Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 39(6): November 2013 ods employed; 3) common challenges; and 4) uses of monitor- ing data. Participants were also asked to offer suggestions for other local organizations seeking to collect monitoring data, and for researchers aiming to develop standardized protocols. METHODS Study Design and Participant Recruitment The authors targeted local urban forestry organizations in the United States that have collected urban tree monitoring data; only organizations with longitudinal data on individual trees were relevant to the research. Throughout this paper, the term “moni- toring” is used to refer to systematically collected data on the same trees over time, and “inventory” in reference to a one-time snapshot of urban forest characteristics. Organizations with lists of planted trees lacking static inventories, follow-up records, or sporadically updated inventories were not included in this study. To understand practitioner-driven monitoring efforts, the study authors specifically sought monitoring programs developed and led by local urban forestry organizations, rather than researcher- driven monitoring studies (e.g., Nowak et al. 2004; Cumming et al. 2008). Eligible organizations were identified through re- searcher and peer recommendations. The authors began with a list of a dozen organizations that were known to have relevant monitoring programs. Next, a snowball or chain referral sam- pling technique was used, asking for peer recommendations from colleagues and staff at the local organizations already identified. Sixty-seven organizations were identified through this process. Participants were recruited via e-mail in February–April 2012, followed by a phone call to explain the study purpose and veri- fy whether the organization had relevant urban tree monitoring programs. Seventeen organizations did not have relevant moni- toring programs, 16 were unresponsive to recruiting attempts, and 34 agreed to participate in the study. Questionnaires were emailed to staff at each of the 34 recruited organizations, with several reminder e-mails and phone calls as needed. Question- naire design and recruitment techniques were adapted from Dillman’s Tailored Design Method (Dillman 1999). Thirty- two organizations completed the survey—a 94% participa- tion rate of those recruited. Most participants completed the survey via e-mail, but one dictated responses over the phone. Survey Format The survey contained organization-level and program-level ques- tions. Some organizations had more than one distinct monitoring program; in these situations, the program-level questions were repeated. For example, a few organizations conducted both a cohort mortality study of recently planted trees and a repeated census of neighborhoods or plots. Surveys were customized to each organization with the name(s) of their program(s). Forty- five distinct monitoring programs were included from the 32 par- ticipating organizations. Organization-level questions inquired as to the type of organization, number of paid urban forestry staff, challenges with urban tree monitoring, experiences shar- ing monitoring methods and results, and recommendations for other local organizations and researchers undertaking monitor- ing projects. The number of full-time equivalent paid staff was limited to individuals working on urban forestry and urban greening issues. This enabled more meaningful comparison 293 of staff at different organizations (e.g., municipalities report- ed the number of urban forestry employees in the parks and/ or streets division, rather than the total staff across all depart- ments). Program-level questions included motivations for the specific monitoring program(s), processes of developing field methods, types of data collected, and uses of monitoring data. The survey included both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Multiple-choice questions were usually presented as “check all that apply,” including an option for “other,” to account for categories that were not anticipated. Responses were re-coded in the “other” category to fit the original categories whenever pos- sible (i.e., it is determined that the participant’s explanation for the “other” response fit a category already listed). In a few cases, several participants gave similar responses for the “other” expla- nation, and the study authors created new response categories. Data Analysis Open-ended questions were qualitatively assessed for common themes, counting the number of times participants mentioned similar ideas (Babbie 2007). Themes were not pre-determined. The open-ended questions were independently analyzed by one of the authors and a research assistant, with later discussion to resolve discrepancies in the interpretations. Differences in interpretation typically related to lumping versus splitting topics. Direct quotations from participants are included to provide a deeper view of their experiences and perspectives. Quotes are presented anonymously, with spelling errors corrected. Results are presented for both the open-ended and mul- tiple-choice questions as a percent of the total number of organization-level or program-level responses. In a few cases, responses were left blank, and in those situations the authors divided by the total number of actual responses for that particular question. For both multiple-choice and open- ended questions, percentage totals are typically >100%, because respondents were not forced to choose only one option. RESULTS Types of Organizations Represented Participating organizations (n = 32) are mainly non-profits (53%) and municipalities (38%), with a smaller proportion of state governments (9%) and utilities (6%). These organiza- tions are located in 17 states plus Washington, D.C. (see Roman 2013 for a complete list of organizations). Most non-profit or- ganizations are focused on urban forestry and urban greening; two are neighborhood associations. The organizations serve a range of geographic areas: cities/municipalities (72%), coun- ties (31%), regions (25%), neighborhoods (22%), and states (6%). The number of full-time equivalent urban forestry staff of these organizations also varies widely (min = 0, 25th per- centile = 3, median = 6, 75th percentile = 22, max = 174). Goals and Motivations for Monitoring The most common goals (51%) for urban tree monitoring pro- grams were to track tree survival, health, and/or growth, and measure program success. ‘Success’ itself was generally not clearly defined by respondents, but tree survival and health were implied. Some programs also aimed to evaluate factors ©2013 International Society of Arboriculture
November 2013
| 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
