Research ArticleArticles

Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession

Keith O’Herrin, Corinne G. Bassett, Susan D. Day, Paul D. Ries and P. Eric Wiseman
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2023, 49 (3) 107-136; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2023.009

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    Figure 1.

    Conceptual framework of the practical ideal type (PIT) for a modern profession. Shown are interrelationships amongst key actors and the roles and processes that support a strong profession. Figure credit: Daniella Jia Lu Zhang and Heather Bylsma.

  • Figure 2.
    Figure 2.

    Evidence ratings of the state of the urban forestry profession in comparison to the practical ideal type of a modern profession. For all except one subcategory, there is only emerging or little to no evidence that urban forestry meets these benchmarks. Figure credit: Heather Bylsma.

  • Figure S1.
    Figure S1.

    Preference of urban forest professionals in the US and Canada on the format of a hypothetical urban forester credential. Respondents answered the multiple-choice question, “If an Urban Forester Credential was created in the next 5 years, would you prefer it be...” and are grouped by career stage, a variable combining age and years since entering the urban forestry profession (Day et al. 2022).

  • Figure S2.
    Figure S2.

    Personal benefits that urban forest professionals in the US and Canada receive from their own credentials. Respondents rated a series of benefits on a Likert-scale in response to the question, “Please evaluate the personal benefits that you currently receive or expect to receive from your current credentials identified in the previous question. ‘In the context of my urban forestry work, the credentials that I currently hold...’” Benefits are ranked in order of average Likert score so that the benefit with the most positive overall responses appears on top. As the average score decreases, the proportion of participants who “strongly agree” decreases.

  • Figure S3.
    Figure S3.

    Organizational benefits from credentials currently available to urban forestry professionals. Respondents rated a series of benefits on a Likert-scale in response to the question, “Please evaluate what the current credentials available to urban foresters (whether you hold these credentials or not) allow your agency, organization, or company to do. ‘The credentials currently available in the field allow my organization to...’” Benefits are ranked in order of average Likert score so that the benefit with the most positive overall responses appears on top. There was most overall agreement that credentials demonstrated a commitment to the profession, and least agreement and most disagreement that credentials give them ability to evaluate the capability of new hires.

  • Figure S4.
    Figure S4.

    Expected benefits of a hypothetical urban forester credential by urban forest professionals in the US and Canada. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements in response to the question, “If a specific Urban Forester credential were to become available on a wide geographic scale within the next 5 years, please evaluate what you think a new Urban Forester credential would allow the profession to do.” Benefits are ranked in order of average Likert score so that the benefit with the most positive overall responses appears on top. Each benefit is sliced by career stage, a variable combining age and years since entering the urban forestry profession (Day et al. 2022). There is a clear pattern of early career and late-career-change respondents responding more positively about each expected benefit than mid- and late-career respondents.

  • Figure S5.
    Figure S5.

    Preference of urban forest professionals in the US and Canada on the creation of a professional society for urban forestry. Respondents answered the multiple-choice question, “Do you think the urban forestry profession needs its own professional society?” and are grouped by career stage, a variable combining age and years since entering the urban forestry profession (Day et al. 2022). A majority of respondents, across career stages, thought that the profession needs its own society, though they differ on preferred format.

Tables

  • Table 1.

    Practical ideal type (PIT) of a successful modern profession and its foundations in the literature. Each ideal type category and the relationships between them are graphically represented in Figure 1.

    Ideal type categoryLiterature

    1. Essential Service to Society

    1. Performs essential service to society

    2. Society recognizes that profession performs essential service

    		Bayles 1986; Freidson 1994; Bayles 2003; Gardner and Shulman 2005; Holden et al. 2015; Gregory and Austin 2019; Edwards 2020; Fitzgerald 2020; Kellar et al. 2020; Nelson et al. 2021; Santarossa et al. 2021; Moore et al. 2022.

