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Answer only the
questions you are comfortable answering. When finished with the questionnaire, it can
be returned sealed with the attached sticker and mailed back to me- postage is paid. The
deadline for survey return is Tuesday April 9, 2002. Every response is important. Each
returned survey increases the perspective and quality of this project.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the questionnaire, please feel free
to contact me, or the Principal Investigator, Dr. J. James Kielbaso at (517) 355-7533. If
you have questions about your role and rights as participants in this research, please

contact Dr. Ashir Kumar, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects at (517) 355-2180. I look forward to receiving your response!

Thank you,

Katie Armstrong

85

 

 

 

Scion}.
Department Information

 

Does your city employ a city forester?
CI No D Yes, full time Cl Yes, part-time

If part time, please
specify the percentage
of time dedicated to
city forestry

%

Please check all that apply to the level of education attained by the person
primarily responsible for tree care decisions:

CI

DUE!

ISA certified arborist
BS Arboriculture, or related science
Ph.D. Arboriculture or related science

Other professional training, please describe:

 

What department handles urban forestry or tree care operations in your city?

DDDUU

Forestry Department

Department of Public Works
Parks and Recreation Department
Department of Public Service
Other

 

Does your community contract out for any of the following urban forestry

How many city employees serve on tree crews?

How many contract employees serve on tree crews?

All routine street tree maintenance
Emergency work

All routine park tree maintenance
Planting

Pruning

Removals

Other

 

 

 

86

 

10.

11.

12.

Does your city have a written master plan for urban forestry?
C] No CI Yes 1:] Don’t Know
Does your department have a mission statement?

Cl No D Yes CI Don’t Know
Does your city have a tree ordinance?

[:1 No [3 Don't Know CI Yes

If yes, please check all those
that are covered by your
city’s ordinance:
prohibition of topping
insect and disease control
utilization of wood waste
guidelines for developers
prohibited species
tree protection during
construction

[2100000

[3

other:

 

Does your city have an inventory of street trees?

CI No Don't Know Cl Yes
If yes, in what year was it last updated?

Can you estimate the total number of trees along the streets in your city?

CI No Cl Yes
Number

 

How my trees did your department plant during these years?

2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

87

 

I3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

How many trees did your department remove during these years?

2001 2000 1999 1998 1997

What is the source of your planting stock? (Total should equal 100%)

 

Large regional nursery

 

Local nursery

 

City nursery

 

Organization’s own nursery
Other
Total 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

What type of tree does your department plant a majority of the time?
seedlings D bare root Cl containerized Cl balled-in-burlap CI other
How would you characterize your department’s budget?

Cl decreasing Cl stable CI increasing

Please estimate the percentage of time spent by your department on the following:

 

 

Planting

 

Removals

 

Maintenance

 

Administration

 

Workshops, continuing
education

Other

Other

Total 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88

18. Please estimate the amount of your department budget that is spent on the
following:

 

Planting

 

Removals

 

Maintenance

 

Administration

 

Workshops, continuing ed.
Other
Other
Total 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. Is your community a Tree City USA?
D No Cl Don't Know [:1 Yes

20. Does your community have a citizen’s tree planting organization?
Cl No Cl Don't Know CI Yes

If you checked ‘No’ or ‘Don’t Know’ for question 18, PLEASE SKIP SECTION 2

 

 

Section 2
Working with Citizen Tree Planting Organizations

 

21. Please check the box that best reflects your opinion of the following:

 

Very Good Neutral Poor Very Unsure
good Poor

 

My department’s relationship with the citizen
tree planting organization(s)

 

 

The commitment level of the organization(s)
toward obtaining permits and/or permission to
plant

 

The amount of cooperation between your
department and the citizen forestrygroup(s)

 

The possibility of greater levels of collaboration
between your department and the citizen

forestry group(s)

 

 

Lines of communication between your
department and the citizen forestry group(s)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89

 

22. Please indicate how often your department receives the following from a
non-profit tree planting organization:

 

Monthly

At least
twice a
year

At least
once a
year

Rarely

Never

Not
Applicable

 

Assistance pruning
street or park trees

 

Assistance with
maintenance other
than pruning

 

Written or vocal
support (such as for
budget hearings)

 

Assistance
education residents

 

Assistance with
street or park tree
plantings

 

Other:

 

Other:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23. Please rate the quality work performed by the citizen tree planting organization(s)
in your city.

 

Very good Good Neutral Poor Very Poor Unsure

 

Species selection

 

Planting techniques

 

Maintenance

 

 

Volunteer training

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9O

 

24. Please check the box that best represents your opinion:

 

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither
Agree or
Disagree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Unsure

Not
Applicable

 

Volunteers are
important in
urban forestry

 

Communication
between my
department and
volunteers is
clear

 

Volunteers can
improve my
forestry program

 

Volunteer
plantings are well
maintained

 

Volunteers are a
helpful labor
force

 

My department
encourages
volunteer
involvement

 

 

Volunteer
plantings are well
executed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25. Does your department use volunteer labor to accomplish the following?

