In part I of this article, the authors introduced the exploration of volunteer urban tree committees in Massachusetts, discussing their operational characteristics. Here they continue with the final segment – a discussion about the community and organizational relationships closely associated with these committees.
3. Community Relationships
Tree committee representatives reported that they often interacted with a variety of important and successful collaborators including the municipal ‘DPW’ (n=6), and ‘town committees, commissions’ (n=6) and a variety of NGO’s (n=8), (i.e., ‘garden clubs’ and ‘environmental groups’).
Overall, the interview data revealed that nearly all of the urban tree committees identified ‘unsuccessful collaborators’ (n=12), however, clear specifics were less emergent.
Evaluation of urban tree committee programs generated some interesting responses from interviewees, and while a clear theme emerged relative to the fact that ‘no’ (n=6) members often did not perform a formal program evaluation, ‘informal’ (n=9) discussion-based evaluation of committee-based initiatives did occur:
“…there’s no formal means of evaluating. I mean, because we meet every month, within the committee we evaluate projects as they’re going and certainly feedback from the tree warden and the director of the DPW. I would say there’s certainly not a lack of resident feedback when we…do something…not formal but a monthly check-in, certainly.” (Arlington Tree Committee)
The manners in which urban tree committees carried out public interaction included ‘in-person interaction’ (n=7) (i.e., at a table or booth), or through ‘print media’ (n=6) or ‘electronic, social media’ (n=11). They also indicated that they felt there was an ongoing ‘need for volunteers’ (n=4) and that they attempted to ‘foster camaraderie & interest’ (n=5) to maintain the volunteers they have.
In describing the relationship with the community tree warden, urban tree committees reported that they generally had a ‘positive relationship’ (n=7) and that there was ‘regular communication’ (n=6) between the two parties.
“…if any of us have a question, we either email or call him [the tree warden] and he’s incredibly responsive and always able to give us an update…” (Brookline Tree Planting Committee)
“We love him. He’s awesome. Engineer from – spent ten years in Cambridge…good guidance there. He has a great attitude…so the relationship has been super positive from day one.” (Newburyport Tree Committee)
“I recruited a fellow – another landscaper to become tree warden whom I worked with previously, so he’s now in that position. So, we have a good relationship and we discuss all aspects and all work.” (Marion Tree Committee)
Three other committee’s indicated they had ‘limited interaction’ with their local tree warden and that they were “uncertain” as to the state of their relationship. Interviewees typically described the relationship between themselves and community decision makers as being ‘positive’ (n=10). A prominent number (n=8) of urban forest tree committees reported ‘yes’ they were actively involved in policy development relating to ‘local tree by-laws’ and ‘local tree ordinances’.
Observations
That there were a variety of important and successful collaborators identified by interviewees was not a surprise; what was interesting though, was that responses were less specific regarding unsuccessful collaborators. According to the Lanesborough tree & forest committee, the fact that a volunteer urban forest tree committee plays a very specific role in the community may simply decrease the chances of an unsuccessful collaboration:
“You know, I guess our span of interest is narrow enough that I don’t know that I would say there were any unsuccessful collaborations. I’m not trying to say we do everything right. I guess I’m trying to say we haven’t pushed the envelope too far.”
It is also possible that interviewees consider the divulgence of an unsuccessful collaboration somewhat sensitive, and individuals generally may not be as forthcoming with this sort of information in a research environment (Cartwright, 1988).
The fact that so many (n=11) urban forest tree committees indicated they employed some form of ‘electronic, social media’ to interact with the public was of interest. Upon further exploration of this theme, however, a prominent number of interviewees indicated this method is through ‘Facebook’, and nearly all sources indicated this form of interaction is through a website typically housed by the municipality. In fact, some individuals highlighted the need to engage their community by increasing their urban forest tree committee’s capacity in the realm of social media:
“…we’re working – starting to work with social media. We have a Facebook page and a website. And we have a new woman who just joined the committee who is younger and much more cognizant of social media than I am and she’s going to take that sort of thing on…” (Amherst Public Shade Tree Committee)
“We don’t do a website because we don’t have anyone young enough right now to be that savvy. And I am not a web person. That’d be a good reminder that the world does not travel on paper anymore. It travels on websites and Facebook ‘likes’ and we have to figure out how to do that (Lanesborough Tree & Forest Committee)
The fact that the ongoing ‘need for volunteers’ (n=4) was an emergent theme may be concerning for individuals who find themselves on the front lines of volunteering in any sector, including on urban forest tree committees. Across the U.S. and in other developed nations, membership in civic organizations and volunteerism in specific sectors, as well as generally, appears to be on a downward trajectory (Putnam, 1996; Green and Haines, 2016). Just as volunteerism itself has positive ramifications that extend beyond the individual and impact the economy and viability of organizations, a shrinking volunteer base may impact – and be indicative of – a range of segments of society from graduation rates, to participation in the democratic process (Green and Haines, 2016).
Most committees enthusiastically indicated that they had a positive relationship (n=7) their local tree warden, yet not all committees (n=3) felt this way. Though details about the workings of this relationship are largely absent from the research literature, according to Harper et al. (2017), the nature of the position of a successful tree warden requires effective communication and interaction with a wide number of groups, including urban forest tree committees. Though Fazio (2015) does not mention tree wardens by name, he does posit that tree boards must work closely with city foresters. For an effective urban forest tree committee, it is critical that this same sentiment of cooperation and partnership can be readily extended to other audiences and important stakeholders including local officials, agencies and organizations.
