Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 41(4): July 2015 three-person crews relative to a one-person crew. If each member was paid $10/hour, the cost, excluding travel time and other such expenditures, would be $770, $940, and $1,140 for a one-, two-, or three- person crew, respectively. Based solely on $/crew, the one-person crew would be more efficient, saving the manager $170 or $370 depending on if the crew size were two or three persons. However, they would spend approx. 1.7 to 2× more time conducting the inventory compared with the two- and three-person crews, respectively. The manager needs to consider time as a factor in his or her determinations. Finally, as an extreme comparison, perhaps a manager plans to inventory 10,000 trees averaging 101.6 cm dbh. If each crewmember was paid $10/ hour, the cost excluding travel time and other associated costs, would be $11,670, $17,340, and $16,500 for a one-, two-, or three-person crew, respectively. Based solely on $/crew, the one-person crew would be more efficient, saving the manager $5,670 or $4,830 depending on whether the crew size were two or three persons. However, if time were factored in, the one-person crew would spend approx. 1.3× to 2.1× longer in the field compared with the other crews, using a 40-hour week as a metric. A one-person crew would require 1,167 hours, or approximately 29 weeks to complete the task. A two-person or three-person crew would spend 867 hours (approx. 22 weeks) and 550 hours (approx. 14 weeks), respectively, to complete the inventory. This would represent a saving of 300 and 617 hours, or 7.5 and 15.4 weeks, respectively, for the two- and three-person crews relative to a one-person crew. Overall, the three-person crew could be considered the most efficient based on time in this case. The job did cost more to conduct, approx. $5,000 more than the one-person crew, but $1,000 less than a two-person crew. However, the crew would spend considerably less time in the field than the other crews, thus allowing them to do other tasks compared with the other crews. In addition, the training of the crews may be an important consideration in deciding crew size. The larger the crew, the probability that one member may not be as well-trained increases. This would probably increase the time spent per tree initially. However, aſter training, having more than one well-trained person is an advantage in the event of illness or other reasons for lack of crewmem- 227 ber availability. Also, the safety of the worker is an important consideration. Having more than one individual on a crew may be beneficial, especially if working in more remote locations. CONCLUSION The primary intent of the study was to test the effi- ciency in crew size in conducting a 100% inventory using i-Tree Eco protocol. The data showed inter- esting trends in crew size and productivity. These data can be very helpful for managers who want to conduct 100% tree inventories. Among all factors to be considered (e.g., location, distance of travel, types of trees to be measured, worker safety), the number and size of trees to be inventoried will play a major part in deciding the ideal crew size to use. The data tend to support Martin et al. (2011b) and Nowak et al. (2008), in general, in that a two- person crew may be the best utilization of time and effort for a 100% inventory. However, a manager may wish to use a three-person crew if very large trees are being measured, or if the total time available to complete the inventory is limited and resources (e.g., equipment, money) are less restrictive. If time is not a restriction, a one-person crew may be the most efficient regarding the funds spent. Acknowledgments. We would like to thank Dudley Hartel and Eric Kuehler of the USDA Forest Service—Urban Forestry South office (Athens, Georgia, U.S.) for their assistance and guidance during the duration of this project. We would also like to thank Andrew Metzler, Alex Hedgepath, and Efrem Robbins for their assistance with data collection, and James Ransom and Ann Huyler for their technical assistance. This project was funded in part by Auburn University and the USDA Forest Service Co-op Agreement FS-SRS- 09-CA-11330144-073. LITERATURE CITED Escobedo, F., S. Varela, M. Zhao, J.E. Wagner, and W. Zipperer. 2010. Analyzing the efficacy of subtropical urban forests in off- setting carbon emissions from cities. Environmental Science & Policy 13:362–372. Escobedo, F.J., D.J. Nowak, J.E. Wagner, C.L. De la Maza, M. Rodri- guez, D.E. Crane, and J. Hernandez. 2006. The socioeconomics and management of Santiago de Chile’s public urban forests. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4:105–114. Huyler, A., A.H. Chappelka, and E.F. Loewenstein. 2010. UFORE Model Analysis of the Structure and Function of the Urban For- est in Auburn, Alabama. pp. 18–23. In: Emerging Issues Along Urban-Rural Interfaces III: Linking Science and Society Con- ference Proceedings, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., April 11–14, 2010. i-Tree. 2010a. i-Tree: Tools for Assessing and Managing Commu- nity Forests. ©2015 International Society of Arboriculture
July 2015
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
