Assessing social dynamics to predict performance for municipal urban forestry programs

Walter Passmore, Urban ForesterA major paper submitted to the faculty ofCalifornia State University, Dominguez Hillsin partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration

Abstract• Urban Forestry Programs measure and manage trees, yet lack social measures• Qualitative research resulted in developing four themes for exploration,

equity, culture, leadership, and investment• Caution on application is that each community is unique (people/social

interactions are complex)

Measures of success?• Common (resource), reported, award/accreditation qualifications, grant

requirements (strings attached)

• Social measures currently used (volunteerism, funding, or event participation) may not be predictive, motivational, or aligned with goals

Social determinants• Private property

owner’s values influence choices

• Social dynamics factors may enhance or detract from effectiveness of an urban forestry program, but can they be managed?

Literature Review• Limited peer reviewed research findings• Existing research clearly identifies gaps in knowledge and

measures (especially related to social equity)• Equitable distribution or access to resources or services is

unlikely to happen by chance, therefore leadership is theorized to play a pivotal role.

• Culture, the underlying fabric of community motivations, is likewise influential

• Values are often expressed through investment (financial, resources, time and effort)

Methodology• Purposive sampling• Initial interviews with urban forestry experts to establish

themes• Survey of urban forestry constituents across California via an

electronic instrument• Mixed methods quantitative and qualitative analysis

Findings• Many respondents possessed only a cursory

understanding of urban forestry and therefore do not have well formed opinions.

• Key constituents’ demographics were not similar to the population of California or Palo Alto

• Transformational leaders are sometimes present in municipal urban forestry programs, but may not be ideally positioned or empowered

• Within cultural factors a tradition of tree care was the most influential factor (more so than cultural heritage)

• Funding is (very) important

Conclusions• Social measures do affect performance in urban forestry

programs• More research is needed• Recognize social dynamics are important, assess, predict,

measure, and then reevaluate• Customize a process unique to your community needs and

constituents

Resources• Tree City USA Growth Award• Society of Municipal Arborists Accreditation Program• The Sustainable Urban Forest, A Step-by-Step Guide for Urban

Forest Managers• National Citizen Survey• Urban Sustainability Directors Network• International City/County Management Association

References• American Forests (2012). Urban Forests Case Studies, Challenges, Potential and Success in a Dozen Cities. Retrieved from http://www.americanforests.org/our-programs/urbanforests/urban-forests-case-studies/ • Arbor Day Foundation (n.d.). What is Tree City USA? Retrieved from http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/about.cfm • Bui, Y. N. (2014). How to write a master's thesis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). (2014). urban and community forestry grants procedural guide. Retrieved from

http://www.fire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/downloads/CALFIRE_UFGrants_ProceduralGuide2014_2015.pdf • California ReLeaf. (2013). Meeting the need, urban forestry investment opportunities through cap and trade. Retrieved from http://www.californiareleaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Cap-Trade-Investment-Piece-web.pdf • California Urban Forests Council. (2015). California Urban Forests Council - California Certified Urban Forester Program. Retrieved from http://www.caufc.org/California%20Certified%20Urban%20Forester%20Program • City Policy Associates. (2008). Protecting and developing the urban tree canopy: a 135-city survey. Retrieved from United States Conference of Mayors website: http://usmayors.org/trees/treefinalreport2008.pdf • Conway, T. M., Shakeel, T., & Atallah, J. (2011). Community groups and urban forestry activity: Drivers of uneven canopy cover? Landscape and Urban Planning, (101), 321-329. Retrieved from

http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.torofind.csudh.edu/science/article/pii/S0169204611001034 • Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., & Aristigueta, M. P. (2009). Managing human behavior in public and nonprofit organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.• Dwyer, J. F., Nowak, D. J., & Noble, M. H. (2003). Sustaining urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(1), 49-55. Retrieved from http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=69&Type=2 • Elmendorf, W. F., Cotrone, V. J., & Mullen, J. T. (2003). Trends in urban forestry practices, programs, and sustainability: contrasting a Pennsylvania, U.S., study. Journal of Arboriculture,29(4), 237-248. Retrieved from

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=100&Type=2 • Freilicher, M. (2010). Evaluating Federal Urban Forestry Performance Measures in Massachusetts (USA) (1896). Retrieved from University of Massachusetts - Amherst (Masters Thesis) website:

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?• Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 • Khademian, A. M. (2002). Working with culture: How the job gets done in public programs. Washington, DC: CQ Press.• Kuo, F. E. (2003). The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(3), 148-155. Retrieved from http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=88&volume=29&issue=3&Type=1 • Lohr, V. I., Pearson-Mims, C. H., Tarnai, J., & Dillman, D. A. (2004). How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture, 30(1), 28-35. Retrieved from

