Several years ago we described a new initiative (Citizen Forester, Dec 2013) from the Urban Forestry Extension Program here at UMass, that was designed to gather information about the state of our urban forests in Massachusetts and better understand the day-to-day challenges, needs, and dynamics of urban forestry at the community level. Though a number of approaches were initially explored, such as focus groups or mail-based surveys, it was ultimately decided that we would employ qualitative research interviews (Elmendorf & Luloff, 2007; Gillies et al., 2014; Diehl et al., 2017) with tree wardens, as it was believed that this approach would:
- Foster two-way communication and build rapport (Creswell, 2007)
- Facilitate the building of knowledge of urban forestry issues in Massachusetts
- Inform the creation of relevant urban forestry Extension programming opportunities.
From 2013-2016, we conducted fifty in-person interviews of active tree wardens (Harper et al. 2017) throughout Massachusetts (Fig.1). Interviews themselves typically took 15-30 mins each to complete, and they also routinely involved an extensive post-interview tour of the municipality where noteworthy urban trees, parks, and green spaces were explored. In part I of this two-part series, we commence describing the findings from these interviews.
A History of Tree Wardens
As many of us recall, tree wardens were established in the U.S. by the Massachusetts (MA) legislature in 1896 (Ricard & Dreyer, 2005), where eventually every community was mandated to employ such an individual (Rines et al., 2010). Presently, this position remains unique to the six states – Rhode Island, Connecticut, MA, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine – that comprise the New England region (Ricard & Bloniarz, 2006).
Tree wardens are most appropriately identified as local officers with the “greatest responsibility” for the preservation and stewardship of public trees in municipalities (Ricard, 2005b) of MA, and other New England states (Ricard, 2005a). According to Ricard and Dreyer (2005) the “…municipal tree warden is arguably the most important human component of a city or town’s community forestry program.” A municipality “cannot conduct an effective community forestry program without the participation, perhaps even the leadership, of a well-qualified, active tree warden.”
What We Learned…
i. The position of Tree Warden.
A majority of the 50 interviewees (n=26), reported that the position of tree warden was located in, or directly affiliated with, the ‘department of public works (DPW).’ A substantial number of interviewees (n=8) also indicated that the position of tree warden was associated with the local ‘highway department’. These themes were consistent with other literature (Ricard and Bloniarz 2006), that reported that New England tree wardens are commonly housed in DPW (44%) and highway departments (15%). Tree wardens that we interviewed often noted associating the terms ‘director’ (n=13) or ‘superintendent’ (n=11) with their position.
ii. The resources available (staff, technical equipment, etc.) to do the job.
A clear majority of the 50 interviewees (n=34) indicated access to occupational resources that facilitated the day-to-day duties of a tree warden, including ‘chipper(s)’ (n=21), a ‘tree crew’ of 2-4 individuals (n=28), and a variety of ‘trucks’ (n=22). A comparison of community sizes (pop 0-10,000, 10,001-20,000 and 20,001-30,000) revealed an increase in the number of tree wardens who identified that these resources were available, as municipal population levels increased. Not surprisingly, a direct relationship between increasing community size and available funds for urban forest management is consistent with findings of other studies (Treiman & Gartner, 2004; Rines et al., 2010; Grado et al., 2013), and may be due to a combination of factors including an increased tax base (Miller & Bates, 1978), increased awareness of the practice of urban forestry among residents (Grado et al., 2013) and the affiliated benefits of urban trees. It may also be associated with a general trend towards greater demand for public services and the level at which they are delivered to residents (Treiman & Gartner, 2005) in more populous communities.
iii. The groups (i.e. organizations, municipal departments) that Tree Wardens routinely interact with, regarding tree-related issues.
A clear majority (n=37) of tree wardens identified local organizations they worked with. These included informal ‘community organizations’ (n=19) comprised of residents like local ‘shade tree committees’ (n=13), ‘garden clubs’ (n=6), ‘conservation groups’ (n=9), or more traditional organizations like ‘municipal departments’ (n=29), including the ‘DPW’ (n=7), ‘highway department’ (n=9), ‘water department’ (n=8), ‘parks department’ (n=5), ‘planning board’ (n=8), and local (i.e., conservation; historical; cemetery; open-space) ‘commissions’ (n=13). Tree wardens in eastern MA more emphatically identified ‘community organizations’ or ‘municipal departments’ than their counterparts in the central-western portion of the state. This would align with findings from other studies since citizens in larger, more populated communities (which are more common in eastern MA) tend to be more active and organized around environmental issues like urban green spaces and trees (Treiman & Gartner, 2005), and feature a higher occurrence of advocacy groups (Rines et al., 2011).
iv. Monitoring for pests.
