Practice Urban Forestry?

David D. Close

Can Small, Rural Communities

Practice Urban Forestry?

ABSTRACT

John W. Groninger, David D. Close, and Cem M. Basman The practice of urban forestry traditionally has been confined to large cities and their suburbs. However, trees and forests within municipalities—regardless of community size or location within a rural, urban, or suburban setting—all have the potential to provide residents with the environmental benefits and other amenities associated with urban forestry. In most cases, the management afforded metropolitan trees is far superior to that in nonmetropolitan communities. As a result, small towns are often populated by unsightly, unhealthy, and potentially dangerous trees. The biological, economic, and social forces underlying the poor condition of these forests are presented and potential remedies discussed. Keywords: community forestry; silviculture

T

he past century has seen a steady increase in the number of communities actively managing the park and street tree components of their urban forests. In some cases, tree care decisions and practices, including planting and maintenance, are carried out by municipal employees. The governing bodies of these communities often seek residents’ participation through active education and volunteer programs. Generally, comprehensive urban forestry programs are limited to large cities and their suburbs and have contributed substantially to the maintenance of healthy and attractive forests in these communities.

In contrast, smaller and less wealthy communities outside metropolitan areas rarely develop such programs (Dickerson et al. 2001). As a result, urban tree management in these settings usually has been reactive, often limited to hazard tree removal, cleanup following storms or disease outbreaks, and episodic replacement planting. Urban forestry organizations, policymakers, and would-be managers hoping to encourage proactive management in these communities have enjoyed only limited success, in part by failing to fully recognize biological, economic, and social differences between rural communities and their

metropolitan counterparts. Following are some of the essential elements of this problem that we believe must be considered if residents of small communities are to reap more of the benefits of their trees and forests. The Resource

Several characteristics of forest conditions are widely observable in smalltown urban forests. Advanced age within an even-aged stand. In many towns and neighborhoods, trees are reaching a critical stage of poor health and physical instability following decades of little or no maintenance. These large, old trees are particularly hazardous to residents and their property when wind, snow, or ice storms add additional stress. Largescale tree planting following a community-wide decimation of urban trees often results in the establishment of anAbove: Radical pruning to accommodate overhead utility lines is a widespread practice in small, rural communities throughout the United States.

January/February 2002

•

Journal of Forestry

23

The Making of a Community Resource Guide The purpose of Forestry Principles for Small Communities in Illinois was to whet the appetite of leaders of small communities who were looking for better ways to manage their natural resources. Accordingly, it was not intended to be an all-inclusive management guide, but rather to provide introductory information that could be fleshed out further by those interested in learning more about community forestry. The content is not original or new; it is simply synthesized, condensed, and repackaged from existing sources. Because a plethora of information exists on the basic tenets of urban and community forestry, we did not see the need to add anything new or different. Our intent was to present a basic introduction to proper community forestry management. The resources are presented in a simple fashion to appeal to the layperson with little or no forestry training or background. Among the highlights, • A basic introduction addresses local budgets, role of residents, and management. Information is presented on the benefits of a healthy community forest both from a social perspective and physical or environmental perspectives. • A chapter devoted to planning discusses community goals, tree boards, preservation ordinances, and construction. • Basic arboriculture is covered broadly but includes information from planting-site evaluation to postplanting tree care and pruning techniques. • Brief chapters discuss the importance of volunteer involvement and ordinance development and implementation. A large portion of the resource guide is devoted to appendices addressing • Urban and community forestry organizations. • Hiring a certified arborist. • Grant-writing tips. • Sample street tree inventory methods and sample ordinances. • List of Illinois statutes pertaining to urban trees. The guide was mailed to nearly 1,200 Illinois communities, and individual requests for the guide outside Illinois have been filled on a first-come, firstserved basis. The project was funded by the Illinois Council on Forestry Development.

