Community Capacity for Managing Trees in the Residential Landscape

Community Capacity for Managing Trees in the
Residential Landscape:
Emerald Ash Borer Preparedness in St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Environmental Science, Policy and Management 4041W:
Problem Solving for Environmental Change
Report 5/8 prepared for the City of St. Louis Park by:
Sara Fechtelkotter
Rachael Kropp
Jenna MacKenzie (project leader)
Peter Terwilliger
Andrea Woodside
December 14, 2010

Table of Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ............................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgments .................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ................................................................................. iv
Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
Community Capacity for EAB Preparedness ...................................... 2
Vision and Goals .................................................................................. 4
Site Description .......................................................................................... 4
Methods ..................................................................................................... 6
Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 6
Informal Interviews .............................................................................. 6
Case Studies ......................................................................................... 8
Findings ..................................................................................................... 8
EAB and Its Spread Throughout Minnesota ........................................ 8
Appreciation of Outdoor Aesthetics and Diversification .................... 9
Awareness .......................................................................................... 11
Role of the Parks and Recreation Department ................................... 14
Role of Neighborhood Leaders .......................................................... 14
Preferred Communication Methods ................................................... 15
Resident Concerns ............................................................................. 18
EAB Control and Funding ................................................................. 19
Recommendations .................................................................................... 20
Recommendation 1 ............................................................................ 20
Recommendation 2 ............................................................................ 22
Recommendation 3 ............................................................................ 23
Recommendation 4 ............................................................................ 25
Recommendation 5 ............................................................................ 26
Conclusion ............................................................................................... 27
References ................................................................................................ 28
Appendix A: Questionnaire for Homeowners
Appendix B: Letter to Homeowners
Appendix C: St. Louis Park’s Emerald Ash Borer Brochure
Appendix D: Phone Prompt/Interview Questions for Neighborhood Leaders
Appendix E: Summary of Questionnaire Responses: Response Rate and Percent per
Question
i

List of Figures
Figure 1: Emerald Ash Borer in the Midwestern United States, 2010 ...... 2
Figure 2: Emerald Ash Borer in Minnesota, 2009. .................................... 3
Figure 3: St. Louis Park, MN Relative to the Twin Cities Metro
Area, 2010 ............................................................................................ 5
Figure 4: Interviews Conducted with Neighborhood Leaders,
St. Louis Park, 2010 ............................................................................. 7
Figure 5: Residents’ Preferred Replacement Tree Type, St. Louis
Park, 2010 .......................................................................................... 11
Figure 6. Sources from which Residents Found Emerald Ash Borer
Information, St. Louis Park, 2010 ..................................................... 12
Figure 7. Resident Perceived Emerald Ash Borer Threat by
Self-described Level of Awareness, St. Louis Park, 2010 ................. 13
Figure 8. Resident Choices regarding Ash Trees on Private Property,
St. Louis Park, 2010 ........................................................................... 15
Figure 9. Preferred Emerald Ash Borer Communication Pathways of
Residents, St. Louis Park, 2010 ......................................................... 16
Figure 10. Most Effective Emerald Ash Borer Communication
Pathways with Residents Age 60+, St. Louis Park, 2010 .................. 16
Figure 11. Resident Concerns Regarding Emerald Ash Borer, St.
Louis Park, 2010 ................................................................................ 19
List of Tables
Table 1: Main Pathways of Communication to Residents through
Neighborhood Leaders, St. Louis Park, 2010 ................................... 17
ii

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the City of St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Department
for allowing us to use our knowledge first hand in developing an emerald ash borer
(EAB) study and recommendations. In particular, we give a special thanks to Jim
Vaughan for helping us narrow the scope of the project and devoting his time to
further its development. We also thank the St. Louis Park neighborhood leaders who
played a large role in helping us gather qualitative data to further our project through
phone interviews and the residents who completed the EAB questionnaire and shared
information about their thoughts and values related to the spread of the beetle. We
would also like to thank Dr. Kristen Nelson and Dr. Gary Johnson for their direction,
assistance and guidance with the project. Specifically, Dr. Kristen Nelson’s
recommendations and suggestions pertaining to the questionnaire development have
been invaluable in forming our proposal.
Thanks are also due to Sean Gosiewski, the Program Director for the Alliance for
Sustainability in St. Louis Park, for letting us attend community events and gather
information. It is also necessary to thank Zachery Jorgenson and his colleagues for
sharing their St. Paul EAB survey draft, which aided in the development of the St.
Louis Park EAB questionnaire.
iii

Executive Summary
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota is a beautiful first ring suburb just outside of
Minneapolis. It is an active and aspiring community. Currently, St. Louis Park is
being threatened by the potential of an infestation of emerald ash borer (EAB), an
invasive beetle that attacks the bark of native ash trees (Fraxinus spp.). Following the
first discovery of EAB within the United States in 2002, the beetle has gradually
adversely impacted the Midwest’s ash tree population (USDA Forest Service et al.
2010). EAB was first discovered in Minnesota in May 2009 near St. Paul. Since then,
the beetle has been spreading at a higher rate than that of its natural migration due to
the transportation of infested firewood. In order to prevent rapid spread, a quarantine
area, which includes St. Louis Park, has been established. “The quarantine is
designed to limit the movement of potentially infested firewood or other materials,
such as live ash trees, that might harbor EAB larvae” (Minnesota Department of
Agriculture 2010).
St. Louis Park’s urban forest includes ash trees (Fraxinus spp.), which makes EAB an
important concern for the community. More than one-third of St. Louis Park is
private property, obligating residents to participate in the response to EAB (City of
St. Louis Park, MN 2010). This report provides an assessment of resident
preparedness for an EAB invasion and proposes recommendations developed to
enhance community preparedness for a future infestation.
Three methods were used to assess St. Louis Park’s EAB preparedness:
questionnaire, informal interviews, and case studies. We found that there was a wide
range of EAB awareness in St. Louis Park, from those who consider themselves very
aware to those who have never heard of EAB. It was also evident residents had a high
degree of trust in the city’s ability to guide them in the appropriate actions. This is
important as data also suggests many residents will need to be guided when making
decisions regarding EAB. For example, as trees are removed and replaced, data
suggests residents prefer replacing with similar species, which poses threats
associated with lack of biodiversity.
Based on these findings, we developed five recommendations for the City of St.
Louis Park to enhance their ability to prepare for EAB:
1. Increase the clarity and accessibility of EAB information by branding a uniform
message from the city
2. Publicize the Parks and Recreation Department’s response to the threat of
emerald ash borer on public property as a model for private landowners
3. Enhance community awareness by utilizing neighborhood leaders
4. Promote and maintain high tree diversity through education and planning
iv