    2. Body of Knowledge (BoK)

    1. BoK is organized and accessible to practitioners

    2. BoK is updated regularly

    3. Practitioners steward BoK via their organization

    4. Practitioners and higher education expand BoK via research findings

    5. BoK aligns degree accreditation, credentialing, and continuing education

    		Freidson 1994; Daley 2001; Gardner and Shulman 2005; Ressler 2005; Brauer 2011, 2015; Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education 2020; Fitzgerald 2020; Kirkpatrick et al. 2020a; Ressler and Lenox 2020; Ressler et al. 2021.

    3. Higher Education

    1. Accreditation applies BoK to degree programs

    2. Accreditation sets minimum quality of formal higher education

    3. Accreditation aligns higher education curricula with societal and employer needs

    		Bollag 2005; Planning Accreditation Board 2006; Patil and Codner 2007; Kavanagh and Drennan 2008; Clarke and Prichard 2013; Vlasses et al. 2013; Gaston 2014; Bullard 2015; Redelsheimer et al. 2015; Sample et al. 2015.

    4. Credentialing

    1. Practitioners provide their own credentialing via their organizations

    2. Credentials set a minimum level of competency

    3. Credentialing enforces ethical accountability

    4. Profession self-regulates

    		Bayles 1986, 2003; Kirk 2007; Brauer 2011; Gorman 2014; Monteiro 2015; Craig et al. 2018; Funk et al. 2019; Kirkpatrick et al. 2020a, 2020b; Gao 2021; Harris and Buchbinder 2021.

    5. Public Trust

    1. Professional reputation and standing in society are monitored

    2. Public understanding and awareness of profession are promoted

    3. Member-serving organization, employers, practitioners, and higher education coordinate to manage public image

    		Pearson 2004; Lachapelle et al. 2012; Hadfield and Rhode 2015; Rhode 2015; Kirkpatrick et al. 2020a, 2020b, 2020c.

    6. Recruitment

    1. Youth and diverse identities proactively recruited into profession

    2. Member-serving organization, employers, practitioners, and higher education collaborate on recruitment

    		Klein et al. 2010; Shaffer 2010; Fantz et al. 2011; Banken 2013; Holden et al. 2015; Lent 2015; Roach 2015; O’Herrin 2016; Skiera 2016; O’Herrin et al. 2018a; Zhou 2020; American Society of Civil Engineers 2022.

    7. Retention and Advancement

    1. Employment trends are monitored

    2. Career ladder and advancement opportunities are defined

    3. Professional development programs are informed by employment trends

    		Luker and Lyons 1997; Mills and Treagust 2003; Drenkard and Swartwout 2005; Wall 2007; Buerhaus and Auerbach 2011; Pugsley et al. 2017; O’Herrin et al. 2018b; Esfahani et al. 2020; Kirkpatrick et al. 2020b, 2020c.

    8. Professional Organization

    1. Practitioners form and maintain a member-serving organization

    2. Member-serving organization is dedicated to advancing the profession

    3. Organization mediates the other 7 ideals listed here

    4. Organization provides conferences, journals, and other forums for networking and dialogue

    		Scott 1969; Myers and Banerjee 2005; Planning Accreditation Board 2006; Davoudi and Pendlebury 2010; Edwards and Bates 2011; Roach 2015; Dawkins 2016; Pugsley et al. 2017; Miller 2019; Kirkpatrick et al. 2020a, 2020c; Guyadeen and Henstra 2021; American Planning Association 2022; Goodman et al. 2022; US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2022.
  • Table 2.

    Practical ideal type operationalization table. Research methods are literature review, document analysis, and survey analysis. Survey analysis refers to the UFP Survey from Day et al. 2022.

