Guest Contributor: Rebecca Hargrave, Associate Professor, SUNY Morrisville and a Ph.D. Candidate at UMass Amherst
Part One of a Series Focusing on Urban Forest Management in New York State

 

Downtown Canastota — Photo: Rebecca Hargrave

In 2021, many communities across New York State participated in a survey concerning municipal urban forest management services, resources, and intentions. This study was implemented by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partnership with the NYSDEC Urban and Community Forestry program and the NYSUFC. Much of the survey results and analysis appeared in the April 2024 issue of Cities and The Environment (CATE)

(see Influence of Community Characteristics on Urban Forest Management Programs in New York State). (Additional authors of the CATE article: Rick Harper, Ph.D., UMass Amherst, Jamie Mullins, Ph.D.,UMass Amherst and Brett Butler, Ph.D., UMass Amherst/USDA Forest Service.)

However, there was information not included in that publication that we feel is important to urban forest practitioners in New York State. This article is the first in a series that highlights the results presented in CATE. The intention is to bring you additional findings that may be useful for understanding the assets NYS communities use to manage their forests, the services they provide and their future management intentions.

The Survey

The survey queried 766 municipalities known to have formally conducted urban forest management (or with the potential to do so), according to the New York State Department of Environmental Urban and Community Forestry program. We specifically asked whether the community managed street trees, as those trees comprise the bulk of the individual municipal-managed trees by communities in NYS. If the municipality responded affirmatively to that question, we followed with questions pertaining to staff, budget, services, resources and intentions. Responses were aggregated statewide by community population size, median household income (MHI) and geographic proximity to a metropolitan area (Table 1). 

Table 1. Population and Median Household Income of Surveyed NYS Municipalities by Category
Category Sample Size Percent of Total Mean Population Mean MHI Manages Street Trees (%)
Statewide 314 100 40,777 $69,940 72
  With Street Trees 227 72 54,814 $69,694 —
  Without Street Trees 87 28 4,152 $70,599 —
Small Community (Pop. < 10,000) 248 80 3,045 $67,774 68*
Medium Community (Pop. 10,000 to 65,000) 53 17 23,973 $78,567 85
Large Community (Pop. > 65,000) 13 4 829,102 $75,067 100*
Low MHI (<$48,389) 78 25 15,087 $40,572 81*
Middle MHI
($48,389 to $81,282)		 156 50 61,965 $61,735 68*
High MHI (>$81,282) 78 25 24,988 $115,720 74
*statistically significant, p<0.05.

Program Status

Seventy-two percent (72%) of the 314 responding communities indicated that they managed street trees, and 26% reported that they did not. The remaining 2% replyied that they had street trees but that they were managed by another entity (e.g., the county). The latter two were grouped as municipalities without urban forest management programs.  All Large Communities, 85% of Medium, and 68% of Small Communities responded that they managed street trees. 

Middle Median Household Income Communities had the lowest rate of street tree management programs, with 68% reporting affirmatively, along with 74% of High MHI and 81% of Low MHI Communities. Low MHI Communities are significantly more likely than Middle MHI Communities to manage street trees. The survey found that the mean MHI of communities that managed street trees was lower than that of communities that did not manage street trees (Table 1). However, this difference was not statistically significant. We explored whether the percentage of households in poverty or considered “working poor” affected the presence of a program. Even though the mean percentage of households in poverty and the percentage of working poor were slightly higher for communities with street tree programs, they were not significantly different from those without.

In summary, larger and less affluent communities are more likely to manage their street trees formally, with middle-income communities being less likely to.

Next Part: Part 2. Staff and Contractors