5. Secure funding and reduce costs to support timely implementation of the city’s
Emerald Ash Borer Management Policy & Plan
The City of St. Louis Park has demonstrated its commitment to being a connected
and engaged community, and, as a result, the city is likely to address the threat of
EAB in an effective way. Addressing this issue as one like-minded community will
allow St. Louis Park to align with its vision of ensuring a safe and vital community.
v

Introduction
St. Louis Park, Minnesota is a first-ring suburb of 10.8 square miles, just west of
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. The city is home to roughly 45,000 people. The
proximity of St. Louis Park to the Twin Cities affords residents the opportunity to
enjoy the attractions, events, and excitement of the Twin Cities. However, recently
this adjacency threatens the health of residents’ ash trees. Emerald ash borer (EAB) is
a non-native, invasive beetle that attacks native ash trees (Fraxinus spp.). In May
2009, EAB was found in St. Anthony Park, St. Paul (Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board, Forestry Division 2009). It was estimated this initial infestation
had been present for four years, but it went undetected due to the fact that it can take
time for beetle populations to increase enough to be detected by other wildlife
(Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 2010). Shortly after this initial finding, EAB
was found to have spread to Prospect Park, Minneapolis (Minneapolis Parks and
Recreation Board 2010). EAB has the potential to further its spread to other
communities in the Metro area, including St. Louis Park, posing a considerable threat
to ash trees on public lands, boulevards and private property. The potential
annihilation of ash trees due to an infestation of EAB will not only devastate the
urban forest, but create challenges for restoring aesthetics, allocating resources and
ensuring the environmental health of the community.
The adult EAB beetle, only 7.5 to 13.5 mm long, may not appear to be a threat;
however, by laying eggs on the bark of an ash tree, the beetle inflicts significant
damage. The white segmented larvae burrow into the bark and feed on the sap
(phloem) of the ash tree, cutting off the transportation of essential nutrients and water
from the roots to the leaves. Typically, the top third of the ash tree will die first. Key
indicators of EAB are the S-shaped tunnels beneath the bark, which are left by EAB
larvae after feeding, and the D-shaped holes made after the metamorphosis of the
larva into pupa and finally into an adult. The adults exit the tree in mid to late June
and travel to other trees, beginning this cycle again (USDA Forest Service et al.
2010).
It is hypothesized EAB arrived in the United States from its native Asia on cargo
ships or airplane shipments containing solid wood packing material (USDA Forest
Service 2010). The first discovery of EAB within the United States was in
southeastern Michigan near Detroit in 2002. It can now be found in 13 other states
including Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia as well as
Canada (Figure 1; USDA Forest Service et al. 2010). In 2009, EAB was found in
Minnesota, specifically in St. Anthony Park, St. Paul, and Prospect Park, Minneapolis
(Figure 2; Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board 2010). Minneapolis alone has an
estimated 900,000 trees on public and private property. Of these, 21% are ash trees
(Thomas 2010), signifying the disease has the potential to spread quickly.
1

Figure 1. Emerald Ash Borer in the Midwestern United States, October 1, 2010.
(Source: htttp://www.emeraldashborer.info/files/Multistate_EABpos.pdf)
Even though EAB has not yet reached St. Louis Park, the city is preparing for an
impending EAB intrusion. EAB populations are expected to naturally spread five to
ten miles per year as they search for new host trees, but may artificially spread over
hundreds of miles through the shipment of ash wood (Nazzaro 2006). St. Louis Park
is located within the region of quarantine, where the shipment of ash trees and logs is
closely regulated. The transportation of firewood outside of quarantined areas has
been prohibited by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (Minnesota Department
of Agriculture 2009).
Community Capacity for EAB Preparedness
Depending on how quickly EAB spreads, responding to the problem may be costly
for both the city and its residents. The City of St. Paul estimated tree removal and
disposal as a result of EAB to be approximately $700 per tree (St. Paul Parks and
Recreation/Forestry Department 2009). More than one-third of St. Louis Park is
private property (City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota 2010), obligating residents to
have a substantial role in the response to EAB. Developing EAB management
strategies that foster close relationships with private property owners can help protect
2

St. Louis Park from the rapid and unruly spread of EAB. These strategies will provide
the ciy with a stronger ability to address higher demands for resources as a result of
EAB.
Figure 2. Emerald Ash Borer in Minnesota, June 2009.
(Source: http://www.emeraldashborer.info/files/mn_june_2009_statewide_eab_map.pdf)
This study focuses on St. Louis Park private property owners’ knowledge and
concerns regarding EAB, as well as their values guiding tree management on their
properties. This report provides recommendations that the St. Louis Park Parks and
Recreation Department can use to continue to enhance the community capacity of the
city as it moves forward in preparing for a potential EAB infestation. Community
capacity is defined as “the interaction of human capital, organizational resources, and
social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve
collective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of a given community”
(Chaskin 2001), and is a vital component in managing community trees and preparing
for EAB.
3