    Ideal type categoryResearch methodSource(s)Results
    1. Essential Service to Society
    1. Performs essential service to societyLiterature review; document analysis; survey analysisNesbitt et al. 2017; O’Herrin et al. 2018b; 2020 UFP Survey; Day et al. 2022Established evidence: The essential services provided by urban forests, and by extension those who manage them, are well documented in the literature. Urban forest professionals who responded to the 2020 UFP Survey consider that they have specialized expertise. Cities seek urban forestry expertise and many maintain urban forestry staff to provide essential services.
    2. Society recognizes that profession performs essential serviceLiterature review; document analysisO’Herrin 2016; American Forests 2022a; Tree Canada 2022Emerging evidence: The proliferation of urban forestry non-governmental organizations (NGOs) indicates that society recognizes the value of urban forests, but may not recognize that urban forest professionals provide an essential service. Some, but not all, cities and towns employ professional urban foresters. The public is relatively unfamiliar with the urban forestry profession.
    2. Body of Knowledge (BoK)
    1. BoK is organized and accessible to practitionersDocument analysis; literature reviewPersonal observation; Miller et al. 2015; Arbor Day Foundation 2022b; Sustainable Forestry Initiative 2022; Web of Science Data accessed 2022Emerging evidence: The USDA Forest Service, many universities, and even some private foundations and companies maintain research units that produce and disseminate research findings. Attendance at annual conferences sponsored by NGOs in the field is increasing, and audiences are becoming more diverse. Urban forestry–related papers are published in multiple peer-reviewed journals, and urban forestry textbooks are available. However, there is no universally accepted BoK organized in one place.
    2. BoK is updated regularlyDocument analysis; literature reviewBentsen et al. 2010; Krajter Ostoić and Konijnendijk van den Bosch 2015Emerging evidence: Two peer-reviewed research journals regularly publish research studies that advance the BoK and whose readership is focused largely on urban forestry. The number of papers published has multiplied significantly in recent decades. The transfer of this knowledge to an organized BoK is not as evident.
    3. Practitioners steward BoK via their organizationDocument analysis; literature reviewKonijnendijk et al. 2006; Sustainable Forestry Initiative 2022Little to no evidence: Because there is no professional organization dedicated to urban forestry professionals, stewardship of the BoK is diffused across multiple organizations. Individual organizations advance the BoK based on their own perspectives and needs and the “niche” they occupy under the broader urban forestry discipline.
    4. Practitioners and higher education expand BoK via research findingsDocument analysis; literature reviewUgolini et al. 2015; Vogt et al. 2016Emerging evidence: The nature and scope of the urban forestry BoK is often debated and analyzed. Researchers have explored the interdisciplinary nature of the field and the boundaries of emerging terminology.
    5. BoK aligns degree accreditation, credentialing, and continuing educationDocument analysis; survey analysisProgram Learning Outcomes for University of British Columbia Bachelor of Urban Forestry 2019; 2020 UFP SurveyLittle to no evidence: Because there is no dedicated urban forestry credential available, urban forest professionals have cobbled together an assortment of different credentials in order to meet their needs and advance their careers. The Society of American Foresters (SAF) and the Canadian Forestry Accreditation Board (CFAB) have begun to accredit university urban forestry programs, but not on the scale of traditional forestry ones. Individual programs in higher education develop program learning outcomes based upon their own niche or interpretation.
    3. Higher Education
    1. Accreditation applies BoK to degree programsDocument analysis; literature review; personal observationWiseman and Day 2010; SAF 2021; CFAB 2022; SAF 2022a; Personal observationsEmerging evidence: Both the SAF and the CFAB accredit degree programs in urban forestry, but these standards may not include the full array of urban forest professional knowledge and its niches. Relatively few programs are accredited. Many programs accredited under the forestry standard by SAF have urban forestry as a subcategory, but not as a fully developed program that can meet the specialized urban forestry standard.
    2. Accreditation sets minimum quality of formal higher educationDocument analysis; personal observationWiseman and Day 2010; SAF 2021; CFAB 2022; Personal observationsEmerging evidence: Both CFAB and SAF accreditation processes have stringent quality standards; however, the standards may not fully capture the full array of urban forest professional knowledge.
    3. Accreditation aligns university curricula with societal and employer needsLiterature review; document analysisO’Herrin et al. 2018b; O’Herrin et al. 2020; Association of British Columbia Professional Foresters 2021; Ontario Professional Foresters Association 2022Little or no evidence: Jobs analyses show no employers require or even mention accredited degrees or credentials that result from this in the US. In Canada, Registered Professional Forester (RPF) credentials do not distinguish between urban forestry and traditional forestry. There is little evidence of significant communication between employers of urban forest professionals and professional organizations about the link between university curricula and employer needs.
    4. Credentialing
    1. Practitioners provide their own credentialing via their organizationsDocument analysis; literature review; survey analysisO’Herrin et al. 2020; 2020 UFP Survey; see Figures S1 and S2Little to no evidence: No dedicated urban forestry credential with broad acceptance and usage is provided by an organization of urban foresters. Some credentials exist with limited uptake, such as credentials at state/provincial levels or with a more specialized scope. Professionals also voice support for the creation of a credential and professional organization for urban forestry.