El planting

[3 other, please list

Cl pruning CI watering CI species selection

CI inventory

 

91

 

 

 

Mil—3
Your Urban Forest

 

26. Please check the box that best represents your opinion:

 

Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Unsure
Agree Agree or Disagree
Disagree

 

A strong concern for the
urban forest exists in my
community

 

The trees in my city are
properly maintained

 

More trees are needed in
my city

 

My city’s urban forest is
in decline

 

Trees in my city are
pruned on a regular
cycle

 

 

Planting is the most
important step for
reforesting a city

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

92

 

 

 

 

M
Short Answer Questions

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey! The following short
answer section is optional, but any additional information you can provide will greatly
enhance the quality of this research.

27. In your opinion, how could partnerships between your department and citizen tree
planters be enhanced?

28. My department’s biggest obstacles to fitlfilling its free care goals are (for example
equipment, budget, political support, etc.):

29. What are the benefits of working together with non-profit, or citizen groups in
urban forestry?

26. What are the disadvantages of working together with such groups?

27. Do you have any suggestions for citizen tree planting organizations to help them
work city forestry?

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey!

93

 

PLEASE RETURN YOUR

 

SURVEY NO LATER THAN
TUESDAY
APRIL 9, 2003

1418 Michigan Ave.
Detroit, MI 48216
313-237-8733

Katie Armstrong
The Greening of Detroit
1418 Michigan Ave.
Detroit, MI 48216

94

Short Answer Section

Non Profit Organizations

In your opinion, how could partnerships between city forestry and your
organization be enhanced?

“If we didn’t have to deal with the bureaucracy of municipal goverrnnent it
would move more smoothly.”

“A more active partnership.”

“City forestry needs more resources to bring to the table.”

“Realizing we have the same goal— bettering our community. We need to work
cooperatively.”

“Having a forestry department would help. New folks who work on forestry
also have a lot of after maintenance tasks as well.”

Your organization’s biggest obstacles to fulfilling its mission are:

“We are all volunteer with limited time to spend on all environmental issues,
including forestry.”

“Money.”

“Money and ongoing maintenance.”

“Having enough money to do all the projects. I would like to do and to hire
the staff necessary to do them exceptionally.”

“To many thing to be done, not enough help and money. We are stretched too
think between inventory, outreach, education, promoting and fimdraising.”
“Resistance on the part of some residents to maintenance and planting of
trees. Residents are sometimes unwilling to deal with fall leaves. A few are so
obsessed with lawns that hey resent the shade that trees cast.”

“Our mission is much broader than tree planting. Our outreach obstacles in
general focus around it taking a lot of staff time to complete projects wit
community input, yet hard to fund staff time and it is our most valuable
resource.” '

What are the benefits of working with your city’s urban forestry program?

“Strong support and insure trees are well maintained.”

“Assistance with long term care for plantings and obtaining permits and
licenses.”

“In-kind support in the form of office space, phone, fax, copier, etc. Expertise,
information, support, etc.!”

“The could help us with locating tree planting sites and outreach to the
community.”

“Win-win!”

“I feel like maybe we are getting close to making systemic changes rather than
‘top—dressing’ with plantings here and there.”

What are the disadvantages of working with your city’s urban forestry program?

95

. “Have had union concerns in the past. Generally work through them.”

. “Organizational inefficiency, red tape and lack of follow through.”

. “None so far.”

. “The city’s lack of interest and restrictions.”

. “Some town employees who do some of the tree work are not well trained
about tree culture.”

. “Changes are slow. Elected officials don’t want to allocate funding but tat the
same time do expect to see all of the constituent tree issues addressed.”

Do you have any suggestions for city foresters to help them work with organizations
such as you rs?
“Listen to community member who are interested/dedicated to helping
reforest.”
. “Maintain an open mind and permit yourselves to think outside the confines of
business as usual.”
. Get the community involved, they will be the benefactors!” _
. “ Try to see the advantages a good partnership could bring: positive public
relations, better educated citizens, trees maintained by volunteers, fimding,
grant, and sponsorships.”

 

I City Forestry Section

 

In your opinion, how could partnerships between your department and citizen tree
planters be enhanced?
“Dedicate a full-time position to organizing volunteer planting and small tree
maintenance program.”

. “Citizen planters rarely tell our department where trees are being planted, or
ask where they should be planted.”

. “We have no adult, organized groups. Would like one if they would work with
the city, but must be organized and supportive.”

. “Stronger volunteer support. This important subject is largely unsupported due
to lack of fimding and higher priorities. One day our communities might
regret not giving it more attention.”

. “More emphasis needs to be placed on such projects utilizing our Adopt-a-
Park groups and block clubs.”

. “More time to devote to meeting with all the prospective groups to promote
these types of partnerships and the staff to follow-up.”

. “More education of community volunteers.”

. “More funding for education and training programs, equipment and tools.”

. “The greater their level of arboricultural education, the better they function as
helpers.”

. “The organization does a lot on their own and more involvement in city
projects would be helpful.”

96

“Education regarding planting and tree maintenance would enhance our
program.”

“More volunteers, more civic minded folks are need to ‘step-up’ and take
responsibility.”

“It is good just the way it is now.”

