Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 44(2): March 2018 pal forestry programs. In FY 2014, a total 1.39 mil- lion volunteer hours was reported by all 50 states through the state U&CF programs (NUCFAC 2015; USDA-FS 2015; USDA-FS 2016). Thus, the find- ings from this study were 6% higher—by 91,107 hours—but within the confidence intervals of the findings. Cumulatively, for all 50 states, eight ter- ritories, and Washington, D.C., a total 1.48 mil- lion volunteer hours were logged. Thus, this study validates one of the data outputs that state U&CF coordinators report annually to the USDA-FS. This study also quantified attributes of a munic- ipal forestry program that explained whether a community incorporates volunteers into munici- pal forestry activities. Communities that expressed their budget was adequate were less likely to incorporate volunteers. Unsurprisingly, commu- nities with a higher per-capita budget were also less likely to include volunteers. One could con- clude that perhaps volunteers are a replacement for staff in communities that suggested they were underfunded (McPherson and Johnson 1988; Blo- niarz and Ryan 1996; Moskell et al. 2016). This study did not support the claim that volunteers replaced municipal staff. Overall, the total num- ber of employees was greater in programs that included volunteers compared to those that did not. Researchers also found communities with no formal tree activity conducted by municipal employees in the study period had a 45% reduc- tion in volunteer engagement. Volunteers also did not act as a replacement for contracted tree work, overall, and no difference in contracting occurred among the volunteer-including and non-including communities (Hauer and Peterson 2016). This is consistent with the attitude of residents in New York City, who believe stewardship of park trees and street trees is best managed by the govern- ment/public programs (Moskell and Allred 2013). The strength of a municipal forestry program corresponded to volunteer inclusion. The Clark et al. (1997) model was used to gauge program strength. The model gives a relative index for a community along a continuum that ranks a pro- gram for its direction toward a sustainable pro- gram. Communities with a higher index on average were more likely to include volunteers. It is pos- sible that volunteers helped provide a mechanism to improve a community along the continuum. For 95 example, assisting with a tree inventory, providing expertise to construct a tree ordinance, fostering greater connections to neighborhood associations, and other variables in the index model, would elevate a community’s ranking. The other possi- bility is that a community with greater municipal forestry capacity is better positioned to work with volunteers (Hauer and Johnson 2008; Hauer et al. 2011b). Having a tree board and having a strategic plan were both associated with the greater odds of volunteer inclusion, and these attributes are impor- tant for municipal forestry management (Miller et al. 2015). This may partially be explained by people on municipal boards who oſten serve in a volunteer capacity. Thus, it seems logical that the tree board variable was a significant explanatory variable. Outreach was an important part of explain- ing volunteer involvement. Not having an out- reach program does not mean a community will not involve volunteers. Rather, communities that had an outreach program were two times more likely to include volunteers in urban forestry activities. Making it easy for volunteers to join enhances the prospects for volunteer participa- tion (Summit and Sommer 1998). Outreach pro- vides a way to educate people on why they should volunteer, which enhances recruitment (Moskell et al. 2016). Overcoming barriers to participate is also important. For example, community-based health volunteers were more likely to stop volun- teering when logistical issues and a lack of supplies hamper their work (Chatio and Akweongo 2017). Training personnel prior to conducting tree activities is important for proper implementation of work. The efficacy of volunteers properly con- ducting an activity, perhaps as compared to profes- sional standards, is important for quality control (Bloniarz and Ryan 1996; Galloway et al. 2006). Bloniarz and Ryan (1996) found 83% agreement between trained volunteers and certified arborists assessing the condition of trees. When disagree- ments occur, volunteers were more likely to rate a tree lower in condition than a certified arborist. Student volunteers in Oregon, U.S., were able to measure a quantitative attribute, such as tree diam- eter, similarly to professionals (Galloway 2006). Qualitative assessment, such as tree-crown class, was significantly different between the student vol- unteers and professionals. Ball et al. (2007) found ©2018 International Society of Arboriculture
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
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