Nearly every tree warden interviewed indicated that ‘yes’ (n=49), they monitor by at least periodically visually inspecting urban trees for pests. This included Asian longhorned beetle (Anaplophora glabripennis Motschulsky) (n=31), emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) (n=29), hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae Annand) (n=17), winter moth (Operophtera brumata L.) (n=15), gypsy moth (Lymantra dispar L.) (n=6), Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma novo-ulmi Brasier) (n=4). Some insect pests were identified in relative equal frequency between tree wardens in eastern MA and central-western MA like Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) and emerald ash borer (EAB).
The high level of responses from the interviewees affirming that they monitor for urban forest pests was of interest, as there is a dearth of information concerning pest-related activities. According to the tree warden from the Town of Wrentham: “we used to have a full-time tree crew and a bigger budget when we were dealing with Dutch elm disease in the 1970s.”
It would seem that urban forest pest issues affected not only resources ascribed to the community tree budget, but also impacted the daily duties of municipal forestry staff, as individuals were presumably dedicated to the full-time removal of large numbers of trees that succumbed to pests like the aforementioned Dutch elm disease (DED), in at least some MA communities. Currently, ash (Fraxinus spp.) comprise 5% of the urban street tree populations in MA (Cummins et al., 2006), but with the relatively recent discovery of EAB, an abundance of biomass will likely continue to be locally generated in communities as these trees die. Hence the subject of urban forest health and its impact on tree warden activities is timely and worthy of further examination. In the next edition of Citizen Forester, we will outline what the interviewees reported about their educational and training needs.
Literature Cited
Creswell, J.W. (2007). (2nd ed.). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among 5 approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cumming, A. B., Twardus, D. B., & Smith, W. D. (2006). Maryland and Massachusetts street tree monitoring pilot projects. NA-FR-01-06. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
Diehl, N.W., Sloan, N.L., Garcia, E.P., Galindo-Gonzalez, S., Dourte, D.R., & Fraisse, C.W. (2017). Climate-related risks and management issues facing agriculture in the southeast: Interviews with Extension professionals. Journal of Extension, 55(1), Article 1FEA2. Available at: https://www.joe.org/joe/2017february/a2.php
Elmendorf, W., & Luloff, A. E. (2007). Using key informant interviews to better understand open space conservation in a developing watershed. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 32, 54–61.
Gillies, K., Skea, Z.C., & Campbell, M.K. (2014). Decision aids for randomized controlled trials: a qualitative exploration of stakeholders’ views. BMJ 4: 1-13.
Grado, S.C., Measells, M.K., & Grebner, D.L. (2013). Revisiting the status, needs and knowledge levels of Mississippi’s Governmental Entities relative to urban forestry. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 39(4): 149-156.
Harper, R.W., Bloniarz, D.V., DeStefano, S., Nicolson, C.R., 2017. Urban forest management in New England: Towards a contemporary understanding of tree wardens in MA communities. Arboricultural Journal 39(3): 1-17.
Miller, R.W., & Bates, T.R. (1978). National implications of an urban forestry survey in Wisconsin. Journal of Arboriculture 4(6): 125-127.
Ricard, R.M. (2005a). Shade trees and tree wardens: Revising the history of urban forestry. Northern Journal of Forestry 103(5): 230-233.
Ricard, R.M. (2005b). Connecticut’s tree wardens: a survey of current practices, continuing education, and voluntary certification. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 22(4): 248-253.
Ricard, R.M. & Dreyer, G.D. (2005). Greening Connecticut cities and towns: Managing public trees and community forests. University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (p. 265). Storrs, CT
Ricard, R. M., & Bloniarz, D. V. (2006). Learning preferences, job satisfaction, community interactions, and urban forestry practices of New England (USA) tree wardens. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 5, 1–15.
Rines, D.R., Kane, B., Kittredge, D.B., Ryan, H.D.P., & Butler, B. (2011). Measuring urban forestry performance and demographic associations in MA, USA. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 10(2): 113-118.
Rines, D.R., Kane, B., Ryan, H.D.P., & Kittredge, D.B. (2010). Urban forestry priorities of MA (U.S.A.) tree wardens. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9(4): 295–301.
Treiman T., & Gartner, J. (2005). What do people want from their community forests? Results of a public attitude survey in Missouri, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 31(5): 243-250.
Treiman T., & Gartner, J. (2004). Community forestry in Missouri, U.S.: attitudes and knowledge of local officials. Journal of Arboriculture 30(4): 205-213.
Rick Harper, Stephen DeStefano, Craig Nicolson, and Emily Huff, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts Amherst; Michael Davidsohn, Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachuetts Amherst