24

Journal of Forestry

•


other even-aged stand, leading to yet another catastrophic loss of canopy cover when these trees become overmature in coming decades. Trees topped for overhead utilities. Installation of underground utility lines remains the exception in most small communities. Therefore, utilities often resort to topping and other radical and disfiguring crown reduction procedures to keep their lines free of interfering tree growth. Topping predisposes trees to produce poorly attached sprouts and to invasion by pathogens (Iles 1989) and is associated with health decline and safety risks as trees age (Karlovich et al. 2000). Trees topped for non–line clearance purposes. Some homeowners find trees with large-diameter boles and proportionally small and rounded crowns to be aesthetically pleasing (Fazio and Krumpe 1999; Close et al. 2001). Others believe that large trees are inherently dangerous, justifying topping for safety reasons. In neighborhoods where small lots contain large trees, conflicts among neighbors with differing views of shade cover are sometimes resolved by radical crown removal, at the peril of the tree in question. Low species diversity. Street tree populations in small communities tend to be dominated by a small number of tree species. In a composite survey of four small southern Illinois communities, the four most common tree species accounted for 46 percent of all street trees (Karlovich et al. 2000). In these same communities, 40 percent of all street trees were of the same genus (Acer). Heavy reliance on one genus and few species leaves these communities vulnerable to pathogen outbreaks. One can imagine the likely impact of an unchecked Asian long-horned beetle outbreak in such a community where pest monitoring or response programs are nonexistent. Low canopy cover. Tree decline or death will result in reduced canopy cover. Sometimes this occurs rapidly throughout a community in response to a disease outbreak or widespread overmature forest condition. Even if replanting is undertaken immediately following disturbance, restoration of canopy cover occurs slowly. Recovery is

further delayed by the absence of effective watering and fertilizing programs. As trees reach maturity, expensive branch removal may be necessary if programmed pruning and other preventive maintenance programs are not undertaken. This sets the stage for another costly municipal tree crisis once the next generation of trees becomes decadent. Constraints

The current forest condition in small rural communities is attributable to a wide range of causes. Little knowledge of tree maintenance. Much of the tree work in rural communities is carried out by untrained personnel. Trained personnel are so rare in some areas that there is little choice but to employ nonprofessionals. For example, in the southern one-third of Illinois (excluding metropolitan St. Louis), fewer than ten of the 119 arborists listed in the telephone directories claim International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certification. Lack of interest in formal training and certification because of a lack of customer demand has discouraged sanctioning bodies from providing programs in this region. Restriction of tree management to municipal employees would provide no guarantee of quality care because these are often patronage positions where skill or knowledge play little role in the selection of practitioners. Poor tree care can even become a social institution. In at least one southern Illinois town, an individual unemployed from a non-tree-care-related trade successfully solicits his tree-topping service to homeowners. In this case, poor tree care is linked to the otherwise desirable small-town value of helping a neighbor who is down on his luck. The high cost of running a municipal tree program. All tree maintenance programs have an associated fixed cost that is more difficult to bear where the population and tax base are both small. Even given these fixed costs, Illinois communities with fewer than 5,000 residents spent proportionally less per capita to maintain trees relative to expenditures for planting, compared to their larger counterparts (Green et al.

1998). Urban forestry programs are especially difficult to implement in lowincome areas largely supported by depressed agricultural and mining economies. Further, and perhaps as a consequence of fiscal limitations, municipal leaders are most focused on the built infrastructure, especially streets and sewers. Trees generally are not afforded the same attention or budgetary priority. Consequently, tree management is relegated to utility line clearance crews or untrained personnel in the Department of Public Works and generally consists of removing trees that have already failed or that pose an immediate hazard. Lack of a tree inventory. Conducting even a rudimentary street tree inventory to identify hazardous trees is difficult in the absence of a tree program. Some communities view this lack of information as a protection from liability when resources are inadequate to address tree hazards discovered through an inventory. Other communities have realized that the costs of an inventory and subsequent maintenance are less than the potential costs of a lawsuit. A comprehensive inventory including prehazardous conditions also provides the opportunity to achieve long-term cost savings through preventive maintenance. Low levels of participation in current programs. State and federal urban forestry programs have been developed specifically to help smaller municipalities achieve some of the urban forest improvements found in larger communities. However, participation rates among small communities differ profoundly among metropolitan and rural areas. In Illinois, community participation in grant programs has been largely restricted to metropolitan Chicago. This relative lack of interest may be attributed to unfamiliarity with funding programs and an insufficient workforce to respond to and administer these programs. Often a distaste for and distrust of government can preclude improvement of the resource even when otherwise successful state programs are in place. The net result is that residents of nonparticipating communities not only forego opportunities to improve their physical environment but also