Seniors from the University of Minnesota pursuing degrees in Environmental
Science, Policy, and Management prepared this report for St. Louis Park’s Parks and
Recreation Department. Students enrolled in the course Problem Solving for
Environmental Change assisted the City of St. Louis Park with eight projects
focusing on the sustainability of the city: Nature Center master plan, alternative
vegetation management options, residential tree inventory and assessment, invasive
species management, storm water pond management, multifamily housing recycling
program, citywide organic waste management plan, and community capacity in
responding to EAB. Together, these projects were designed to assist the City of St.
Louis Park in their environmental stewardship initiative, a concept citizens of St.
Louis Park requested to be a priority for their city.
Vision and Goals
The vision of the City of St. Louis Park is to “Deliver responsive municipal services
to ensure a safe, welcoming and vital community now and in the future” (City of St.
Louis Park, MN 2010). Through the project participation of those enrolled in the
course Problem Solving for Environmental Change, students envisioned that St.
Louis Park will be a model of environmental stewardship by providing residents and
future generations with educational tools and sustainable practices to foster a
community of ecologically conscious and engaged citizens. The specific vision of the
this project on the community capacity for EAB preparedness in St. Louis Park was
to provide the building blocks for St. Louis Park to become a knowledgeable and
well-prepared community in regards to the threat of EAB. The main goal of this
project was to assist the City of St. Louis Park in enhancing community’s capacity to
respond to the threat of EAB. This goal was accomplished through the following
objectives:
1. Gather data through a residential questionnaire and neighborhood leader
interviews to assess St. Louis Park residents’ knowledge of EAB as well as
attitudes and values toward trees,
2. Analyze data to understand residents’ decision-making process regarding tree
management and assess their capacity to prepare for emerald ash borer,
3. Examine case studies for insight on the related experiences of other communities,
4. Recommend ways to enhance the community capacity in St. Louis Park regarding
preparedness and responsiveness to EAB on private property.
Site Description
The City of St. Louis Park is located west of Minneapolis, MN, and has a total
population of 44,126 people. Single-family residences make up the largest portion of
land use in the city at approximately 33%, followed by streets, commercial
developments, apartment complexes, parks, schools, and miscellaneous land-use
4

types (City of St. Louis Park, MN 2010). Trees and other vegetation are prominent
landscape characteristics due to the large amount of residential landscape and public
recreation areas.
As a first-ring suburb directly on the border of an urban center, St. Louis Park will be
an indicator of EAB spread outside the Minneapolis and St. Paul area (Figure 3). As
residential and woody landscapes become more prevalent outside of urban centers,
the number of ash trees will increase. Increased numbers and areas dense with ash
trees will likely promote the spread of the beetle throughout western Minnesota over
the next 20 years.
EAB has been found in the St. Anthony Park neighborhood of St. Paul, MN, and the
Prospect Park neighborhood of Minneapolis, MN (Figure 2; Minneapolis Parks and
Recreation Board 2010). The Prospect Park neighborhood, the closer of the two
neighborhoods to St. Louis Park, is approximately 10 miles from the northeast border
of St. Louis Park.
Figure 3. St. Louis Park, MN, relative to the Twin Cities Metro area, December 5, 2010.
(Source: http://www.mapquest.com/)
5

Methods
Two primary data collection methods and one secondary data collection method were
used to asses St. Louis Park’s community capacity to prepare for EAB: a
questionnaire, informal interviews, and case studies. The questionnaire provided
quantitative and qualitative data, while the informal interviews and case studies
exclusively provided qualitative data.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was used to determine the values, opinions, and knowledge of St.
Louis Park residents regarding EAB. It consisted of 14 questions, including 12
closed-ended questions (Appendix A). A majority of closed-ended questions were
asked because they provide more quantifiable data and also increase the response rate
(Hallie Preskill and Darlene Russ-Eft 2009). The sample was a stratified random
sample of 178 private properties in St. Louis Park selected from the population
surveyed by the Residential Tree Inventory and Assessment group (Report 3/8). Tree
surveyors chose a 16 block sample based on a pre-sample, determined by the shape of
St. Louis Park roadways. (See Report 3/8 for more details.)
The questionnaire was delivered to residents between late October and mid-
November. It was placed in an envelope along with a cover letter, a copy of St. Louis
Park’s EAB education brochure and a stamped and addressed return envelope
(Appendices A-C). The envelope was then put in a plastic bag hung on the door
handles of each home. Respondents filled out and mailed the questionnaires back to
the University of Minnesota. Sixty-six out of 178 questionnaires were returned, a
repose rate of 37%.
Quantitative data from the questionnaire was recorded and analyzed using Microsoft
Excel. Descriptive statistics were used for the analysis with the majority of attention
given to the mean and the mode. Qualitative data responses were coded and then
grouped based on similarities.
Informal Interviews
Phone interviews were conducted with neighborhood leaders of St. Louis Park to gain
in-depth knowledge about the preparedness for EAB in these neighborhoods. Of the
35 recognized neighborhoods, 25 listed an active leader with contact information on
the St. Louis Park website. Of the 25 contacted, 17 neighborhood leaders participated
in an interview (Figure 4). These participants were chosen based on their leadership
position, which, in this study, is assumed to come with knowledge of the
neighborhood and resident concerns.
6

Figure 4. Interviews conducted with neighborhood leaders, St. Louis Park, October 2010.
Interviews were conducted by phone, based on pre-written prompts and questions
ntended to supplement data from completed questionnaires (Appendix D). Interview
questions were chosen to engage neighborhood leaders about their own
neighborhood’s preparedness for EAB and their capacity to lead the neighborhood
response effort. During the interviews, the candid responses were written down by the
interviewer on a premade transcript. If a participant provided information unrelated to
the question, but it was considered to be useful for the project, or if interviewee
responses generated more questions, the interviewer wrote down these questions and
responses in an available space. After all interviews were completed, responses were
grouped by question and typed into one document. From here, responses were
analyzed for patterns by question and then for themes throughout the entire interview.
7

