Guest Contributor: Rebecca Hargrave, Associate Professor at SUNY Morrisville and Ph.D. candidate, UMass Amherst

Part 4 of a Series Focusing on Urban Forest Management in New York State

This article is the fourth in a series presenting the results of a 2021 New York State municipal urban forest management program survey conducted by researchers at UMass Amherst in conjunction with the NYSDEC Urban and Community Forestry Program and the New York State Urban Forestry Council. The results have been published 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 include Rick Harper, Ph.D., UMass Amherst, Jamie Mullins, Ph.D., UMass Amherst and Brett Butler, Ph.D., UMass Amherst/USDA Forest Service.

This series summarizes the survey results and offers additional findings that may be useful to urban forest practitioners in New York State.

The previous article (Taking Root, https://nysufc.org/results-from-a-formal-survey-of-urban-forest-management-in-new-york-state-part-3-planting-and-planting-assessments/2024/08/19/) related to planting and site assessment results. This post discusses ordinances. In the results, the municipalities are categorized by size:  Small Community (Pop. < 10,000), Medium Community (Pop. 10,000 to 65,000), and Large Community (Pop. > 65,000), and median household income (MHI): Low MHI (<$48,389), Middle MHI ($48,389 to $81,282), and High MHI (>$81,282).

Ordinances

Ordinances provide municipalities with the authority to manage or control the management of trees within the municipality. Many types of tree-related ordinances exist, including maintenance, planting and protection. Only 69% of communities reported having a tree-related ordinance. This is somewhat surprising given that all these responses came from municipalities that stated they manage street trees, 98% of which indicated that they maintain street trees, while 77% indicated that they planted street trees. Large Communities were more likely to have an ordinance (92%), which is statistically significant (p<0.05) from Medium Communities (87%) and Small Communities (62%). The presence of ordinances was not statistically significant among MHI categories; however, High MHI was the most likely (78%) to have a tree-related ordinance compared to Low MHI (68%) and Middle MHI (64%).

Tree protection ordinances can protect public trees, private trees, or both. They come in many forms. Municipalities were asked to choose the answer that best described their tree protection ordinance(s). The responses:

  • There is no tree protection ordinance (15%).
  • Policies are in place to protect public trees, but there is little enforcement (31%).
  • Policies are in place to protect public trees, with enforcement (34%).
  • Policies are in place to protect public and private trees, with enforcement (10%).
  • Policies are in place to protect public and private trees, with enforcement and are supported by significant deterrents (i.e., fines) (11%).

As municipal population size and MHI increased, expected trends emerged.  However, the contrast among the MHI levels was surprising.

Communities were asked if they planned to write an ordinance in the next five years, either an additional or their first tree-related ordinance. Thirteen percent responded “Yes” and 33% responded “Maybe.” Almost a quarter (23%) responded, “I Don’t Know.”

In summary, more than 30% of the municipalities which manage street trees reported that they do not have a tree-related ordinance. While not every community expressed an interest in doing so, there appears to be a substantial opportunity to work with some to write such an ordinance. 

Next Part: Part 5 will discuss findings related to management plans and maintenance cycles.