“Trees and People: Assessing Urban Greening Organizations’ Neighborhood Tree Planting Program Outcomes – An Interactive Session with Researchers,” Fischer & Vogt

Description
Burney Fischer, Ph.D, Clinical Professor, School of Public & Environmental Affairs; Co-Director, Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University & Jessica Vogt, Ph.D, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Furman University “Trees and People: Assessing Urban Greening Organizations’ Neighborhood Tree Planting Program Outcomes – An Interactive Session with Researchers”

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 21
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Environment

Publish on:

Views: 4 | Pages: 21

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
  • 1. 1 These slides represent work-in-progress. If you have questions, or are interested in citing our work, please contact the authors for the latest information: Jess Vogt: jessica.m.vogt@gmail.com Burney Fischer: bufische@indiana.edu
  • 2. Bloomington 2 Urban Forestry Research Group at TREES AND PEOPLE: ASSESSING URBAN GREENING ORGANIZATIONS’ NEIGHBORHOOD TREE PLANTING PROGRAM OUTCOMES AN INTERACTIVE SESSION WITH RESEARCHERS Burney Fischer, Indiana University Jess Vogt, Furman University CIPEC Nov 4, 2014 Charlotte, NC
  • 3. USFS NUCFAC Grant (2012-15) ¨ 2011 NUCFAC grant ¤ “Tree and People” – A two way street: A research program to assess the direct and indirect effects of urban tree-planting programs in the face of climate change ¨ Matching funds from 6 partners (next slide) ¨ Additional support from USFS Northern Research Station, Indiana University Bloomington 3
  • 4. NUCFAC Partners and Study Sites ¨ ACTrees – National partner ¨ 5 urban greening nonprofits ¨ 25 tree-planting & 25 comparison neighborhoods in each city
  • 5. Urban Forests as SESs Social-Ecological Systems (SES) Framework (Ostrom 2009) Model of Urban Forest Sustainability (Clark et al 1997) OUR FRAMEWORK Urban Forests as Social-Ecological Systems (BUFRG) Resource System Resource Units Vegetative Resource Biophysical Resource (Trees & Surrounding Environment) Users Supportive Community Community (Neighborhood) Governance System Adequate Management Institutions & Management
  • 6. Research Questions for NUCFAC & Beyond People influencing trees: Does the design of urban nonprofit tree-planting programs and of neighborhood tree-planting projects affect planted-tree success? Trees influencing people: Does participation in a tree-planting project have social effects on neighborhoods and individuals?
  • 7. Outcomes* of Interest ¨ Tree Success n Survival n Growth ¨ Community Capacity * Based on informal discussions with nonprofit partners & review of scientific literature n Neighbor familiarity n Trust neighbors have for one another n Collective activity ¨ Environmental knowledge about trees
  • 8. Data Collection ¨ Planted Tree Re-Inventory Protocol (Vogt & Fischer 2014) ¤ Tree-level and local environmental variables ¤ Sampled all or nearly all trees planted between 2009-11 in all sampled neighborhoods ¨ Social Survey ¤ Individual-level variables (social and demographic) ¤ Tree-planting neighborhoods: individual participation and evaluation of the tree-planting project ¨ Interviews with nonprofit employees and neighborhood leaders ¨ U.S. Census ¤ Neighborhood-level information (income, demographics) ¨ City governments ¤ Spatial data
  • 9. Early Research Results ¨ Tree results by city 9 CITY TREES SURVIVAL of inventoried # planted # inventoried 2009-11 2014 (%) trees Atlanta 21,349 577 (2.7%) 80% Detroit 7,040 1,241 (17.9%) 79% Indianapolis 18,283 1,076 (6.0%) 80% Philadelphia 7,012 1,742 (25%) 59% St. Louis -- 101 *86% * Reflects the percent of trees that remained alive of those trees were able to be located during re-inventory
  • 10. Tree benefits (back-of-the-envelop version) ¨ E.g., Indianapolis 10 Value # trees imported to iTree 772 living trees Total benefits of inventoried trees ~$21,000 Benefits per inventoried tree ~$27 80% of 18,283 trees * $27/tree Total for ALL trees planted 2009-2011* Just under $400K Benefit of 1 years worth of planted trees (~6,000 ~$132K trees), just 4 years after planting, assuming ~20% mortality *This is for surviving trees, 3-5 years after planting
  • 11. Tree benefits (back-of-the-envelop version) ¨ E.g., Indianapolis 11 Value # trees imported to iTree 772 living trees Total benefits of inventoried trees ~$21,000 Benefits per inventoried tree ~$27 80% of 18,283 trees * $27/tree Total for ALL trees planted 2009-2011* Just under $400K Benefit of 1 years worth of planted trees (~6,000 ~$132K trees), just 4 years after planting, assuming ~20% mortality *This is for surviving trees, 3-5 years after planting
