Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 46(3): May 2020 hardwoods in southeastern Michigan (MacFarlane 2007). As observed by the authors, collaboration among the municipality, utility company, and a local wood products company in the pilot program in our study implies willingness of some sawmills to engage with urban wood waste recovery. Finally, we found that qualitative interviews with practitioners (in this case, tree crews) provided valu- able insight into the potential opportunities and chal- lenges in implementing a wood recovery program. Elmendorf and Luloff (2001, 2006) suggested that qualitative data collection methods, particularly key informant interviews, facilitate stakeholder collabo- ration in urban forestry programs because partici- pants can provide localized and in-depth information that can be considered for program development. In this study, interviews provided tree crew members with the opportunity to have a conversation about their work process. Tree crew perspectives and expe- riences made a tangible difference in the program by giving feedback that resulted in a modified protocol (i.e., the transition in protocol from Figure 1A to 1B), supporting previous research suggesting that key informant interviews can improve planning processes (Brody et al. 2003). Another benefit of the qualitative methods used in this study was that participants were able to provide additional context for quantitative data. For example, participants were able to not only state the diameter of material chipped, but also explain their response, including the range of possi- ble diameters chipped, why larger diameters might not be chipped, and how different equipment impacted chipping. In-field interviews also allowed for reference to specific equipment, trees, settings, and conditions (Lowery and Morse 2013; Conway 2016). During our interviews, participants referred to specific trees and equipment at the worksite to facili- tate their description of tree removals, as well as potential obstacles that might pose a problem around power lines. The results of this study indicate potential for developing wood recovery programs for utility vege- tation management, particularly in urban areas. Our study focused on one of the stakeholders most directly involved with implementation: the tree crews. Future research may include other key informants, including municipal officials, homeowners, utility work plan- ners and arborists, and wood product buyers. LITERATURE CITED Bengston DN, Asah ST, Butler BJ. 2011. The diverse values and motivation of family forest owners in the United States: an analysis of an open-ended question in the National Woodland Owner Survey. Small-Scale Forestry. 10:339-355. Bratkovich SM. 2001. Utilizing municipal trees: ideas from across the country. St. Paul (MN, USA): USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. NA-TP-06-01. [Accessed 2018 December 04]. https://www.fs.usda.gov/ naspf/sites/default/files/publications/03_na-tp-06-01_utilizing_ municipal_trees_ideas_from_across_the_country_508c.pdf Bratkovich S, Fernholz K, Howe J, Frank M, Pepke E, Bowyer J. 2014. Urban forests and urban tree use: opportunities on local, state, national, and international scales. Minneapolis (MN, USA): Dovetail Partners, Inc. [Accessed 2018 Decem- ber 04.] http://www.dovetailinc.org/report_pdfs/2014/ dovetailurbanforests112014.pdf Brody SD, Godschalk DR, Burby RJ. 2003. Mandating citizen participation in plan making: six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association. 69(3):245-264. Conway TM. 2016. Tending their urban forest: residents’ motiva- tions for tree planting and removal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 17:23-32. Donnelly C, Doria G. 2014. The use of wood from urban and municipal trees. Hartford (CT, USA): Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Division of Forestry. [Accessed 2018 December 04]. http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/ deep/forestry/urban_forestry/biomass_final-6-29-14.pdf Donovan GH, Butry DT. 2010. Trees in the city: valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning. 94:77-83. Elmendorf WF, Luloff AE. 2001. Using qualitative data collection methods when planning for community forests. Journal of Arboriculture. 27(3):139-151. Elmendorf WF, Luloff AE. 2006. Using key informant interviews to better understand open space conservation in a developing watershed. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 32(2):54-61. Endahl JB. 2015. Urban forest waste generation and utilization by municipal and private arboricultural operations in Virginia [thesis]. Blacksburg (VA, USA): Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 68 p. Fratanduono MBL, Steelman TA, Peterson MN, McHale M, Fratanduono DE. 2013. Barriers to utilization of municipal biomass residues for bioenergy. Journal of Extension. 51(2):1-11. Gundersen VS, Frivold LH. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 7:241-258. Hansen LR. 2011. Utility tree trimming in other states. Hartford (CT, USA): State of Connecticut OLR Research Report. 2011-R-0459. [Accessed 2018 December 04]. https://www .cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0459.htm Krueger RA, Casey MA. 2009. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 4th Ed. Thousand Oaks (CA, USA): Sage Publications, Inc. 205 ©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