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=122&Type=2 • Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.• Mincey, S. K., Hutten, M., Fischer, B. C., Evans, T. P., Stewart, S. I., & Vogt, J. M. (2013). Structuring institutional analysis for urban ecosystems: A key to sustainable urban forest management. Urban Ecosyst, (16), 553-571. Retrieved from

http://0-search.proquest.com.torofind.csudh.edu/docview/1419026917?pq-origsite=summon • National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (2006). Ten Year Action Plan 2006-2016. Retrieved from http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/ttresources/ten-year-action-plan-2006-2016/at_download/file/ • Nowak, D. J., Stein, S. M., Randler, P. B., Greenfield, E. J., Comas, S. J., Carr, M. A., & Alig, R. J. (2010). Sustaining America's urban trees and forests (NRS-62). Retrieved from United States Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research

Station website: http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/fote/reports/nrs-62_sustaining_americas_urban.pdf • Passmore, W. (2015). Social dynamics in urban forestry survey. Retrieved from https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CDV7K5F • Society of Municipal Arborists | SMA Accreditation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.urban-forestry.com/sma-accreditation • Society of Municipal Arborists. (n.d.). Society of Municipal Arborists | MFI 2015. Retrieved from http://www.urban-forestry.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69 • Svarra, J. H., Watt, T., & Takai, K. (2014). Local Governments, Social Equity, and Sustainable Communities: Advancing Social Equity Goals to Achieve Sustainability. Retrieved from International City/County Management Association and Arizona

State University website: file:///C:/Users/Sunny/Downloads/FINAL%20REPORT%20Advancing%20Social%20Equity.pdf • USDA Forest Service. (n.d.). i-Tree - Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forests. Retrieved from http://www.itreetools.org/ • USDA Forest Service., & The Davey Institute. (2015). The Sustainable Urban Forest, a step-by-step approach (draft).• Vogt, J. M., & Fischer, B. C. (2012). Exploring the relationship between the urban forestry and community sustainability programs of Tree City USA municipalities in Indiana. Retrieved from School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana

University, Bloomington website: http://www.indiana.edu/~cipec/research/bufrg_p07_Tree%20City%20and%20Comm%20Sust_final%20white%20paper.pdf

Constructing a frameworkCategory Indicator Title Metric Goal ExampleEquity Participation opportunities % of respondents who agree there are accessible

venues for diverse audiences to participate in a meaningful way

85% agree or strongly agree with the participation statement listed in the National Citizen Survey

Environmental services access People have equal access to the benefits of the urban forest regardless of where they live, shop, work, attend school, their income, culture, or other factors

Accomplish all of the following: 90% agree or strongly agree that tree canopy and urban forestry services are close to equally distributed throughout the city. Ecosystem services analysis such as those conducted using i-Tree models show equal provision of benefits within 10% of the calculated mean for the city. The city has a goal for no net loss of canopy.

Leadership Effective leadership The city designee who manages the urban forest is technically qualified, employs transformational leadership skills, and possesses appropriate formal authority

Accomplish all of the following:75% agree or strongly agree that the leader possesses transformational leadership skills. The leader meets or exceeds job description and applicable certifications. The leader is positioned at a senior management or executive level and collaborates effectively between departments. Formal authority is granted through ordinances and policies. Ordinances and policies are utilized and enforced.

Effective collaboration The city designee(s) and non-profit(s) cooperatively advance urban forestry initiatives

75% agree or strongly agree that the relationship between the city and non-profit groups is ideal. Decision-making groups such as boards and commissions have representatives from municipal, non-profit groups, businesses, and residents

Culture Adaptive management Activities and events are conducted Strategic plans are reviewed and revised on a recurring schedule with periodic updates to proactively prepare for issues such as climate change or natural disasters. Urban forestry plans are linked to other plans such as the comprehensive plan for the city, parks master plan, and the climate action plan

Communication, education, and outreach

Comprehensive communication structure Accomplish all of the following:A tree board or commission is required by city ordinance, empowered to directly communicate to elected and executive officials, and meets at least quarterly. Education and outreach is provided through partnerships. Annual reports are available and publicized.

Active networking Hub groups/organizations are appropriately connected to each other and outside resource entities

The use of Stew-MAP or similar group networking system documents active connections between community groups, the city, schools, and outside entities (number of hubs and connectors to be established)

Investment Funding Funding ratios Dedicated urban forestry budget equal to 0.25-1.00% of the general fund budget for the municipality, plus leveraged contributions or a budget for urban forestry non-profit(s) equal to 0.05-0.25% of the general fund budget for the municipality

Time/effort Time investment ratios Volunteer hours equal or exceed 1 hour annually per 100 residents. Collaborative events or projects occur at a rate equal or exceeding 1 annually per neighborhood.

Notes: 1. Respondent opinions can be garnered through survey instruments such as the National Citizen Survey, custom designed surveys, interviews, voting during focus group meetings or board meetings, or other accessible and open forums2. Annual reporting is recommended to track progress toward strategic goals and maintain awareness for all interested parties3. Currently employed performance measurement systems can be amended with additional metrics, even if these additions are separately recorded and reported4. A third party accountability system is recommended such as performance auditing conducted by urban forest industry experts (for example state employees audit municipal operations)

Thank you• Questions?