  • 12. Tree benefits (back-of-the-envelop version) ¨ E.g., Indianapolis 12 Value # trees imported to iTree 772 living trees Total benefits of inventoried trees ~$21,000 Benefits per inventoried tree ~$27 80% of 18,283 trees * $27/tree Total for ALL trees planted 2009-2011* Just under $400K Benefit of 1 years worth of planted trees (~6,000 ~$132K trees), just 4 years after planting, assuming ~20% mortality *This is for surviving trees, 3-5 years after planting
  • 13. Tree benefits (back-of-the-envelop version) ¨ E.g., Indianapolis 13 Value # trees imported to iTree 772 living trees Total benefits of inventoried trees ~$21,000 Benefits per inventoried tree ~$27 80% of 18,283 trees * $27/tree = Total for ALL trees planted 2009-2011* Just under $400K Benefit of 1 years worth of planted trees (~6,000 ~$132K trees), just 4 years after planting, assuming ~20% mortality *This is for surviving trees, 3-5 years after planting
  • 14. Tree benefits (back-of-the-envelop version) ¨ E.g., Indianapolis 14 Value # trees imported to iTree 772 living trees Total benefits of inventoried trees ~$21,000 Benefits per inventoried tree ~$27 80% of 18,283 trees * $27/tree = Total for ALL trees planted 2009-2011* Just under $400K Benefit of 1 years worth of planted trees (~6,000 ~$132K trees), just 4 years after planting, assuming ~20% mortality *This is for surviving trees, 3-5 years after planting
  • 15. Tree benefits (back-of-the-envelop version) ¨ E.g., Indianapolis 15 Value # trees imported to iTree 772 living trees Total benefits of inventoried trees ~$21,000 Benefits per inventoried tree ~$27 80% of 18,283 trees * $27/tree = Total for ALL trees planted 2009-2011* Just under $400K Benefit of 1 years worth of planted trees (~6,000 ~$132K trees), just 4 years after planting, assuming ~20% mortality *This is for surviving trees, 3-5 years after planting
  • 16. Tree benefits (back-of-the-envelop version) 16 ¨ If we could GROW these trees 10 years using observed growth & survival rates, think how many benefits…! Value ¨ Dynamic model of annual tree plantings # trees imported to iTree 772 living trees Total benefits of inventoried trees ~$21,000 Benefits per inventoried tree ~$27 80% of 18,283 trees * $27/tree = Total for ALL trees planted 2009-2011* Just under $400K Benefit of 1 years worth of planted trees (~6,000 ~$132K trees), just 4 years after planting, assuming ~20% mortality
  • 17. What have we learned to date? ¨ Keeping track of individual tree data ¤ Nonprofits are unique in their record keeping ¤ Systems could serve as models for others ¤ Updating records with removals, replacements, oddities ¨ Social outcomes are highly desired by funders, but rarely evaluated in any systematic way ¨ These nonprofits are large (plant 2-7,000 trees/yr) ¤ Results may not apply to other organizations
  • 18. Policy implications ¨ Lack of standard record keeping makes cross-city comparisons & multi-city policy-making difficult (ACTrees) ¨ Nonprofits recognize unique context - city, culture, neighborhoods… (per interview data) ¨ “No panacea” – Lin Ostrom ¤ No one-size-fits-all solutions/recommendations 18
  • 19. Audience Questions & Discussion What questions would your organization like to see answered by research? Other thoughts/comments? 19
  • 20. If you want to work with researchers… 1. Have tree data – ideally, locations of individual trees 2. Be able to describe your institution: how you operate, how your tree plantings work, etc. 3. Outline social context of interest: City level? Neighborhood level? Household level? 20
  • 21. BUFRG RESEARCH FUNDED BY: USDA Forest Service Na=onal Urban & Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Sta5on The Efroymson Family Fund Indiana Department of Natural Resources City of Bloomington, Parks & Recrea5on Department Garden Club of America Urban Forestry Fellowship Indiana University (IUB) Office of Sustainability IUB Center for Research in Environmental Science Center for the Study of Ins5tu5ons, Popula5on, and Environmental Change The Ostrom Workshop in Poli5cal Theory and Policy Analysis IUB School of Public and Environmental Affairs NONPROFIT PARTNERS : Alliance for Community Trees Keep Indianapolis Beau=ful, Inc. Forest ReLeaf of Missouri The Greening of Detroit Pennsylvania Hor=cultural Society Trees Atlanta
  • Related Search
    Similar documents
    View more...
    We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks