Area as an Information Clearinghouse

Do we need an information clearinghouse for arboriculture research?

Almost universally it is agreed that we should monitor research to avoid duplication and to emphasize the gaps in our knowledge. Several of you went further and suggested “coordination” to better determine research needs of arborists. While we may be too dependent on decisions of scientists as to needs, this proposal is for an information clearinghouse, not one for arranging research priorities or planning projects, which may be a future consideration.

The Journal of Arboriculture is doing an excellent job, but cannot possibly fill this specialized gap. For example, one comment was made by a researcher who came from a related field to arboriculture two years ago. He was “puzzled by lack of information in our industry.” An old-timer commented candidly, “We in AREA have a keen awareness and deepening frustration about the lack of coordination of national research concerning shade trees.”

With current constraints due to budget problems, resource conservation, quality of life, pollution and other concerns, every expenditure today is closely scrutinized and every project must be justified, more so than in the past. Like many other things, research is being put to the cost:benefit equation.

Is AREA the logical organization?

Your members are those in research, teaching, extension, and regulatory programs in universities, institutes, governmental agencies, arboreta, and private industry.

Your stated purpose is “to provide an organization which will encourage communication and coordination in … horticulture, forestry, entomology, plant pathology, biology, ecology, agronomy, and related fields essential to a basic scientific understanding of shade trees and their care.” Q.E.D.

What problems must be overcome?

Probably many of those same problems of any new organization struggling to achieve its objectives, including continuity of leadership, organizational details, communicating without disclosing proprietary secrets or losing personal and professional identity (as one researcher said, “I could care less what others do in research,” yet admitted, “We need to learn from each other.”) No doubt other problems will occur during early stages, but the overwhelming need for this resource center can overcome these problems. Financial aspects will be discussed below.

What other groups might be interested in cooperating in this effort?

Many individuals as well as groups outside AREA and ISTC might be interested in our efforts. Contacts should be initiated soon with some or all of the following, and others probably could be added as well: National Arborist AssociationAmerican Society of Consulting ArboristsAmerican Horticultural SocietyAssociated Landscape Contractors of AmericaAmerican Association of Botanical Gardens and ArboretaHorticultural Research Institute of American Association of NurserymenNational Park ServiceMunicipalities and CountiesForest Service Urban Forestry ProgramPrivate IndustryAmerican Phytopathological SocietyEntomological SocietyUSDA Shade Tree Laboratory

Where should this clearinghouse be located?

It might be Urbana, Illinois or Washington, D.C. at the National Arboretum; a good case can be made for either of these locations. The important concept is to promote this office as a resource center or focal point for arboricultural research. When someone in any part of the world has a problem, they should think of AREA’S information clearinghouse. Project leadership is more critical than geographic area.

What will this cost?

Now that we have established the benefits, the big question is cost. Ultimate expansion of this project could consume unlimited funds, but a modest start must be made. I feel that we should aim for a half-time professional position with parttime clerical assistance, possibly a $15,000 expenditure for 1976, including miscellaneous expenses. The success of this initial venture should guide future expansion and budgeting.

I hope that the ISTC Executive Committee would budget a portion for 1976. At the same time, contacts should be made with other agencies, professional associations, and industry to support the program — as they will surely benefit from it.

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to appear on your program and present this proposal. I would like especially to thank Dr. Frank Santamour and other AREA officers and members for their cooperation. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, let us purchase a better arboricultural future through an information clearinghouse today.

Suggestions made during discussion period:

1. Organize AREA task force committees to survey needs of ISTC, including commercial, municipal and possibly others—on a continuing basis.

2. Contact other trade and professional associations to determine needs, interests. Where is research money being spent today?

3. Publish arboricultural abstracts.

4. Publish in the Journal of Arboriculture names of AREA members and their fields of expertise.

5. Consider a WATS to “Dial an Expert” for instant answers to problems.

6. Try for initial grant of $5,000 for ISTC for 1976 — and grants from others to initiate this program (i.e. Can EPA, USDA, Forest Service, or others help out?)

7. Obtain service of part-time or retired man in Washington to solicit grants.