Where appropriate, responses were coded using frequencies and descriptive statistics
in Microsoft Excel.
Case Studies
To supplement collected data and enhance recommendations, municipal case studies
were reviewed. Criteria for the case studies included stage of EAB infestation, site
comparison to St. Louis Park and results of EAB management. Cases of communities
in varying stages of the EAB threat were used in order to understand how these cities
prepared for EAB as well as how they managed resources relative to EAB,
specifically funding. Literature was also used to better understand the cognitive and
emotional aspects of residents’ perceptions of trees, helping to further develop
recommendations for EAB management. The cases reviewed included the cities of St.
Paul, MN; Toledo, OH; and Copenhagen, Denmark, as well as the State of Michigan.
Findings
EAB and Its Spread Throughout Minnesota
Due to St. Louis Park’s proximity to the areas within the Twin Cities that have been
affected by EAB, it is likely the beetle will impact the city’s urban forest, causing
many challenges the community will need to be prepared to manage. Although it is
unclear to what extent EAB will affect St. Louis Park, aesthetic degradation, resource
demands, and safety/liability are some of the major concerns posed by EAB and the
loss of ash trees within other communities. Fellow students in the Residential Tree
Inventory and Assessment group conducted a tree inventory of St. Louis Park private
properties and found approximately 12% of the trees inventoried were Fraxinus spp.,
commonly known as ash (Frieder et al. 2010). We found that 20% of St. Louis Park
questionnaire respondents stated they have an ash tree on their property, while 33%
were unsure.
The city’s urban forest will be altered as ash trees decline. A loss of large, mature ash
trees will result in canopy deficits and may change the appearance and character of
the community (Jorgensen 2010). This loss will also change the biology of St. Louis
Park’s urban forest. Trees are important for biological functions and ecosystem
services including soil erosion reduction, temperature regulation, carbon
sequestration, rainfall interception, and habitat enhancement (Schwab 2009).
Boulevard ash trees are already being removed at a rate of 5% per year in hopes of
slowing the infestation (City of St. Louis Park EAB Management Policy and Plan
2010), meaning residents will soon experience the repercussions of the EAB threat.
Neighborhood leaders articulated that trees are very important to citizens of St. Louis
Park. Additionally, 77% of survey respondents would be willing to replant new trees
8

if an infected ash tree was found and removed from their property. The community’s
willingness to replace infected trees is beneficial for both the community and ecology
of the urban ecosystem.
Appreciation of Outdoor Aesthetics and Diversification
When thinking about the effects EAB could have on the physical composition of St.
Louis Park, it is important to consider residents’ values concerning landscape
aesthetics, especially their value for trees. It is important for the St. Louis Park Parks
and Recreation Department to understand the broad array of values residents have for
trees and outdoor aesthetics in order to efficiently and equitably respond to EAB
within the urban ecosystem. This understanding can inform city decisions regarding
EAB tree management and resident support programs.
According to Dwyer et al. (1991), trees play an important role in urban settings.
Researchers stress the necessity of taking a broad perspective on the benefits of trees
based on the “deep psychological ties between people and urban trees and forests”
(Dwyer et al. 1991). Often times, values associated with trees and tree preservation
are emotional rather than merely rational. For this reason, successful tree
management requires regard for emotions and values instead of solely rational
justification, such as energy savings and increased property values.
St. Louis Park neighborhood leaders echoed these insights, indicating an especially
strong importance of trees among their neighbors as well as general pride in the
outdoor aesthetics of their neighborhood. Neighborhood leaders also expressed many
residents do, in fact, have an emotional connection to the trees within their
neighborhood. In response to the question, When thinking about the look of the
neighborhood and what residents value, how important do you think trees are for this
neighborhood, one neighborhood leader stated, “People are upset when they lose
trees. It leaves a gap in the neighborhood physically and emotionally.” Another
neighborhood leader described losing a tree to be “like losing a family member.” This
suggests residents may be apprehensive about tree removal associated with EAB
based on their emotional connection.
In addition to emotional values, trees are valued for their ecological significance.
When asked about some of the best attributes of urban forests, respondents of a study
in Denmark highlighted the importance of having a variety of tree species and ages in
order to provide for seasonal aesthetics, wildlife habitat and species abundance
(Hansen-Møller et al. 2004). The majority of these respondents also indicated urban
forests are the most attractive areas in which to live because residents have the
mutual benefit of living among nature and living near an urban area.
Although our interview findings suggest that residents highly value trees in general,
questionnaire responses suggest that specifically ash trees may not be as highly
9

