Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 46(3): May 2020 Past research suggests that possible challenges in wood recovery include lack of necessary equipment and local processors (Endahl 2015), need for educa- tional seminars for operators who had not previously engaged in wood utilization (Endahl 2015), ability to access trees around obstacles (MacFarlane 2007), safety concerns due to proximity to hazards (MacFar- lane 2007), and perceived low wood quality due to suboptimal growing conditions and potential pres- ence of contaminants in the wood (e.g., nails, concrete; MacFarlane 2007). We hypothesized that similar con- cerns would arise in this study. Additionally, we expected that the utility vegetation management con- text would pose challenges, including proximity to electrical hazards and physical obstacles (i.e., utility poles and wires, fencing, driveways, roads), which might preclude the crews’ abilities to remove longer lengths of wood. Therefore, we hypothesized that tree crew members would express concerns about such obstacles and challenges in relation to participating in a wood product recovery program from utility tree removals. MATERIALS AND METHODS To assess potential opportunities or barriers associ- ated with the pilot program, we conducted semistruc- tured qualitative interviews with tree crews (Neuman 2006). In this context, the advantages of qualitative data collection are threefold. First, qualitative meth- ods can supplement data collected through quantita- tive methods, deepening and enriching understanding of relationships between the urban forest and its stakeholders (Elmendorf and Luloff 2001; McLean et al. 2007; Gundersen and Frivold 2008; Ostoic and van den Bosch 2015). Second, qualitative data collec- tion has the potential to reduce conflict and promote collaboration between stakeholders by gathering rich and localized information to consider for program development and implementation (Elmendorf and Luloff 2001; Brody et al. 2003; Elmendorf and Luloff 2006). Finally, open-ended (qualitative) questions have been shown to provide different data than close- ended (quantitative) questions about values related to forests (Bengston et al. 2011). Limitations of qualita- tive interviewing include a lack of precise, quantita- tive measurements for distinct variables and lack of statistics to test hypotheses (Neuman 2006). How- ever, for our purposes, we determined that qualitative interviews were appropriate for assessing tree crew 199 perceptions of wood recovery despite these limita- tions. Topics addressed in the interviews for this study included work areas and procedures, current destina- tion of wood from tree pruning and removals, interac- tion with homeowners or other community members, perceptions of or experience with wood recovery, and anticipated or actual barriers and challenges to wood recovery (see Appendix A for specific interview questions). We worked with two utility companies for recruit- ing tree crews to interview: Eversource Energy (Ever- source) and The United Illuminating Company (UI). The study included two types of interviews to inves- tigate tree crew perceptions and experiences with wood recovery. The first type, pre-implementation interviews, was conducted with crews who had not been involved in the pilot program. The goal of pre- implementation interviews was to assess crews’ cur- rent workflow and their perceptions of wood recovery in the utility context. Both Eversource- and UI-contracted crews were included in pre-implementation interviews. The second type, post-implementation interviews, was conducted in two phases with UI-contracted tree crews who had been involved in the North Haven pilot program. The first phase was completed shortly after pilot program implementation (September and October 2015); the second phase was conducted a year later (September 2016). Post-implementation interviews addressed the same goals as the pre-implementation interviews and, in addition, assessed the actual chal- lenges and opportunities that tree crews experienced in implementing the pilot program. The initial protocol for the pilot program called for tree crews to identify potentially valuable logs from all parts of the tree, including the butt log (i.e., bottom log closest to the ground), the trunk, and branches of sufficient diameter (Figure 1A). However, initial feedback from the first round of post-implementation interviews indicated that this protocol was prohibi- tively complex and posed potential safety hazards when trying to recover logs from above the power lines. Therefore, the protocol was modified to focus on pre- serving the butt log of the tree when feasible (Figure 1B), rather than all parts of the tree. Pre-implementation interviews and the second round of post-implementation interviews solicited feedback on this modified protocol. For pre-implementation interviews with Eversource- contracted crews, we interviewed crew members from three tree crews in each of the seven ©2020 International Society of Arboriculture
May 2020
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
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.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
