88 Mincey and Vogt: Watering Strategy, Collective Action, and Neighborhood-Planted Trees ing manage one or more of the tree-planting proj- ects in that neighborhood. Because the same indi- vidual generally managed multiple projects within a neighborhood, in the analyses, all tree-planting projects in a single neighborhood were considered part of the same sampling unit. In the summers of 2011 and 2012, these individuals were contacted for an interview at a location of the interviewee’s choosing in Indianapolis. (In two cases, interviews were conducted over the phone as the individuals had moved away from the study site.) Of the 25 neighborhoods for which interview requests were made, a total of 18 neighborhoods were repre- sented through 18 interviews with one to four individual residents in attendance for each. The con- tacts for seven neighborhoods could not be reached. In the summer of 2011, two interviewers (one lead, one notetaker) were present for interviews, which were not audio recorded (n = 6). In the sum- mer of 2012, audio recording was approved by the researchers’ institutional review board; subse- quently, one interviewer was present for each inter- view, which was recorded and later transcribed (n = 12). In all cases, interviews were approximately one hour in length. They were semi-structured, and interviewers used a pre-determined list of interview questions to guide discussion of neigh- borhood characteristics, the details of the tree- planting event and subsequent watering, and other neighborhood collective activities. (A complete list of interview questions is available from the authors upon request.) Detailed interview notes and transcriptions were used to code the presence/ absence of collective watering (1/0), whether the neighborhood formalized the agreement that neighbors water through a signed commitment (1/0), whether neighbors monitored and/or “sanc- tioned” (e.g., reminded, prodded) one another to water (1/0), and whether this monitoring/sanction- ing purportedly changed watering behavior (1/0). Additionally, to consider the potential effects of watering strategy on collective action, research- ers asked interviewees to enumerate and describe collective efforts that took place in their respective neighborhoods, both before and aſter their initial NeighborWoods project. Although this question was open-ended, the example of a neighborhood crime watch, to help define “collective efforts,” was offered. A complete list of such activities (e.g., ©2014 International Society of Arboriculture neighborhood block parties, clean-ups, beautifica- tion efforts) was generated a posteriori and coded with 1s and 0s (presence/absence) for each neigh- borhood. The percentage of all potential collective activities occurring in each neighborhood before and aſter tree planting were generated, and an index of “change in collective activities” was created by subtracting the percent of activities aſter planting from the percent of activities prior to plant- ing for each neighborhood. This yielded a metric of change in collective activities aſter planting. Biophysical Data Collection Data about the survival, growth, and condition of individual trees in each neighborhood project were collected using the Planted Tree Re-Inventory Pro- tocol (hereaſter Protocol) developed by the authors for the purpose of the study (Vogt et al. 2012; Vogt et al. 2013). Tree inventory methods were modified from those of the Urban Forestry Data Standards initiative (IUFRO et al. 2010) for use with young, recently planted trees and for use by high school– aged youth. The authors and trained members of KIB’s Youth Tree Team collected data during June– August of 2011 and 2012, identifying all dead or missing trees from the total planted per project, and systematically sampling 20–30 live trees per project. For these sampled live trees, the full suite of vari- ables in the Protocol (Vogt et al. 2013) was collected. Data collected via the Protocol were combined with information collected by KIB at the time of planting (namely, the location and number of trees planted per neighborhood, and caliper-at-planting as per time-of-sale nursery records maintained by KIB). Neighborhood-level survival rates were calculated as the percent of planted trees surviving at the time of re-inventory. Annual caliper growth rate was calculated for each sampled tree by subtracting the caliper-at-planting from the caliper measured dur- ing re-inventory (diameter at 15 cm above first lateral root) and dividing by the number of years (convert- ed from the number of days) between planting and re-inventory dates. For living trees, condition was visually assessed by observers according to descrip- tions of “Good,” “Fair,” and “Poor” ratings that were used by the authors in tree inventories in Bloom- ington and Indianapolis, Indiana, and described in the Protocol (Vogt et al. 2013). The analyses in this paper focus on the tree survival rates, growth
March 2014
| 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