valued. When respondents with ash trees on their property were asked how much they
value their ash trees on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being not valued at all and 5 being highly
valued), the response average was 3.7. This suggests people value trees in general;
however, they have a moderate value for ash trees. Although people highly value
trees and the benefits thereof, specific tree types have less value. As St. Louis Park
moves forth in assessing EAB, it will be important to keep in mind the general value
of trees to residents in order to sustain important community values and outdoor aesthetics.
In general, people are most attached to old growth trees, especially if a tree is tied to a
specific memory, such as a family member (Dwyer et al. 1991). In the case of old
growth trees, people may be more inclined to use a pesticide rather than have the tree
removed for both emotional and financial reasons. If trees are required to be
removed, Dwyer et al. (1991) suggest many people are likely to replant trees to
expand the natural setting of their neighborhood. Accordingly, data from the EAB
resident questionnaire suggests residents are not as likely to replace a removed ash
tree if they already have other old growth trees on their property. Specifically, 15% of
the qualitative responses as to why residents would not replace a removed ash tree
were due to having other mature trees on the resident’s property or on their
boulevard.
Toledo, OH, also conducted a survey of their residents regarding EAB. Due to the
effects of EAB, the City of Toledo had scheduled the removal of approximately 5,000
trees. One month before their removal, Heimlich et al. (2008) surveyed Toledo
residents as to how residents felt about losing their mature ash trees and their
attitudes toward replacement trees. They found respondents favored replacement
trees that were large, provided shade, and would increase the attractiveness of their
street.
In St. Louis Park, resident responses were similar to those of Toledo residents.
Nonfruiting trees were popular among respondents as 31% stated they would replace
their ash tree with such a species. Although responses for specific tree species were
not solicited in the questionnaire, 21% of the respondents who chose a nonfruiting
tree as a preferred replacement species expressed a desire to replant with a maple or
birch tree. No other species were specified by respondents as being preferred
replacement trees. Twenty-two percent stated if they were to replace their ash tree,
they would prefer to replace it with a shade-providing tree species (Figure 5). If both
shade-providing and nonfruiting trees are the most popular tree species among all
residents, this will have to be balanced with the benefits of diverse species in urban
forests necessary to provide for future ecosystem stability and natural aesthetics. As
long as St. Louis Park neighborhoods move forth focusing on the ecological
importance of trees, species diversity and the general value of trees to residents, loss
of ash trees may be mitigated by the strategic investment in other species.
10

Figure 5. Residents’ preferred replacement tree type, St. Louis Park, October 2010. Responses to
Question 8b of Resident Questionnaire: With what type of tree would you replace [your removed ash
tree]? (n=64).
Awareness
In order for the St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Department to properly address
the issue of EAB, it is important to first assess the level of resident awareness. By
educating residents about EAB and spreading awareness of the issue throughout the
community, residents are more likely to act in a positive way to protect the
community in which they live. In Spring 2010, Jorgensen et al. (2010) surveyed
residents in St. Paul and found less than half the population (43%) considered
themselves to be very informed about EAB.
Conversely, through the St. Louis Park resident questionnaires and neighborhood
leader interviews, we found that the majority of residents were familiar with EAB and
the fact that it is a problem in the Twin Cities. Though residents consider themselves
aware of the issue, we also found residents did not fully understand the implications
related to the threat of EAB for the City of St. Louis Park. When neighborhood
leaders were asked, Regarding trees, emerald ash borer is a non-native invasive
beetle that attacks ash trees. Were you aware of the emerald ash borer problem in the
Twin Cities?, we found 15 of the 17 neighborhood leaders interviewed had heard of
EAB. Of those, 13 said they were familiar with the problem in the Twin Cities area.
Responses ranged from a simple “No” to one neighborhood leader who considered
himself “very aware” and felt well educated on the many invasive species that have
affected St. Louis Park for the past 32 years. This suggests that the majority of
11

neighborhood leaders have a basic knowledge about the threat of EAB that the city
will be able to build upon.
Evidence from the resident questionnaire resonates with that of the neighborhood
leader interviews. According to survey responses, 24% of respondents feel they are
very aware of EAB, 67% feel they are somewhat aware, and 9% are not aware.
Although the majority concluded they were aware of EAB, people were uncertain
when it came to EAB presence in St. Louis Park. When asked if residents thought
EAB had been found in St. Louis Park, 39% responded “I don’t know.” Only 31% of
respondents answered this question correctly as “No,” and the remaining 30% of
respondents answered “Yes,” meaning they thought EAB had been found in St. Louis
Park.
This discrepancy in the level of awareness and specifics about EAB spread is most
likely a result of residents generalizing what they have heard in the media. Since it is
well publicized that EAB has been found in surrounding communities in the greater
Metro area, St. Louis Park residents may conclude it has been found locally as well,
especially when considering 36.5% of respondents received EAB information from
local news (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Sources from which residents found EAB information, St. Louis Park, October 2010.
Responses to Question 3a of Resident Questionnaire: Where have you found or received information
about emerald ash borer? Check all that apply. (n=85)
12

According to questionnaire results, St. Louis Park residents’ level of awareness
positively correlates with their perceived threat of EAB (Figure 7). In other words, as
people become more aware of EAB, they perceive it as a higher threat to the
community. An increase in the perceived threat makes EAB a higher priority for
residents, therefore demanding the support of and response from the city. As St.
Louis Park residents become more knowledgeable about EAB, it will ultimately
result in increased community concern and need for capacity building to handle the
issue.
Figure 7. Resident perceived EAB threat by self-described level of awareness, St. Louis Park, October
2010. Responses to Question 4 of Resident Questionnaire: On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no threat at all
and 5 being a big threat, do you think EAB is a threat to St. Louis Park?, relative to Question 1: How
would you rate your level of awareness about Emerald Ash Borer? (n=66)
Finally, understanding public awareness and knowledge is important when designing
education programs. For example, when residents were asked if they knew about the
free tree inspection service offered by the City of St. Louis Park, 77% of respondents
were unaware of this service. This finding corresponds with Question 6a of the
resident questionnaire: Do you have any ash trees on your property? Thirty-four
percent responded that they did not know whether they had an ash tree on their
property. Resident awareness and use of the tree inspection program would clearly
assist with ash tree identification and, therefore, increase residents’ capacity to be
properly equipped to address the issue.
Furthermore, in open-ended questionnaire comments, approximately 30% of
respondents felt there was a lack of education about EAB. Others wanted to know
very specific information related to EAB in St. Louis Park. From both the
questionnaire and interview data, it is clear many residents do not feel fully equipped
with the necessary knowledge to prepare for EAB, even if they are aware of the issue.
Role of the Parks and Recreation Department
The Parks and Recreation Department plays an important role in the defense against
EAB. As the EAB response unfolds, the department can recognize their expertise and
13