Conclusions
Volunteer involvement in urban forestry, including service on an urban forest tree committee, may help to provide essential experience, new ideas and perspectives and offer critical skills towards the furtherance of urban tree management at the local level (Westphal and Childs, 1994). Volunteers may also enable access to new audiences and advocates through networks and contacts (Nichnadowicz, 2000). Urban foresters routinely identify a lack of available resources (i.e., funding) as a key limiting factor (Stobbart and Johnston, 2012) in their urban forest management program, hence the potentially-reduced costs associated with garnering volunteer-based support to aid or carry out initiatives, may also be another welcomed benefit in relation to volunteer involvement in urban forestry (Bloniarz and Ryan, 1996; M. Welch, pers. comm.). Though typically not paid, volunteers and volunteer-based initiatives do require investment, however, including in equipment, training, and care (i.e., food and water, first aid and safety equipment) (Fazio, 2015). Volunteer-related expenditures might also include small-scale celebrations after a significant task is carried out (i.e., a larger-scale urban tree planting or urban tree inventory), like an appreciation dinner. This may bolster morale, and if volunteers know they are valued and feel their efforts are acknowledged, they can connect more fully with the organization and each other, resulting in an increased sense of belonging and involvement (Moran and Mallia, 2015). This can act as a positive “loop” since increased involvement can motivate volunteers to continue their relationship and deepen their service commitment with the association (Lammers, 1991; Moran & Mallia, 2015). Another means of strengthening the effectiveness of urban forest tree committees could be to provide members with formal program evaluation materials and training so that program delivery may continually be improved and strengthened.
Urban forest tree committee volunteers in Massachusetts are typically passionate, committed individuals who love trees and wish to see this important urban resource managed with care and stewardship in mind. Lipkis and Lipkis (1990) summarize these sentiments in stating,
“Tree planting…fosters community spirit and pride, bringing people together for a meaningful purpose that can build the bridges and promote the understanding that brings the neighborhood together. The initial efforts of the tree planters compound themselves as others find in the trees a deeper appreciation of the community as well as natural beauty.” (p. viii)
To ensure viability in this sector of volunteerism, committee members could be equipped with resources related to the use of social media as well as strategies to engage and broaden the base of individuals potentially willing to serve on their urban forest tree committee. Successful volunteers serving on an urban forest tree committee would benefit from having the ability to work constructively and cooperatively with a wide number of stakeholders, decision makers and audience members, with special attention being given to the community tree warden. Since this individual is pivotal to the urban forest operations in a given municipality (Harper et al., 2017), urban forest tree committee members in Massachusetts – and other states with this position – can make a concerted, sustained effort to foster a cooperative, productive relationship with their tree warden. Also, since many urban forest tree committees are actively involved in local policy formation (i.e., tree ordinances, by-laws), research could further explore the need and efficacy of legal training for committee volunteers. These, and other important topics, are worthy of continued examination as we strive to better understand the nature of volunteer-led urban forest tree committees.
Literature Cited
Bloniarz, D.V., Ryan, H.D.P., 1996. The use of volunteer initiatives in conducting urban forest resource inventories. Jour. Arboricult. 22, 75-82.
Cartwright, A. 1988. Interview or postal questionnaires? Comparisons of data about women’s experiences with maternity services. The Milbank Quart. 66, 172-189.
Fazio, J.R., 2015. Tree board handbook. Arbor Day Foundation. Lincoln, NE.
Green G.P., Haines, A., 2016. Asset building and community development, 4th ed., Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
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 Massachusetts communities, Arboricult. Jour. 39, 1-17.
Harper, R.W., Bloniarz, D.V., DeStefano, S., Nicolson, C.R., 2018. Exploring the characteristics of successful volunteer-led urban forest tree committees in Massachusetts. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34: 311-317.
Harrison, V.S., Xiao, A., Ott, H.K., Bortree, D., 2017. Calling all volunteers: The role of stewardship and involvement in volunteer-organization relationships. Public Rel. Rev. 43, 872-881.
Johnston, M., 2015. Trees in towns and cities: A history of British urban arboriculture. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Lammers, J.C., 1991. Attitudes, motives and demographic predictors of volunteer commitment and service duration. Journal of Social Service Research, 14, 125- 140.
Lipkis, A., Lipkis, K., 1990. The simple act of planting a tree: A citizen foresters guide to healing your neighbourhood, your city, and your world. Tree People, Los Angeles, CA. 236 pp.
Moran, K., Mallia, T., 2015. Wholly engaged: Integrating volunteer and donor programs. In R. J. Rosenthal (Ed.), Volunteer engagement 2.0: Ideas and insights changing the world. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Nichnadowicz, J., 2000. Community involvement in urban forestry programs. In J.E. Kuser (Ed.), Handbook of urban and community forestry in the Northeast. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Putnam, R., 1996. The strange disappearance of civic America. Policy: A Jour. of Public Policy and Ideas. 12, 3-15.
Stobbart, M., Johnston, M., 2012. A survey of urban tree management in New Zealand. Arboricult. Urban For. 38, 247 – 254.
Westphal L.M., Childs G., 1994. Overcoming obstacles creating volunteer partnerships. J. Arboricult. 92, 28-32.
Acknowledgments
We thank the following individuals and organizations: M. Davidsohn, UMass Dept. of Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning; UMass Dept. of Environmental Conservation; and the UMass Center for Agriculture, Food & Environment. This initiative was funded in part by the USDA Forest Service through the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Urban & Community Forestry Program. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Richard W. Harper, Extension Associate Professor of Urban & Community Forestry, UMass Amherst; Emily S. Huff, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Human Dimensions in Natural Resources, Michigan State University; David V. Bloniarz, Ph.D., Director USDA Forest Service Urban Natural Resources Institute; Stephen DeStefano, Director of the Mass. Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit – U.S. Geological Survey; and Craig R. Nicolson, Ph.D., Lecturer of Sustainability Science, UMass Amherst
