70 Johnson et al.: Why Count Trees? Volunteer Motivations and Experiences with Tree Monitoring career advancement. Researchers of the current study found corresponding results from participants; during interviews, life course or having the time and ability to volunteer were commonly mentioned as factors enabling involvement. Past experience was also intertwined with people’s careers, a motiva- tion identified in the VFI (Clary and Snyder 1999). Further work could also examine the relationship between citizen science volunteer work and paid work, as volunteering can also contribute to job skills beneficial to the volunteer. The current study also included some limitations. The assessment under- represented men and younger individuals among the responses, relative to the general New York City population. Also, the anonymous assessment ben- efitted respondents, but did not enable researchers to link assessment responses to mapped behaviors. The study identified motivations for why trees count to volunteers in a city-led tree-monitoring effort. Through assessment and follow-up inter- views, researchers found evidence of learning and discovery by volunteers, along with other personal or self-directed benefits. Researchers also identified more community-focused motivations of caring for a place and social connections, which have impli- cations for managing social-ecological systems like cities. Knowing motivations to participate vary by demographics can inform volunteer program man- agers’ recruitment for future tree-monitoring efforts. At the same time, recruitment alone is not a measure of success. It is important that volunteers are inspired to conduct the work in a responsible and timely mat- ter, with the opportunity to deepen their knowledge to other or similar opportunities. In future volunteer efforts in New York City and elsewhere, motivations linked to higher numbers of blocks mapped, like Explore, Contribute, Social, and Outdoors could be emphasized in tree-monitoring recruitment materials. Incentives tied to outcomes (e.g., blocks mapped) could assist with recruiting and also retain- ing volunteers. Considering the suite of volunteer motivations, experiences, and outcomes can affect program participation turnout, effort, and retention. Acknowledgments. The TreesCount! 2015 volunteer assessment was developed by a partnership between the City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation and the U.S. Forest Service. Particular thanks go to Fiona Watt, Crystal Crown, Danielle Giſt, and Charles Cochrane at NYC Parks, as well as Katerli Bounds (formerly with NYC Parks). Thank you to Nancy Sonti and Crystal Crown for providing reviews of earlier draſts of this manuscript. ©2018 International Society of Arboriculture Supplemental Content. The Tree Census Vol- unteer Assessment (cited herein as SM1) and the Drivers, Outcomes, and Impacts of Volun- teer Tree Monitoring Interview Protocol (SM2) are available for browsing on the website of the publisher, International Society of Arbori- culture (www.isa-arbor.com). These materials are also available as an electronic file (.pdf) upon individual request (
[email protected]). LITERATURE CITED Asah, S.T., and D.J. Blahna. 2012. Motivational functionalism and urban conservation stewardship: Implications for volunteer involvement. Conservation Letters 5(6):470–477. Asah, S.T., and D.J. Blahna. 2013. Practical implications of under- standing the influence of motivations on commitment to vol- untary urban conservation stewardship. Conservation Biology 27(4):866–875. Austin, M.E. 2002. Partnership opportunities in neighborhood tree planting initiatives: Building form local knowledge. Journal of Arboriculture 28(4):178–186. Bell, S., M. Marzano, J. Cent, H. Kobierska, D. Podjed, D. Vandzin- skaite, and H. Reinert, et al. 2008. What counts? Volunteers and their organizations in the recording and monitoring of biodi- versity. Biodiversity and Conservation 17(14):3443–3454. Boyle, M.P., and J.K. Sawyer. 2010. Defining volunteering for community campaigns: An exploration of race, self percep- tions, and campaign practices. Journal of Community Practice 18(1):40–57. Bramston, P., G. Pretty, and C. Zammit. 2011. Assessing environ- mental stewardship motivation. Environment and Behavior 43:776–788. Bruyere, B., and S. Rappe. 2007. Identifying the motivations of envi- ronmental volunteers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50(4):503–516. Caldwell, L.L., and K.L. Andereck. 1994. Motives for initiating and continuing membership in a recreation-related voluntary asso- ciation. Leisure Sciences 16(1):33–44. Cerasoli, C.P., J.M. Nicklin, and M.T. Ford. 2014. Intrinsic motiva- tion and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40- year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 140(4):980. Charmaz, K. 2001. Grounded theory. In: R.M. Emerson (Ed.). Contemporary Field Research: Perspectives and Formulations. Waveland Press, Long Grove, Illinois, U.S. 443 pp. Clary, E.G., and M. Snyder. 1999. The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science 8(5):156–159. Clary, E.G., M. Snyder, and A.A. Stukas. 1996. Volunteers’ motiva- tions: Findings from a national survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 25(4):485–505. Clary, E.G., M. Snyder, R.D. Ridge, A.A. Stukas, J. Copeland, J. Haugen, and P.K. Miene. 1998. Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 74:1516–1530. Deci, E.L., and R.M. Ryan. 1985. The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality 19(2):109–134.
March 2018
| 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