the reputation they have earned as trustworthy among St. Louis Park residents. Based
on interview responses, the majority the of neighborhood leaders have confidence in
the department regarding EAB. Specifically, leaders trust the city will facilitate the
proper EAB response and will notify residents if there is anything they should
address. When discussing the potential of an EAB infestation, one neighborhood
leader stated, “I just hope we would be informed if [the borer] was getting close, but I
think Marny (City Liaison) would let us know if that was the case.” Leaders also
indicated confidence in the Parks and Recreation Department’s ability to promptly
respond to resident needs and concerns. As one leader emphasized, “[The] social and
community services in St. Louis Park are very good. [The Parks and Recreation
Department’s] service to residents is very good and prompt. [We] had some tree loss
and [they were] great about responding and replanting.”
Trust in the city was echoed in the comments section of the resident questionnaire.
Numerous respondents complimented the city for its work with trees, as well as its
timely response to the threat of EAB. Specifically, a few people asked the city to
continue action on specific issues such as soil testing or tree removal. One respondent
complimented the city and its work with EAB, stating “We have had the city foresters
out. Good guys! We have had two boulevard trees put in for free!” It is clear the
city’s work is highly appreciated.
While there is trust in the Parks and Recreation Department, there are also many
questions for the department. According to questionnaire results, 32% of respondents
indicated they did not know how they would respond to having an ash tree on their
property, would take no action, or would wait for signs of stress to appear (Figure 8).
Neighborhood leaders indicated they are looking for information from the city to
address residents’ uncertainty regarding EAB. Specifically, they asked for direction
in the steps to take against the threat of EAB within their neighborhoods.
Neighborhood leaders are also looking for answers associated with financing EAB
response on private property. This suggests citizens are looking to the Parks and
Recreation Department to educate residents and guide decisions.
Role of Neighborhood Leaders
Neighborhood leaders will be a beneficial resource to the Parks and Recreation
Department’s battle against the EAB threat. The majority of these leaders have lived
in their neighborhood for more than 12 years, with an average of 18 years, meaning
the neighborhood leaders have a great understanding of the dynamics of their
neighborhood and of St. Louis Park. The current neighborhood leaders have also been
on their respective neighborhood associations for an average of 6 years. Charismatic
leaders who play an active role in the community are more influential in their peers’
decisions than an outsider expert (Rogers 2003). Because the neighborhood leaders
are active members in their community and well trusted, they play a key part in
information dispersal from the Parks and Recreation Department. During interviews
14

with neighborhood leaders, approximately one third interpreted their role as
information disseminators when asked, What role do you think the neighborhood
leaders could play in preparing for EAB among residents? One neighborhood leader
said, “Disseminator of information from the City,” while another said, “If we were
given information to distribute, we would definitely do that.”
Figure 8. Resident choices regarding ash trees on private property, St. Louis Park, October 2010. Responses to
Question 7 of Resident Questionnaire: If you have an ash tree on your property, what action (if any) would you
take? Check all that apply. (n=66)
Leaders also indicted that many residents within their neighborhoods may choose to
act on the matter individually, as opposed to as a community. They felt it is important
to reach out to these individuals in order to guide EAB responses across the city.
Neighborhood leaders believed they could promote outreach by communicating with
these residents and disseminating city information about EAB.
Preferred Communication Methods
When deciding how to disseminate information regarding EAB to residents, it is
important for the city to take into account the ways in which residents prefer to receive
information, as well as how neighborhood leaders prefer to communicate information
to their residents. Data from the questionnaires show the respondents preferred to
receive EAB information from the city by way of mail, door flyers, and the Park
Perspective, whereas the St. Louis Park website is least preferred (Figure 9).
Specifically only 4.5% of respondents stated the St. Louis Park website as the
preferred form of EAB communication. When analyzing questionnaires of residents
15

ages 60 and older, it is evident these residents prefer similar means of receiving EAB
information (Figure 10).
Figure 9. Residents’ preferred EAB communication pathways, St. Louis Park, 2010. Responses to Question 3b
of Resident Questionnaire: What do you feel is the most effective way to communicate information about
emerald ash borer and tree management to residents in your community? Please rank your top 3 choices. (n=66)
Figure 10. Preferred EAB communication pathways of residents age 60+, St. Louis Park, October
2010. Responses to Question 3b of Resident Questionnaire: What do you feel is the most effective way
to communicate information about emerald ash borer and tree management to residents in your
community? Please rank your top 3 choices. (n=15)
Of the 17 neighborhood leaders that were interviewed, 10 mentioned communication
with residents in their neighborhoods as a part of their role. In general, neighborhood
leaders preferred using one and four specific communication methods. The top three
16

pathways for communication between neighborhood leaders and residents were
newsletters, flyers, and email (Table 1). The least common pathways for
communication between neighborhood leaders and residents were neighborhood
websites and online social networks, both of which require the resident to seek out
information on their own.
Table 1. Reported communication pathways through neighborhood leaders, St. Louis Park,
October 2010.
Neighborhood
Newsletter
Flyer/mailing
Email/listserv
Meeting
Website
SocialEvent
OnlineSocial
Network
TotalPathways
per
Neighborhood
Amhurst x x 2
Aquila x 1
Birchwood x 1
Blackstone x x 2
Bronx Park x x 2
Brookside x x 2
Creekside x x x 3
Crestview x 1
Eliot View x x x 3
Elmwood x x x 3
Lake Forest x x x x 4
Minikahda Oaks x x 2
Minikahda Vista x x 2
Minnehaha x x 2
Oak Hill x x 2
Sorenson x 1
Willow Park x x x 3
Total for Pathway Type 11 7 7 5 3 2 1
This information from residents and neighborhood leaders suggests that flyers are the
most preferred method for receiving and distributing information regarding EAB. It
also indicates that the most effective way to distribute information is through some
physical form of mail delivered to residents’ doorsteps. Examples, as previously
mentioned, would be mail, flyers and community and neighborhood newspapers. Non-
physical forms of information that must be sought out by residents, such as the St.
Louis Park website, may be less effective as they are the least preferred.
17