    2. Credentials set a minimum level of competencySurvey analysis2020 UFP SurveyLittle to no evidence: Without specific credentials for urban forestry, there can be no minimum level of competency set specific to urban forestry.
    3. Credentialing enforces ethical accountabilityDocument analysisISA 2022a; SMA 2022Little to no evidence: See 4.1; without specific credentials for urban forestry, there can be no enforcement of ethical accountability specific to urban forestry.
    4. Profession self-regulates credentialsSurvey analysis2020 UFP Survey; see Tables S1 and S3Emerging evidence: A majority of surveyed urban forest professionals hold credentials of allied professions which are regulated by allied professionals. However, there is strong participation and contribution to these credentialing organizations by urban forest professionals.
    5. Public Trust
    1. Professional reputation and standing in society are monitoredDocument analysis; literature reviewJanse and Konijnendijk 2007; Baur et al. 2016Emerging evidence: Periodic studies have attempted to gauge public understanding and support for urban forestry, but these have typically been geographically limited.
    2. Public understanding and awareness of profession are promotedDocument analysis; literature reviewTrees Are Good 2022; Vibrant Cities Lab 2022Emerging evidence: NGOs such as American Forests, the Arbor Day Foundation, and the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) have established public outreach programs that advance understanding of urban trees and their benefits, but do not explicitly focus on urban forest professionals.
    3. Member-serving organization, employers, practitioners, and higher education coordinate to manage public imagePersonal observation; document analysisPersonal observation; Trees Are Good 2022; Vibrant Cities Lab 2022Little to no evidence: There is no membership organization centrally aligned with urban forestry. Therefore, while there are efforts to advance the public image of some aspects of urban forestry, these efforts are aligned with the needs of the particular organization sponsoring the initiative and not necessarily with urban forest professionals.
    6. Recruitment
    1. Youth and diverse identities proactively recruited into professionDocument analysis; literature reviewO’Herrin 2016; O’Herrin et al. 2018a; O’Herrin et al. 2020; ADF 2022a; ISA 2022bLittle to no evidence: There is no evidence of coordinated efforts to raise awareness of urban forestry as a career; instead, the profession leans on forestry and arboriculture. Students lack awareness of urban forestry and nature as career options.
    2. Member-serving organization, employers, practitioners, and higher education collaborate on recruitmentDocument analysis; literature review; personal observationO’Herrin et al. 2018b; American Forests 2022b; Project Learning Tree Canada 2022; Vibrant Cities Lab 2022Emerging evidence: There is limited evidence of leadership from national organizations in the area of recruitment into urban forestry and limited recruitment pipelines to serve as models. Success seems limited to localized and isolated cases.
    7. Retention and Advancement
    1. Employment trends are monitoredDocument analysis; literature review; personal observationO’Herrin et al. 2018b; O’Herrin et al. 2020Little to no evidence: There is very little prior literature on monitoring of employment trends. Urban forestry is persistently conflated with arboriculture, and the terms are used interchangeably and overlapping—”urban forestry” remains undefined and underutilized.
    2. Career ladder and advancement opportunities are definedDocument analysis; literature review; personal observationO’Herrin et al. 2018bLittle to no evidence: Urban forestry lacks entry-level jobs; commercial arboriculture largely serves that role, which likely filters out desirable potential recruits.
    3. Professional development programs are informed by employment trendsDocument analysis; literature review; personal observationO’Herrin et al. 2018b; Green Communities Leadership Institute 2022; Municipal Forestry Institute 2022Little to no evidence: Urban forestry has limited professional development programs (Municipal Forestry Institute; Green Communities Leadership Institute) and these do not maintain formalized connections to trends in professional practice.
    8. Professional Organization
    1. Practitioners form and maintain a member-serving organizationSurvey analysis2020 UFP Survey; see Tables S1, S2, and S3Emerging evidence: No professional membership organization has been formed and maintained specifically by and for urban foresters in the US and Canada. Urban foresters primarily belong to several allied professional organizations who serve them as a subset of their members, and/or to informal, local urban forestry networking groups.
    2. Member-serving organization is dedicated to advancing the professionDocument analysisCIF 2022; ISA 2022c; SAF 2022b; see Table S1Little to no evidence: There is no specific organization in the US and/or Canada dedicated to advancing the profession of urban forestry. Certain allied professional organizations include urban forestry within their programs, though they are primarily composed of allied professionals who prioritize their own profession.
    3. Organization mediates the other 7 ideals listed hereSee analysis of ideals 1–7; document analysisSee analysis of ideals 1–7; see Table S2Emerging evidence: There are organizations dedicated to urban forestry who mediate other ideals for the profession of urban forestry (e.g., see 2.1 and 2.2); however, none is a member-serving organization explicitly dedicated to advancing urban forestry as a profession, since they are focused on each of their flagship credentials and programs.
    4. Organization provides conferences, journals, and other forums for networking and dialogueDocument analysis; literature review; personal observationO’Herrin et al. 2020; ADF 2022b; CUFC 2022; Green Communities Leadership Institute 2022; Municipal Forestry Institute 2022; see Table S2Emerging evidence: Many urban forestry conferences, journals, and other forums for networking exist and have been initiated. They are provided by educational and research institutions, research and extension arms of government agencies, NGOs, and allied professional organizations.
  • Table 3.

