Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 39(6): November 2013 control. Twenty-five percent had difficulties with field crew recruitment and/or training, especially for volunteers and student interns. Twenty-five percent had problems imple- menting the field work, such as reliably locating tree and plots and getting access to private properties. One partici- pant summarized many of the common challenges as follows: Not knowing what to monitor, no one to monitor, not knowing what questions to ask of the monitoring. Organizations had many solutions to these challenges. Twenty- five percent improved the process of recruiting and training field crews, particularly non-profit organizations relying on volunteers and student interns. For example, some organiza- tions decided to hire only college-level interns, while others added more training days. Twenty-five percent had solutions to address funding problems. These tactics included incorpo- rating monitoring and staff time into organizational budgets, seeking external grants, and using volunteers. Thirteen percent prioritized data collection to meet immediate management needs, such as tree risk issues for municipal agencies. Other solutions were staff and volunteer dedication (9%) and advice from ex- ternal consultants or peers (9%). Twenty-two percent of organi- zations noted that challenges remain and have not been solved. Uses of Local Monitoring Data Participants were asked whether monitoring programs influ- ence management at their organizations; 78% said yes. Of these, 60% said that monitoring informs tree planting techniques and maintenance practices. Forty-three percent said that monitor- ing affects tree species selection, helping to maximize diver- sity and selection of appropriate species. Twenty-three percent used monitoring to provide feedback to individuals responsible for tree care, such as residents, volunteers, contractors, and mu- nicipalities. Twenty percent used monitoring data for tree risk management, often connected to liability and disease concerns; this issue was most commonly mentioned by municipalities. Data analysis at these programs involved summary statis- tics (81%), overall survival and/or growth rates (69%), com- parisons of survival and growth across groups (50%), spatial analysis (31%), statistical analysis such as χ2 and ANOVA (19%), and other techniques (17%). Data analysis was carried out by program staff (83%), interns (8%), researchers (8%), volunteers (8%), and consultants (3%). Sixty percent of pro- grams produced written reports on their monitoring projects; two of these were published (Boyce 2010; Lu et al. 2010). Sharing Monitoring Methods and Results Participants were asked whether their organizations shared in- formation about their tree monitoring program(s) with other urban forestry organizations; 56% said yes. Information was shared through a variety of mechanisms. Fifty-six percent of those who share information did so through direct communica- tion with colleagues at other organizations, 33% shared through state or regional networks, and 22% shared at conferences. Participants described the value in sharing monitoring meth- ods and results across cities. Fifty-five percent valued the op- portunity to learn from the best practices and methods in other cities and programs. Twenty-one percent commented that shar- ing methods and approaches can lead to greater efficiency: 295 It increases efficiency—you don’t have to “re-create the wheel” for each tree planting/monitoring program. We can learn from other’s experience. Organizations also valued the ability to share findings across cities and programs (21%), with some specifically noting the value of standardized methods for meaningful comparison of data (17%). Suggestions for Other Practitioners and Researchers Participants were asked to offer guidance to another local ur- ban forestry organization seeking to develop a tree monitoring program. Most recommendations addressed the importance of advance planning. Fifty-two percent of respondents empha- sized the importance of thinking carefully about methods and data collection. Forty-two percent said that monitoring pro- grams should have clear goals and intended uses of the data. Forty-two percent mentioned the importance of a good data- base, especially of the initial inventory or planting records. Twenty-nine percent suggested planning ahead for budgeting, funding, staffing needs, and field crew time. One participant captured many of these common recommendations as follows: They need to know what the purpose is for the information. If you’re taking the time to do it, what’s the point? This helps drive what data you collect. Know who is going to do the work, and make sure they have the time and experience to do it properly. Participants were also asked how researchers can be use- ful to enhance their urban forest monitoring program(s). Forty-four percent asked researchers to provide best prac- tices and methods for monitoring, including standardized protocols. For example, one participant noted that small or- ganizations have limited capacity, and would appreciate in- put from researchers on best practices for tree monitoring. Twenty-two percent of organizations suggested that re- searchers should develop tools for monitoring, such as tech- nology and software solutions. Nineteen percent requested that researchers continue to produce information on tree benefits and ecosystem services, which help justify fund- ing for urban forest programs. Fifteen percent would like re- searchers to provide accurate estimates of tree mortality, growth, and canopy change. Eleven percent noted that univer- sity and/or government researchers have already been useful. Finally, the study authors asked for recommendations with the development of standardized urban tree moni- toring protocols. Thirty-one percent suggested that pro- tocols should be adaptable to different organizational capacities and needs, and be flexible for different situations. Another suggestion (21%) was to be inclusive and involve practitioners in the protocol development process. Some par- ticipants (21%) stressed the importance of keeping protocols simple for users, rather than “complicated and academic.” DISCUSSION Common goals and motivations for practitioner-driven ur- ban forest monitoring emerged from the analysis. These goals were often echoed in later responses about field methods and uses of the data. For example, programs that evaluated trees planted by their organization used the re- ©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