Resident Concerns
Through interviews and questionnaires a number of concerns from the community
have been repeated, generally relating to neighborhood aesthetics, controlling the
spread of EAB, and the costs associated to responding to the threat. Neighborhood
leaders expressed concerns over preservation of the neighborhood feel if multiple old
growth ash trees were removed, as well as the uncertainty surrounding EAB. When
comparing EAB to other neighborhood concerns of street lighting and traffic, one
neighborhood leader stated, “These issues can be controlled, whereas emerald ash
borer is a silent invader and a natural issue [they] must react to.”Another leader asked
rhetorical questions: “It is an unknown threat. How do we deal with it? How do we
remove [trees]? Expenses [residents] could incur?” suggesting the numerous EAB-
related uncertainties of residents and the importance of a guided EAB response.
A second concern expressed in both the leader interviews and resident questionnaire
was the timing between tree marking and removal. One leader specifically mentioned
seeing dead trees that had been infected with Dutch elm disease and marked for
removal, but still not removed. Other residents were focused on trees they had seen
throughout the city that needed attention, or even trees they wanted removed from
their own yards.
A third main concern was how to address the spread of emerald ash borer. One
neighborhood leader mentioned, “There is no control over the spread of the disease.
Free firewood from infected trees is the major problem.” Fifty-three percent of
residents also stated that the spread of EAB was a concern (Figure 11).
Other concerns residents expressed through the questionnaire included costs related to
EAB (55%) and removal/tree loss (48%). Cost emerged as a high priority when
residents were asked an open-ended question as to why they would not replace their
ash tree if it were removed. The majority of people who responded stated that they
would only do so if the price was right. Additional concerns included pesticide use (38
%), aesthetics (36%), and property value (23%) relative to EAB (Figure 11).
While some residents are concerned and knowledgeable about the spread of EAB, it is
important to note 5 percent of respondents do not see it as a threat in comparison to
other current and pressing issues. This finding was echoed in the neighborhood leader
interviews. When leaders were asked to compare the threat of EAB to other challenges
their neighborhood was facing, 4 out of 17 said EAB was less of a priority than other
current challenges. Until the effects of EAB are seen and felt by residents first hand,
neighborhood leaders expressed other social issues being of more immediate concern,
possibly reducing the community’s capacity to respond to EAB.
18

Figure 11. Resident concerns about EAB, St. Louis Park, October 2010. Responses to Question 9 of Resident
Questionnaire: What are your concerns related to emerald ash borer? Check all that apply. (n=64)
EAB Control and Funding
By 2006, EAB had already killed more than 8 million ash trees in Michigan (Northley
2006). At that time, Michigan’s program to combat and contain the spread of EAB
was experiencing a serious lack of funding, which decreased the state’s capacity to
communicate with the public, survey the state and detect the beetle. As a result, the
State refocused their efforts toward preventing the spread of the beetle by enforcing a
firewood transportation quarantine around 21 counties and 31 other infested areas.
Michigan fined those who violated the quarantine anywhere from $100 to $10,000
(Northley 2006). These fines were used to help further fund the state’s EAB program.
In addition, the state was able to raise additional funding for the program by selling
both the infested and noninfested ash wood for use as railroad ties, dowels and
flooring (Northley 2006).
A recent example of a municipality facing funding issues related to EAB is the City of
St. Paul, MN. Since EAB was discovered on May 14, 2009, in the St. Anthony Park
neighborhood, the City of St. Paul has turned to the state and federal government, as
well as various grants, to address funding needs (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/
Forestry Department 2009). For replanting after ash tree removal, St. Paul pursued
support from the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund, an allotment of money set aside
by the state to aid in the “restoration, protection, and enhancement of wetlands,
19

prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife, and that prevent forest
fragmentation, encourage forest consolidation, and expand restored native prairie”
(Minnesota’s Constitutionally Dedicated Funds 2010). In addition, St. Paul is currently
working directly with the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, which provides
annual recommendations to the legislature on how they should allocate the Outdoor
Heritage Fund. In the future, the City of St. Paul plans on working with their local
federal delegation to help determine possible sources. To replant boulevard trees, St.
Paul decided to work with residents who are willing to pay for replanting themselves
and issue these residents permits to do so (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry
Department 2009).
In addition, disposal costs of ash trees were significantly reduced due to St. Paul’s
lease agreement with Environmental Wood Supply. Through this service, wood is
processed into wood chips, and then taken to the District Energy plant in downtown
St. Paul where the chips are burned for energy. This service is free of charge to the
city (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry Department 2009).
The St. Paul EAB Management Program estimated the average cost to remove one ash
tree to be $700 (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry Department 2009). The St.
Louis Park resident questionnaire shows that the average respondent expects to pay
approximately $500-$1000 to remove an ash tree; however, the mode for respondents
was less than $500, meaning that respondents more frequently expected to pay less
than $500 to remove an ash tree. This information may help estimate the percentage of
ash tree removal costs the city could undertake as part of a cost-share program that
serves to aid residents’ in meeting their expected removal costs and achieve citywide
goals for EAB control.
Recommendations
The following recommendations were developed to enhance the community’s capacity
to respond to EAB within St. Louis Park. In order to effectively engage the
community in responding to the citywide threat, we have designed recommendations
based on optimizing communication between the city and residents as well as
increasing awareness among residents. The Parks and Recreation Department can
utilize these recommendations as they continue inclusive preparedness plans that
efficiently and effectively respond to such threats as EAB.
Recommendation 1: Increase the clarity and accessibility of emerald ash
borer information by branding a uniform message from the city
Even though many St. Louis Park residents already have some information about
EAB, not all of the information is accurate due to the misinterpretation of information
from multiple outside sources, such as local news. Approximately, 36.5% of
20