    Summary of gap analysis generated from applying the practical ideal type to the profession of urban forestry.

    Ideal type categorySummary of gap analysis
    1. Essential Service to SocietyUrban forestry lacks societal recognition that urban forest professionals provide an essential service.
    2. Body of Knowledge (BoK)Urban forestry lacks a codified BoK that is stewarded by practitioners and serves as the foundation of the profession moving forward, including an alignment of degree accreditation, credentialing, and continuing education.
    3. Higher EducationUrban forestry lacks alignment of university curricula with the needs of the profession and society. There is also a lack of formal relationships among professional organizations, practitioners, employers, and higher education.
    4. CredentialingUrban forestry lacks a dedicated credential for urban foresters that can establish a minimum level of competency, enforce ethical standards, or foster professional unity.
    5. Public TrustUrban forestry lacks a coordinated nationwide effort to increase awareness of the profession as well as an urban forestry credential to build public awareness and trust.
    6. RecruitmentUrban forestry lacks formal recruitment pipelines into degree programs and into the profession.
    7. Retention and AdvancementUrban forestry lacks consistent job titles and standardized qualifications needed to monitor employment trends and identify opportunities for professional development and advancement.
    8. Professional OrganizationUrban forestry lacks a member-created professional organization dedicated to serving and promoting the profession.
  • Table S1.

    Mission statements of professional membership organizations associated with or adjacent to urban forestry.

    OrganizationMission statement
    International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)

    “Through research, technology, and education, the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) promotes the professional practice of arboriculture and fosters a greater worldwide awareness of the benefits of trees.”

    https://www.isa-arbor.com/Who-We-Are/Our-Organization

    Society of Municipal Arborists (SMA)

    “The Society of Municipal Arborists builds the confidence, competence and camaraderie of professionals who manage trees and forests to create and sustain more livable communities.”

    https://www.urban-forestry.com/about-sma

    Society of American Foresters (SAF)

    “The mission of the Society of American Foresters is to advance sustainable management of forest resources through science, education, and technology, promoting professional excellence while ensuring the continued health, integrity, and use of forests to benefit society in perpetuity.”

    https://www.eforester.org/Main/About/History/Main/About/History.aspx

    Canadian Institute of Forestry (CIF)

    “Provide national leadership in forestry and forest stewardship, promote competency among forest practitioners, and foster public awareness and education of forest and forestry issues.”

    https://www.cif-ifc.org/who-we-are/about-us

  • Table S2.