subsidize the forestry programs in those communities that do participate. Unclear division of rights and responsibilities. Poor definition of authority among homeowners, the municipality, and the utility companies can lead to neglected physical resources and lots of lawsuits. Many small communities lack a tree protection ordinance, leaving street trees subject to crown removal by utilities in the interest of line clearance. Other communities with overhead lines have enacted ordinances preventing this damage, inadvertently increasing maintenance costs and utility rates. Expensive legal battles have also resulted when utility companies contest the authority of these new ordinances over existing utility rights-of-way. An analysis of tree ordinances from the small number of Illinois rural communities that have them suggests that most homeowners wish to retain control over trees on their property. In contrast, residents of wealthier and more metropolitan communities tend to transfer these rights to the local governing body (Dickerson et al. 2001). Communities where these rights have been transferred generally have a healthier urban forest. However, strong municipal control is not compatible with the economic and social environment of most rural communities. Strategies for Improvement

We are now left with the question, Can small community urban forests be improved under severe budgetary constraints and in a manner that recognizes property owner rights? This is also a theme familiar to foresters concerned with nonindustrial private forests. There are several possible strategies to address this goal. Promote the role of urban forestry as a way to improve community economic standing. This approach appears to have some potential in those communities supported by depressed or declining industries. Eighty percent of community leaders surveyed in Illinois agreed that proper tree management could increase the attractiveness of local businesses to customers (Green et al. 1998). However, there was disagreement among this group as to who should bear the cost for treeplanting


•

Journal of Forestry

25

Internet Resources for Urban Forestry Alliance for Community Trees www.actrees.org/old_site American Forests www.amfor.org American Society of Consulting Arborists www.asca-consultants.org Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances http://phytosphere.com/treeord/Ordintro.htm International Society of Arboriculture www2.champaign.isa-arbor.com/welcome.html National Arbor Day Foundation www.arborday.org National Tree Trust www.nationaltreetrust.org/home.htm National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council www.treelink.org/nucfac/index.htm Northeast Center for Urban and Community Forestry www.umass.edu/urbantree Society of American Foresters: Urban and Community Forestry Working Group www.safnet.org/science/b2.htm TreeLink www.treelink.org Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute http://urbanfor.cagr.calpoly.edu USDA Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/ucf_general.htm

and maintenance. Grant programs facilitating rural economic development and promoting tourism have resulted in treeplanting for community beautification while ignoring the need for long-term maintenance. This oversight may exacerbate budgetary problems as neglected trees develop expensive maintenance needs in the decades to come. The formation of groups to promote regional economic development may help facilitate sharing of urban forestry resources among communities otherwise unable to support their own programs. Areas of cooperation could include coordinating training programs or jointly hiring urban foresters. Industries benefiting from well-maintained urban forests, including utility and insurance companies, could more easily implement safety and promotional activities by working with 26

Journal of Forestry

•

groups of communities rather than on an individual basis. Regional organizations also permit the coordination of workshops to train municipal personnel involved in tree work. Programs on risk tree management, pruning techniques, and chainsaw safety and maintenance have proven popular among this constituency throughout Illinois. Provide information to municipal leaders and homeowners. An urban forestry primer was developed to help municipal leaders in small Illinois communities implement rudimentary urban forestry programs (see “The Making of a Community Resource Guide,” p. 24). Emphasis was placed on low- or no-cost solutions that would be in harmony with small town resources and social values. Additional useful information is available via the Internet (see “Internet Resources for Urban Forestry”). Particularly note-


