296 Roman et al: Common Practices and Challenges for Urban Tree Monitoring Programs sults to inform planting practices, and municipalities that managed mature urban trees tracked potential hazard trees, and used the results to prioritize maintenance. However, not all programs had clear linkages between monitor- ing goals, field methods, and uses of the data. At the same time, when asked to offer guidance for other organiza- tions embarking on tree monitoring programs, participants’ most common recommendations were to carefully consid- er what data to collect and have clearly articulated goals. Research ecologists have similarly stressed the importance of clear questions and objectives in long-term monitoring (Lin- denmayer and Likens 2010). Monitoring is not a goal in and of itself, but rather, a means to answering questions (Lovett et al. 2007; Lindenmayer and Likens 2010). Other attributes of effective ecological monitoring are dedicated leadership and institutional commitment; strong partnerships among scien- tists, resource managers, and policy-makers; careful selection of core variables to measure; frequent use of the collected data; plans for long-term data accessibility; and an adaptive monitor- ing framework that responds to new technologies and research questions (Lovett et al. 2007; Lindenmayer and Likens 2009; Lindenmayer and Likens 2010). Monitoring projects that lack strong research questions and plans for data analysis may be- come “snowed by a blizzard of ecological details” from a poorly focused “laundry list” of measurements (Lindenmayer and Likens 2010). The “data-rich but information-poor” sce- nario in environmental monitoring programs (Ward et al. 1986) has led to monitoring programs being criticized as unscientific (Lovett et al. 2007; Lindenmayer and Likens 2009). While these comments are focused on monitoring for academic and research purposes, long-term ecological datasets often address basic research goals while generating useful data for environ- mental managers and policymakers (Magurran et al. 2010; Lin- denmayer and Likens 2010). The same guidelines for effective monitoring apply to urban forests, because long-term monitor- ing can produce data for both researchers and practitioners. Survey participants encountered challenges with urban for- est monitoring that were previously raised by Baker (1993): consistency in field crew training, accurately recording tree location, and managing data. Often, existing inventory software did not meet participants’ needs for long-term data collection and longitudinal data storage. Researchers can significantly improve the quality and consistency of monitoring data across cities by developing standardized protocols, offering technol- ogy solutions, and being responsive to practitioner needs and organizational capacities. Standardized monitoring protocols can extend from existing urban forest data standards and inven- tory methods (Miller 1996; McPherson et al. 1999; Nowak and Crane 2000; Brack 2006; Keller and Konijnendijk 2012), with special attention to issues that are unique to long-term data col- lection, such as managing longitudinal datasets and accurately recording tree location and DBH growth. Technology solu- tions for monitoring could include mobile interfaces for data collection and remote sensing to reduce the need for costly ground-based approaches. In offering suggestions for standard- ized protocols, survey respondents urged researchers to “keep it simple,” rather than “complicated and academic,” to enable more organizations to participate. Researchers must remain cognizant of the fact that many local organizations engaged in monitoring have a small number of urban forestry staff (one- ©2013 International Society of Arboriculture half with six or fewer), and that most local organizations do not have staff dedicated to database management. Developing, implementing, and analyzing long-term monitoring projects are significant challenges for organizations with few staff and limited resources. By providing standards for long-term data collection and analysis, researchers can enhance the institu- tional capacity of these organizations to generate rigorous data that addresses their management needs. Standardization would also promote the sharing of information among practitioners. While survey participants recognized many values in sharing monitoring approaches and results, few consulted with external colleagues in developing their methods, and only about half cur- rently share their results and methods with other organizations. Linking planting grants to monitoring and maintenance funds would be one step forward in addressing the hurdle of resource limitations faced by many local monitoring programs. One-quarter of the programs surveyed were required to moni- tor due to grant obligations. Urban forestry initiatives should tout exemplary records of tree survival and health, rather than sheer numbers of trees planted. With increased interest in urban tree monitoring from funders, more local organizations may begin monitoring, or may formalize their existing programs. Additionally, regulatory-based programs, such as California’s cap and trade offset program (California Air Resources Board 2011), allow for urban tree planting as a mitigation measure because of projected ecosystem services (McHale et al. 2007; Poudyal et al. 2011), and are including reporting requirements for tree survival and growth. Reliable funding sources have also been a concern in long-term environmental and ecologi- cal monitoring (Caughlan and Oakley 2001; Lovett et al. 2007), and dedicated funding from national agencies has been im- portant for long-term ecological research in the United States (e.g., LTER and FIA). Finding consistent funding for long-term urban tree monitoring is likely to require new partnerships among federal and state agencies, industries, and non-profits. Reliance on volunteers for field data collection was one strategy employed by participants to keep costs down, particu- larly among non-profit organizations. Volunteer-based data col- lection and citizen science in urban forestry can promote envi- ronmental awareness and create a more informed constituency (Bloniarz and Ryan 1996; Cooper et al. 2007; Abd-Elrahman et al. 2010). Citizen science is also employed in long-term eco- logical monitoring in other systems (Silvertown 2009; Dickin- son et al. 2010; Magurran et al. 2010; Dickinson et al. 2012), such as the Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count. While data collected by volunteers has the potential for error and bias, the extent of this error is poorly understood (Dickinson et al. 2010). Errors can be minimized with data validation proce- dures whereby scientists follow up on data entries flagged as potential problems (Bonter and Cooper 2012; Gardiner et al. 2012). Bloniarz and Ryan (1996) found that with adequate training, volunteer-based urban tree inventories can produce mostly accurate data at lower cost than professional arbor- ists. The survey participants also noted that effective volunteer and intern training is essential to producing high-quality data. Collaboration between researchers and practitioners will be essential to develop effective monitoring standards and implement long-term data collection. Dialogue between re- searchers, managers, and arborists has been central to urban forestry for many decades, recognizing the strengths that each
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