    Mission statements of urban forestry-aligned organizations. These organizations do not represent a membership organization for urban forest professionals, as they are either not membership-based or their members are not individual urban forest professionals. Note: These urban forestry organizations fulfill parts of the PIT, especially related to performing an essential service to society, maintaining body of knowledge for urban forestry, and holding professional conferences and networking (1.1, 1.2, 2.1, and 8.4). However, they differ significantly in mission and goals from professional organizations.

    OrganizationMission statement
    The Arbor Day Foundation (ADF)

    “We inspire people to plant, nurture, and celebrate trees.”

    https://www.arborday.org/about/annualreport

    Tree Canada/Arbres Canada (TC/AC)

    “To inspire, educate and enable Canadians to plant and nurture trees in order to improve lives and address climate change.”

    https://treecanada.ca/about-us

    American Forests

    “American Forests creates healthy and resilient forests, from cities to large natural landscapes, that deliver essential benefits for climate, people, water and wildlife. We advance our mission through forestry innovation, place-based partnerships to plant and restore forests, and movement building.”

    https://www.americanforests.org/about-us

    Sustainable Forestry Institute (SFI)

    “To advance sustainability through forest-focused collaboration.”

    https://forests.org/who-we-are

    Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition (SUFC)

    “To convene and mobilize this diverse network of national organizations to foster thriving communities through healthy urban and community forests.”

    https://sufc.org/who-is-sufc

    Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA)

    “Our mission is to advance tree care businesses.”

    https://www.tcia.org/TCIA/ABOUT/About_Home/TCIA/About/About.aspx

  • Table S3.

    Distribution of memberships in professional organizations in 2020 UFP Survey. “% of Canada” and “% of US” each represent the percent of respondents employed in that country who are members of the indicated organization. “Mean # of memberships per member” represents the mean memberships held by members of the indicated organization (e.g., ISA members held on average 3.0 memberships in professional organizations). Overall, US and Canadian respondents hold a mean of 2.8 memberships (median is 3.0). Organizations that were not explicitly professional organizations (e.g., the Arbor Day Foundation) or do not offer memberships for individuals (e.g., Tree Care Industry Association) were excluded.

    Country of employment
    Canada respondents (n = 106)United States respondents (n = 602)Total respondents (n = 708)Mean # of memberships per member
    OrganizationCount of Canada% of CanadaCount of US% of USCount of total% of total
    International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)8782.153689.062388.03.0
    One or more ISA Chapters5551.945074.850571.33.3
    Society of Municipal Arborists (SMA)2826.419432.222231.43.9
    A local or regional urban forest networking group*2018.915325.417324.43.9
    A state urban forest council*21.915024.915221.54.1
    Society of American Foresters (SAF)21.96811.3709.94.1
    American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA)54.7376.1425.94.6
    Utility Arborists Association (UAA)21.9335.5354.94.6
    Arboriculture Research and Education Academy (AREA)43.8294.8334.76.0
    American Public Works Association (APWA)00.0294.8294.14.2
    Provincial/state professional forestry organization**1716.020.3192.72.8
    American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA)00.0183.0182.53.9
    Canadian Institute of Forestry (CIF)1716.000.0172.43.2
    American Planning Association (APA)00.0122.0121.74.4

    • ↵* These organization types tend to be variable in terms of formality of membership structures.

    • ↵** Variable grouped from write-in responses of provincial and state forestry professional organizations. This was the only organization type from write-in responses where n > 10.

Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession
Keith O’Herrin, Corinne G. Bassett, Susan D. Day, Paul D. Ries, P. Eric Wiseman
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2023, 49 (3) 107-136; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2023.009
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords