Assessing Social Dynamics to Predict Performance for Municipal Urban Forestry Programs
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
2 gostaram•659 visualizações
Walter Passmore
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a Assessing Social Dynamics to Predict Performance for Municipal Urban Forestry Programs
Semelhante a Assessing Social Dynamics to Predict Performance for Municipal Urban Forestry Programs (20)
Mais de Arbor Day Foundation
Mais de Arbor Day Foundation (20)
Último
Último (20)
Assessing Social Dynamics to Predict Performance for Municipal Urban Forestry Programs
- 1. Assessing socialdynamicsto predictperformancefor municipalurbanforestryprograms Walter Passmore, Urban Forester A major paper submitted to the faculty of California State University, Dominguez Hills in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration
- 2. 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)
- 3. 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
- 4. 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?
- 5. 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)
- 6. 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
- 7. 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
- 8. 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
- 9. 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
- 10. 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
- 11. Constructing a frameworkCategory Indicator Title Metric Goal Example Equity 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 forums 2. Annual reporting is recommended to track progress toward strategic goals and maintain awareness for all interested parties 3. Currently employed performance measurement systems can be amended with additional metrics, even if these additions are separately recorded and reported 4. A third party accountability system is recommended such as performance auditing conducted by urban forest industry experts (for example state employees audit municipal operations)
Notas do Editor
- Municipal urban forestry programs are developing or expanding as more people move to cities across the United States. Gauging success in the past has largely been reliant upon easily observable measures such as the number of trees pruned or planted; however potential benefits to people such as human health, neighbor interactions, and overall quality of life may be neglected. The problem is that urban forestry performance measurement systems lack social measures. The purpose of this capstone project was to explore what significant social influences predict municipal urban forestry program performance and how can each be developed. This study expands on previous qualitative research in which six leaders in the urban forestry profession were interviewed resulting in the development of four themes for exploration, equity, culture, leadership, and investment (an expression for values). This paper utilized the research study approach to evaluate the problem, discuss related literature, collect data through an electronic survey, present findings, and recommend potential solutions to better assess and motivate urban forestry program performance.
- Inventory systems linked with ecosystem benefits models are capable of predicting outputs for the tree resource, but assessing management effectiveness is subjective partially because urban forestry performance measurement systems lack social measures. In fact the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) stated in their ten year action plan that one challenge to achieving the plan’s goals was that no concise, consistent, and relevant system has been developed to document accomplishments (NUCFAC, 2006, p. 9). Likewise, Mincey et al. stated that a formal structure for institutional analysis has not been developed for urban ecosystem research (Mincey, et al., 2013, p. 554). We all know of urban forestry programs in large or affluent cities that have the capacity but may not be thriving, as well as some that succeed despite monumental challenges. The Community Accomplishment Reporting System (CARS) collects four measures that pertain to management including whether communities have a management plan, professional staff, tree ordinance(s), and an advocacy group from more than 7,000 communities nationwide (Nowak et al., 2010, p. 14). The CARS report has been shown to be poorly related to commonly accepted natural resources measures of condition/function such as net gain or loss of street trees, species diversity, and other performance measures of the trees such as cost-benefit ratio (Freilicher, 2010). Themes of equity, leadership, culture, and investment (an expression of values) were used to frame inquiry from participants in urban forestry programs across California. Similar themes, under the heading of community framework, have emerged in the proposed revision to the Tree City USA growth award program intended to motivate attainment of status as a sustainable community. Additionally these themes resonate in the publication The Sustainable Urban Forest, a step-by-step approach (US Forest Service and Davey Institute, 2015)
- The primary research question to be answered in this study was what significant social influences predict municipal urban forestry program performance and how can each be developed? Private property typically accounts for a vast majority (75% or more) of the land ownership within a municipality; therefore changes in management of private parcels or attitudes of private owners may dictate success or failure of an urban forestry program. Social dynamics factors such as perception, knowledge, history/artifacts, engagement, or attitudes may enhance or detract from effectiveness of an urban forestry program, but can they be managed? Accurate assessment of social influences is reliant on disclosure of information from diverse people groups, therefore respondents who choose to participate may not be representative of the population. Limitations also exist with the discovery methods of surveys or interviews which may not appeal to certain people. Time constraints prevent collecting a representative sample with experimental design. Recognizing limitations will guide the use of findings and recommendations as well as potentially spark future research. Lastly the complex and unique interaction between social, economic, and environmental conditions may vary substantially between cities which could inhibit the generalizability of findings beyond the study population. In summary, your city is unique so your approach should be as well.