worthy are guidelines to help communities develop tree ordinances and the announcement of funding programs. The Internet also provides an excellent avenue of communication, allowing isolated communities to learn from one another regarding urban forestry successes and failures. Encourage volunteer action. While volunteers may be a helpful addition to established urban forestry programs (Westphal and Childs 1994), they are essential to the success of similar programs in small rural communities. Whatever the project, a sense of ownership among volunteers and the engagement of at least one die-hard advocate are critical for successful large-scale efforts. Research in Iowa concluded that the success of volunteer programs depended on outside funding and was likely enhanced by a coordinating group such as Trees Forever (Vitosh and Thompson 2000). Our experience in southern Illinois suggests that specific projects should be developed, or at least conceived, before approaching volunteers. Potential urban forestry advocates typically look for a tangible cause before endorsing an activity or volunteering time. For this reason, urban forestry outreach efforts may require a larger leadership component than is typically encountered in the traditional forestry context where the focus is on individual landowners. Care must be taken to ensure that the actions of program leaders and volunteers are in harmony with the wishes of nonvolunteer homeowners. For example, well-meaning efforts to increase community canopy cover may conflict with aesthetic preferences of residents (Fraser and Kenney 2000). Volunteers have been effective in conducting street tree and park tree inventories (Bloniarz and Ryan 1996; Karlovich et al. 2000). Our experience in southern Illinois using undergraduate foresters has proved valuable to the communities and students alike (Groninger 1998). College students are a nearly untapped resource in this arena, considering that many colleges emphasize service learning in their curriculum. Students working toward degrees in forestry or related fields would undoubtedly welcome the opportunity

to participate in such an endeavor. Tree maintenance also remains an area where volunteers are underutilized. Certain maintenance problems, such as the removal of large branches or felling dead trees, should be left to professionals. However, groups such as Master Gardeners could be taught to identify and remove potentially problematic branches when they can still be managed with a handsaw or pole pruner and thereby reduce the need for longterm expenses. Shifting the emphasis of volunteer and other programs toward pruning and other forms of early care could help combat the age-old problem of planting more trees than can be maintained (Dwyer and Schroeder 1994). Failure to do so may result in funding problems in decades to come when expensive maintenance needs emerge. Public policies that would channel disaster relief funding toward preventive maintenance could benefit these communities and soften the burden to taxpayers when natural disasters occur. The utility and insurance industries, both of whom would benefit from improved tree care, could provide aid by lobbying for such legislation. Address non–line clearance tree topping. Public information programs are the only viable way to bring about change on private land in the unregulated small-town environment. So far, the crusade against topping launched by organizations such as National Arbor Day Foundation, Plant Amnesty, and state cooperative extension services appear to have had little impact in many small communities, perhaps because they failed to address the homeowners’ reasons for topping. We have proposed a series of studies to understand the beliefs that drive the motivations and attitudes of homeowners who top their trees so that more compelling arguments against this practice may be conveyed through public information and education materials. A preliminary survey conducted in small southern Illinois communities found that homeowners who top their trees for purely aesthetic purposes did not recognize the negative impact of this practice on tree health (Close et al. 2001). Once effective materials are developed, the appropriate audience must

be contacted. A possible target group for antitopping information may be first-time homeowners whose views toward tree maintenance are not yet solidified. Avenues of communication to this group might include real estate agencies, Welcome Wagon, builders associations, and manufactured home dealerships. Although the widespread presence of poorly maintained trees suggests that past education programs have had little impact, the groundwork for improved tree condition may be in place. The slow rate of visible change is very common in many aspects of rural community life and must be taken into account before assessing the success or failure of any program. Our personal experiences lead us to believe that once changes are implemented by a few families, neighbors may eventually adopt these practices, taking the wait-and-see approach that often precedes meaningful change in nonmetropolitan areas. Of course, individual efforts may also be hampered when they are met by uninterested or hostile neighbors. This presents a particularly challenging and potentially hopeless situation in the absence of ordinances, especially where lots are small and trees are large. Role of Foresters

