Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 39(6): November 2013 party brings to collaborations, as well as the difficulties in two-way communication (Shigo 1976; Dwyer 1987). Survey participants requested that researchers have an inclusive pro- cess to develop standards, and create flexible protocols adapt- able to different organizations’ needs. Collaborative, com- munity-based, and participatory approaches are increasingly common in other disciplines, such as city planning (Forester 1999; Rotmans and Van Asselt 2000), natural resource man- agement (Fortmann 2008; Wilmsen 2008), and public health (O’Fallon and Dearry 2002; Minkler and Wallerstein 2008). Following from the principles of community-based participa- tory research (O’Fallon and Dearry 2002), local urban forestry organizations should be involved in setting goals, develop- ing methods, collecting data, and disseminating results. For example, Wolf and Kruger (2010) used structured discussions among urban forest managers, professionals, and researchers in the U.S. Pacific Northwest to identify and prioritize research topics. Urban forestry practitioners can contribute their pro- fessional expertise and insights into local conditions, thereby enhancing the quality of the research. Continued dialogue be- tween researchers and practitioners will be necessary to ensure that future urban forest monitoring projects are both scien- tifically rigorous and useful for local management concerns. CONCLUSION To the best knowledge of the study authors, this is the first com- prehensive survey of local urban tree monitoring programs in the United States. As such, the study provides information to establish a baseline for current practices in urban forest moni- toring. It was found that monitoring programs are chiefly im- plemented by non-profits and municipal agencies to measure program success, inform on management practices, and provide educational experiences for volunteers and communities. Insuf- ficient staff time and funds for monitoring are primary limita- tions. Representatives from monitoring programs expressed eagerness to share monitoring strategies and lessons learned. Participants stressed that decisions about what data to collect should closely align with monitoring goals. The development and adoption of standardized monitoring protocols would assist these organizations by diverting scarce resources from pro- tocol development to crew training and field data collection. The results and conclusions may be biased due to the limited sample size; there may be other urban tree monitoring programs in the United States that were unintentionally omitted. Neverthe- less, by including 32 organizations with a range of characteristics and monitoring methods, sufficient information was gathered to assess the goals, challenges, methods, and uses of practitioner- driven monitoring. The observations gleaned from this survey can inform the next generation of urban tree monitoring, with research- ers and practitioners collaborating for long-term data collection. Acknowledgments. We are grateful to all participants for their time and effort completing the survey, and for sharing their insights into urban forest monitoring. We thank the following individuals for providing references to local urban forestry organizations: J. Dwyer, D. Hartel, A. Siewart, and P. Smith. We also thank L. Fortmann, A. Benner, and J. Caditz for critiquing the draft questionnaire, J. McBride, J. Battles, L. Mozingo, D. Nowak, L. Westphal, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. We thank F. Champenois and J. Tang for assistance with data analysis and compilation. We appreciate the 297 input of attendees at the Urban Tree Growth & Longevity Symposium in Lisle, Illinois, U.S. (September 2011); the roundtable discussion at the conference directed us to conduct this survey. Attendees at urban tree monitoring symposium at the International Society of Arboriculture’s Annual Conference & Trade Show in Portland, Oregon, U.S. (August 2012) also provided valuable feedback on the preliminary results. LITERATURE CITED Abd-Elrahman, A.H., M.E. Thornhill, M.G. Andreu, and F. Escobedo. 2010. A community-based urban forest inventory using online map- ping services and consumer-grade digital images. International Jour- nal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 12:249–260. Babbie, E.R. 2007. The basics of social research. Wadsworth: 576 pp. Baker, F.A. 1993. Monitoring the urban forest: Case studies and evalua- tions. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 26:153–163. Bloniarz, D.V., and H.D.P. Ryan. 1996. The use of volunteer initiatives in conducting urban forest resource inventories. Journal of Arboricul- ture 22:75–82. Bonter, D.N., and C.B. Cooper. 2012. Data validation in citizen science: A case study from Project FeederWatch. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:305–307. Boyce, S. 2010. It takes a stewardship village: Effect of volunteer tree stewardship on urban tree mortality rates. Cities and the Environment 3: article 3. 8 pp. Brack, C.L. 2006. Updating urban forest inventories: An example of the DISMUT model. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 5:189–194. California Air Resources Board. 2011. Compliance Offset Protocol: Urban Forest Projects. Sacramento, CA, California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. 113 pp. Caughlan, L., and K.L. Oakley. 2001. Cost considerations for long-term ecological monitoring. Ecological Indicators 1:123–134. Clark, J.R., N.P. Matheny, G. Cross, and V. Wake. 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23:17–30. Cooper, C.B., J. Dickinson, T. Phillips, and R. Bonney. 2007. Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology and Society 12:11. Cumming, A.B., D.B. Twardus, and D.J. Nowak. 2008. Urban forest health monitoring: Large-scale assessments in the United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:341–346. Dickinson, J.L., B. Zuckerberg, and D.N. Bonter. 2010. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41:149–172. Dickinson, J.L., J. Shirk, D. Bonter, R. Bonney, R.L. Crain, J. Martin, T. Phillips, and K. Purcell. 2012. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:291–297. Dillman, D.A. 1999. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd edition. Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, U.S. 480 pp. Dwyer, J.F. 1987. How to make research and researchers work more effectively for you. Journal of Arboriculture 13:267–273. Dwyer, J.F., D.J. Nowak, and G.W. Watson. 2002. Future directions for urban forestry research in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 28:231–236. Forester, J. 1999. The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participa- tory planning process. MIT Press. 321 pp. Fortmann, L. (Ed.). 2008. Participatory research in conservation and rural livelihoods: Doing science together. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, New York, U.S. 316 pp. ©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
