Urban Forestry in Selected Midwest Cities

Characteristics of the urban forester

Title and Salary. Urban foresters sampled were classified under ten different occupational titles (Table 1). Although nine were referred to as some type of forester, none was specifically called urban or community forester. Reported 1978 salaries averaged $19,800 and ranged from $15,000 to $26,000 (Table 2).

Education. Nine of the fifteen foresters had an undergraduate degree in forestry; four had Master’s degrees specializing in urban forestry (Table 3). Academic preparation not only provided cities with trained urban foresters; it also resulted in higher salaries. The average annual salary of high school graduates employed as urban foresters in 1978 was $17,666. Average annual salary rose to $21,187 with a Bachelor’s degree and $22,000 with a Master’s degree. It appears that communities are not paying significantly higher salaries for urban foresters with advanced degrees, but rather are concerned with obtaining qualified individuals.

Experience. Prior work experience of all of the urban foresters interviewed involved some form of tree work (Table 4). However, there appeared to be little salary advantage for an individual with prior experience in a municipal setting. Urban foresters with prior municipal work experience earned an average annual salary of $20,287; others averaged $21,285 per year.

Job Perception and Security. Each urban forester was asked to define or describe his professional responsibilities. Twelve perceived their role in the city as being responsible for planting and maintaining plant material. Others included additional responsibilities such as managing municipal plant material to provide social valuesand benefits including aesthetics, visual screens, and microclimate modifications. Interestingly, all described themselves as vegetation managers, although during interviews many indicated that a large proportion of their time was spent in personnel management. Unquestionably, to be effective in cities of these sizes, urban foresters must not only be technically competent vegetation managers, but also skilled in personnel management, labor relations, budgeting, accounting, and finance.

Ten urban foresters attributed job security to Civil Service status, but suggested a continuing need to justify their program’s existence in order to receive adequate funding. Two expressed some concern that continuation of their position was highly dependent upon efforts to ensure adequate budget appropriations. All urban foresters interviewed shared a belief that their programs’ existence and funding required continual explanation and justification.

Responsibilities of the urban forester

Budgeting. An urban forestry program is dependent on securing a portion of city budgets. All but one of the urban foresters interviewed were responsible for developing an annual operating budget. Fourteen cities reported 1978 annual budgets ranging from $335,000 to $1.1 million (Table 5). This included all money budgeted in support of urban forestry whatever the source. The 1978 mean annual expenditure per capita for urban forestry in the sampled midwest cities was $3.19 (Table 6).

Most funding was derived from general property taxes. Of the eleven cities utilizing supplemental funds, nine relied on Federal assistance such as Community Development Block Grants, CETA personnel, Urban Development Action Grants, and Revenue Sharing. Other forms of funding reported included a property owner frontage tax and an endowed trust fund.

Public safety and development of an aesthetically pleasing environment were the two reasons commonly used to justify urban forestry programs and to defend budgets. While the urban foresters interviewed believed in the value of their programs, two specifically noted that the existence of their program and its budget should be a lower priority than essential services such as police, fire, and sanitation.

Identification of Program Direction. In general, urban foresters Interviewed equated determining program direction with identifying responsibilities or work to be done. This was accomplished through (1) public contact, (2) tree inventories, and (3) employee reporting.

All urban foresters interviewed reported using public contact in some form (Table 7). Seven of these foresters viewed their operations as using formal public relations programs not only to identify work, but to educate the public and as a method of increasing support for their programs. It is interesting to note that the seven cities with active public relations programs spent an average of $4.06 per person on urban forestry in 1978 while the remaining cities spent only $2.33. Cities with active public relations activities also averaged eight more urban forestry employees than the other cities.

Municipal tree inventories and employee observations played a less important role than public contact in determining the direction of most urban forestry programs in cities interviewed. Five cities had usable inventories, two were computerized, two were on file cards, and one was mapped. The remaining cities either had no inventory or it was incomplete or outdated. Employee observations were used formally in two cities that took dead tree surveys. All of the cities informally incorporated reported employee observations in work planning.

Program Administration. The most important and demanding administrative duties reported by foresters were (1) the development and review of work schedules, (2) staff and committee meetings, (3) mediation of labor disputes, (4) checking time cards, (5) internal correspondence, (6) supplies requisition, purchase and follow-up, (7) public relations, (8) budget planning, and (9) record keeping. This list of administrative duties reflects the fact that most urban foresty work in these cities was performed by city employees (Table 8) using city owned equipment (Table 9). Employees of all but one of the cities were unionized. Half of the foresters interviewed expressed at least some difficulty in dealing with personnel and unions. Accordingly, most repeatedly stressed the importance of personnel management and labor relation skills. Most foresters also had extensive equipment inventories to manage (Tables 9 and 10).

The annual cycle of urban forestry activities reported was as expected for the midwest. Planting tended to follow a fall through spring schedule. Activities such as fertilizing, watering, and construction were performed in the spring and summer. Year-round operations included tree and stump removal, trimming, and equipment maintenance. Public contacts peaked during spring and fall but were considerable throughout the summer. Winter served as the planning time with emphasis on such activities as budget preparation, planting site identification, determination of needed plant material, and materials and equipment purchase and maintenance.