- Traditional urban forest management in the United States has focused on one component of the ecosystem, the trees; however if management activities are deployed apart from community goals they are unlikely to accomplish what is socially desirable and ecologically possible (Dwyer, Nowak, & Noble, 2003, p. 51). The community framework element in the draft revised Tree City USA growth award system is one proposed set of social benchmarks for a sustainable community. Social aspects have been explored in various research under the auspice of a community framework (Vogt & Fisher, 2012, p. 5). The incentives that influence decisions and actions linking community characteristics to biophysical outcomes are not well understood (Mincey et al., 2013, p. 557). The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) reported about the status of social equity in municipal sustainability programs that case studies reveal that “measures that integrate social equity with environmental and economic indicators in sustainability plans are often largely absent” (Svarra, Watt, & Takai, 2014, p. 2). Leaders are not merely people in positions of authority, but also may be visionaries, innovators, catalysts, ambassadors, negotiators, coaches, and a myriad of other personality types. Culture is described by Khademian as “the informal, the symbolic, the subtle yet nonetheless critical factors that drive the way the job gets done” (Khademian, 2002, pg. ix). In the article Sustaining Urban Forests, key elements of sustainable urban forest management include recognizing and embracing diversity and complexity, seeking locally specific strategies, focusing on human dimensions, encouraging coordination across boundaries, capitalizing on connections to other activities, implementing comprehensive planning and management, and implementing adaptive management (Dwyer et al., 2003). People often do not act for the collective good as observed by Hardin (1968) in the Tragedy of the Commons and there are not functional markets for ecosystem services, therefore government action may fail to incentivize socially beneficial actions for the complex and interconnected urban forest (Mincey et al., 2013, p. 556).
- Purposive sampling (Bui, 2014, p. 143; Maxwell, 2013, pgs. 97-100) was designed to determine whether social factors observed by participants interested in the local urban forestry program correlated to factors in current performance measurement systems collected at the national scale as well as best practices recommended in literature, both published and under development. An 18 question survey was divided into four major themes of equity, leadership, culture, and investments (as related to community values). Each category was explored with questions in the survey instrument on a themed page with a title.
- Urban forestry programs operate in a niche market with few key constituents as compared to more visible public services like police, fire, libraries or parks How do urban forestry programs serve/reach the silent majority? All people in the community benefit, but few participate. Sustained operations may have greater potential to reach community goals than stand-alone significant projects. Persistence pays dividends. In the association between nurture versus nature, nurture appears more influential on decisions about urban forestry issues. Habits, recognized by Khademian (2002) as institutionalized routines of culture, showed that the most commonly recognized by respondents are hosting community-wide tree events, coordinating large projects such as significant tree planting, and partnering with interns and volunteers. 29 of 211 respondents indicated none of the provided choices were occurring where they participate indicating an immature or non-existent culture of urban forestry. 110 of 184 respondents described their program as underfunded or grossly underfunded. The complexity of measuring social influences upon municipal urban forestry programs can be attributed to the diverse and dynamic character of urban forests, their environment, and the people who live in them. The environment being one where people exert major forces for change at greater rates than the adaptive capacity of the natural system (Dwyer, et al., 2003).
- Constructing a social assessment framework is important to expand management to a comprehensive and sustainable system. Develop categories to assess important connections between people and the urban forest. This research proposed equity, leadership, culture, and investment as the four major themes, but yours may differ. Within each category key indicators should be listed, each with metrics and goals. Use qualitative and quantitative methods to first research your community’s unique situation and then construct a framework.