Your department’s biggest obstacles to fulfilling its tree care goals are:

66$9,

“Budget.”

“Budget and political support.” (multiple)

“Budget restrictions.”

“Budget, equipment, manpower.”

“Budget and staffing.”

“Budget problems (too few people)”

“Lack of funding, need stronger volunteer support.”

“Need more money or volunteers to water, train, mulch, etc. Day to day
maintenance of newly planted trees.”

“We have faced severe budgetary cuts that have resulted in a reduction of
manpower and equipment. These shortages have caused us to abandon our
rotational pruning program and has limited out removal capabilities.”
“Need a community forestry management plan and street tree planting plan to
use as a catalyst for securing funding and developing programs.”

“Expediting contracts.”

“Our landscaping budget’ rs very low when spread among park sites. We are
lacking the fimds to properly maintain the trees we are planting due to
insuflicient staffing.”

What are the benefits of working together with nonprofit, or citizen groups in urban

forestry?

“Cost reductions for labor, promotes community tree ownership among
community residents and can increase manpower.”

“Free labor and an interest in the community around them.”

“Increased resources, both funding and administrative.”

“An expanded and interested labor force is a benefit. However, most
volunteers participate on a limited basis, without a regular schedule.”
“Volunteers are generally committed and take ownership of their projects.”
“Citizens are proud of their city and want to take better care of it- make it
better.”

“Stretches resources, builds good will and pride, good public relations, brings
in new ideas and advocates.”

“Involvement, ownership, buy-in, and word of mouth efi’ect.”

“Awareness and concern for the urban forest.”

“Care monitoring of newly planting trees. Develop political support.”

“Our nonprofit groups have political clout to an extent. They also have set up
and maintain our new city nursery (500 trees added each year) purchased with
grant money.”

97

. “This offers some help with the pruning of small trees and the city’s
reforestation efforts.”

. “They give great suggestions.”

. “It is a ‘feel good’ thing that generates support for the trees and tree
programs.”

What are the disadvantages to working together with such groups?
“Difficult to plan and coordinate work dates, under trained or require
supervision.”

. “More often their goals and objectives are met, not necessarily the goals and
objectives of the forestry division.”

. “Inconsistency as turnover occurs in these organized volunteer groups.”

. “Poor communication.”

. “Sometimes not well organized or knowledgeable relationships with the city
can sour due to egos and agenda. Can work against a good city program if
worst-case scenario develops by causing reduction in city budgets.”

. “Inconsistent support and an expectation (or demand) that the city provide
more resources than it can.”

. “Groups (volunteer) tend to lose interest or momentum with the more
mundane maintenance projects.”

. “Establishing continuous involvement, long term‘commitment, coordinating
projects and providing meaningful training.”

. “A little knowledge is dangerous.”

. “May not be trained enough and are not completely dependable.”

. “I do not see any at this time.”

. “A couple of over-zealous folks... all good intentions.”

. “It takes much longer working with amateurs.”

. “The disadvantage to working together with such groups is the differing
political agenda. Certain groups have strong opinions on the running of the
parks which can differ with our goals.”

Do you have any suggestions for nonprofit tree planting organizations to help them
work better with city forestry?
“A better balance between their agenda and the real needs of the local urban
forest.”
. “Work on communication.”
. “Communicate, meet regularly.”
. “Complement city, don’t compete or substitute. Ask how you can do the most
good. Don’t assume. Support city staff (of course if the city program is run by
a Bozo, more forcefiil action is justified)”
. “Public education, small tree maintenance.”
. “Nationwide afliliation with such a group (e.g. Audubon, Sierra, etc.) with
regional chapters, which provide incentives, training, etc.”
. “Be supportive.”
. “Reforestation is the goal. Keep politics to the side of planting projects, not in
the middle. Review and follow the planting blueprints set up by the urban

98

forester, who usually will determine the specimens best suited for the local
environment.”

“Let them [the nonprofit] handle the tree inventory. That way they know what
they are dealing with. Also encourage them to get the school kids involved-
young and old.”

“Make sure the city forestry department knows the organization is there to
volunteer.”

99

 

, ornce or
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committee on
Research Involvlm
Human Subjects

Michigan State Universly
246 Mninisttation Building
East Lansing, Michiom
48024-1046

517/355-2100

FAIL- 517/353-2976

Web: mmadu/tmrlmrltts
E-Mail: IcrlIIsOmsum

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

August 20, 2001

TO: James KIELBASO
126 Natural Resource Bldg.

RE: IRB# 01-567 CATEGORY: EXEMPT 1-C
APPROVAL DATE: August 17, 2001

TITLE: PARTENERSHIPS IN URBAN FORESTRY

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval
date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green
renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to
continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB#
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments,
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMSICHANGES: Sho'uld either of the following arise during the course of the work,
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects,” complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
htthMwwmsuedu/usertucrihs

Sincerely,

Ila/WW

Ashir Kumar, MD.
UCRIHS Chair

AK: bd
00: Katherine Armstrong

1418 Michigan Ave.
Detroit, MI 48216

100

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ll.li‘llillliliiI‘IllllillIllnlillmlillmll
3129302460

4674