Professional foresters are particularly well-suited to the task of improving the condition of small community forests, given the range of disciplines in our professional training (Miller 1994). Indeed, many have accepted this challenge. More than half of the leaders of small communities surveyed in Illinois indicated an interest in receiving assistance in developing a tree program (Green et al. 1998). Foresters accustomed to bridging the divide between private landowners and public programs may be especially effective in helping these communities adopt an economically feasible and socially acceptable brand of urban forestry. Leaders of small communities often welcome assistance with grant applications (Green et al. 1998), a task for which many foresters are well-qualified. As rural professionals accustomed to serving individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives, for-

esters could act as emissaries for the entire profession in communities where forest land-use conflicts are an important concern. Working in small community forestry can help foresters foster understanding for our profession among town dwellers who embrace urban tree management but may not fully appreciate the value of rural forestry (Vaux 1980). In addition, by understanding the nature of natural resources conflicts, foresters can help catalyze understanding between long-time residents and urban transplants with conflicting views on managing community resources. Consulting foresters may also find community forestry work an opportunity to make professional contacts and gain favorable media exposure (Sievert 1983). We contend that the urban forest resource of even the smallest rural municipalities can be improved, but generally not through the conventional urban forestry model where management is conducted by the municipal governing body. Rather, these communities appear to have more in common with the less-regulated rural forest than with their metropolitan counterparts. In small communities, an improved urban forest will more often depend on residents’ willingness to improve their own property or volunteer their knowledge and labor to others. Individuals or programs hoping to promote urban forestry in small communities must recognize the importance of respecting the rights of home and property owners and the importance of helping these individuals make informed choices. So far, small, rural community forestry has received little attention from either traditional urban or rural forestry. As these subdisciplines of our profession converge in their mission, the role played by foresters in small rural communities could prove valuable in a much broader forest resources management context. Literature Cited BLONIARZ, D., and H.D. RYAN. 1996. The use of volunteer initiatives in conducting urban forest resource inventories. Journal of Arboriculture 22:75–83. CLOSE, D.D., J.W. GRONINGER, J.C. MANGUN, and P.L. ROTH. 2001. Homeowners’ opinions on the practice and effects of topping trees. Journal of Arboriculture 27:160–65. DICKERSON, S.D., J.W. GRONINGER, and J.C. MANGUN.


•

Journal of Forestry

27

2001. Impact of community demographics on municipal tree ordinances. Journal of Arboriculture 27:318–25. DWYER, J.F., and H.W. SCHROEDER. 1994. The human dimension of urban forestry. Journal of Forestry 92(10):12–18. FAZIO, J.R., and E.E. KRUMPE. 1999. Underlying beliefs and attitudes about topping trees. Journal of Arboriculture 25:193–99. FRASER, E.D.G., and W.A. KENNEY. 2000. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 26:106–13. GREEN, T.L., T.J. HOWE, and H.W. SCHROEDER. 1998. Illinois small community tree programs: Attitudes, status, and needs. Final Report of the Illinois Small Community Tree Program Survey. Macomb: Western Illinois University. GRONINGER, J.W. 1998. Urban forestry education at Southern Illinois University–Carbondale. In Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters National Convention, 161–64. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters. ILES, J. 1989. The case against tree topping. Grounds Maintenance 24(6):51, 74. KARLOVICH, D.A., J.W. GRONINGER, and D.D. CLOSE. 2000. Tree condition associated with topping in southern Illinois communities. Journal of Arboriculture 26:87–91. MILLER, R.W. 1994. Urban forestry education: Traditions and possibilities. Journal of Forestry 92(10): 26–27. SIEVERT, R.C. 1983. Promoting urban forestry: Ohio used nine ways to start a chain reaction of publicity. Journal of Forestry 81:780–82 VAUX, H.J. 1980. Urban forestry: Bridge to the profession’s future. Journal of Forestry 78:260–62. VITOSH, M.A., and J.R. THOMPSON. 2000. Iowa communities benefit from an externally funded tree-planting program. Journal of Arboriculture 26:114–19. WESTPHALL, L., and G. CHILDS. 1994. Overcoming obstacles: Creating volunteer partnerships. Journal of Forestry 92(10):28–32.

John W. Groninger ([email protected]) is assistant professor, David D. Close is community forestry coordinator, and Cem M. Basman is assistant professor, Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901.

28

Journal of Forestry

•