questionnaire respondents indicated that they received information regarding EAB via
local news. Since EAB is found in other parts of the metro, residents may be making
the false assumption that EAB is currently found in St. Louis Park as well. Ninety-one
percent of survey respondents said they were somewhat aware of EAB, but 30%
incorrectly believed that EAB had been found in St. Louis Park and 39% did not
know. In order to correct misinformation, provide a clear message, and increase
accessibility to EAB information, we recommend that St. Louis Park consider
designating a primary EAB contact and utilizing the most effective forms of
communication.
Designating and publicizing a primary contact would increase the clarity and
accessibility of EAB information. Interviews illustrated neighborhood leaders’
dependence on the city for direction in responding to EAB. The primary contact can
communicate directly with neighborhood leaders and capitalize on the neighborhoods’
capacity to respond. The primary contact would be responsible for answering
residents’ questions regarding EAB. With one primary contact, there is less ambiguity
as to whom residents and neighborhood leaders should contact with questions and
concerns about EAB.
The primary contact would also be responsible for informing the Parks and Recreation
Department about EAB information needs and compiling it to be distributed. Through
receiving residents’ questions, the primary contact can evaluate communication needs
as well as be more aware of the concerns and questions the information should to
address. A clear, uniform message regarding prevention and the response to EAB can
be organized by the primary contact. The uniform message can serve as a guide for
homeowners’ planning, enhancing the community’s capacity to respond to EAB on
private property.
The primary contact can fully utilize the clear, uniform message created by proactively
providing information to be distributed instead of relying on residents and
neighborhood leaders to call with questions and concerns. In these efforts, the city
must remember that residents prefer different forms of communication. Mail, door
flyers, and the Park Perspective were reported to be the most effective forms of
communication according to findings from the resident questionnaire (Figure 9). The
Parks and Recreation Department could benefit from capitalizing on these methods in
order to communicate with residents. Information compiled by the primary contact can
be easily formatted for multiple communication methods.
The information could also be organized and posted on the St. Louis Park website.
However, it is important to note that less than 20% of questionnaire respondents
included the website in the top three most effective communication methods. As a
result, the website should not be the only means of disseminating information. If the
website is chosen as a means of providing EAB information, we suggest the
accessibility of the information be improved. Finding information about EAB on the
website is currently a challenge. Information on EAB can only be accessed indirectly
21

through a link to the Department of Agriculture website home page. From there, one
must navigate through the Department of Agriculture site. Instead of linking to another
website to find information, the City of St. Louis Park may wish to include the
information compiled by the primary contact on the city website. By doing so, EAB
information can be accessed more quickly and with greater ease.
As issues and concerns regarding EAB grow, the primary contact may not be able to
meet the increasing demand for information, especially if EAB reaches St. Louis Park.
The challenge of growing EAB issues and concerns can be assuaged by the formation
of an EAB team. With the help of 3 to 5 passionate volunteers informed about EAB
issues and concerns, the Parks and Recreation Department can maintain their
reputation as an effective and responsive city department. EAB team members can be
trained by the EAB primary contact to ensure that the message remains clear and
uniform.
The effectiveness of communication is greatly enhanced by the clarity and
accessibility of the information provided. With clear and accessible information,
residents’ EAB awareness will increase, as will the community capacity to respond to
this threat. Neighborhood leaders have considerable trust in the city. Through
communication efforts that improve community capacity, the City of St. Louis Park
can reinforce this trust.
Recommendation 2: Publicize the Parks and Recreation Department’s
response to the threat of emerald ash borer on public property as a
model for private landowners
EAB threatens both public and private property. Experts are charged with the
responsibility to respond to this threat on public property; however, it is up to the
property owner to take action or request assistance on his/her private property. By
publicizing the city’s response to EAB on public property, the Parks and Recreation
Department can promote uniform action in responding to EAB and motivate
individuals to act on their own properties.
Uniform action is beneficial in residents to successfully respond to EAB. The
Department would be illustrating safe and effective actions while promoting the
responsible allocation of resources, specifically costs. Neighborhood leaders
articulated that they are looking to the city for direction in responding to the threat of
EAB. Leaders suggested “seeing” the Department’s proactive response to EAB would
make it easier to monitor one’s own property. This may be largely due to the
uncertainty surrounding EAB and effective responses to this threat. Providing a
prototype would also help motivate residents to take responsibility for their own
properties due to the pressure of seeing the organized response of the city.To help
property owners decide if they need to act, it would also be advantageous for the Parks
and Recreation Department to increase awareness of their free tree inspection service.
22

Thirty-four percent of questionnaire respondents did not know whether they had an
ash tree on their property. The tree inspection service could therefore become an
education tool as well as a way in which to promote EAB preparation measures on
private property. Publicizing the city’s example of inventorying and assessing the
urban tree population could motivate residents to inventory and assess their own
property. Many residents do not have the expertise to identify an ash tree and/or assess
the health of a tree, thus proving the importance of city support through the inspection
service.
City resources are finite, making timely responses to such threats as EAB a challenge.
However, it is important to be prompt and follow through in order to maintain trust
and credibility among residents. We recommend that the Parks and Recreation
Department work closely with city officials to develop sufficient resources in order to
remove trees immediately following marking and/or postpone marking more trees
until resources are available. In doing so, the department will not appear as though
they are unable to address the demand for service.
It may also be a challenge to demonstrate to residents the importance of individual
action. It is crucial that residents do not see action related to EAB as “the city’s job.”
By increasing awareness through persistent communication and outreach, this
challenge can be mitigated as residents begin to understand the implications inaction
would have for their own properties.
Leading residents in the face of such a challenge as EAB is essential for providing the
safe, vital and welcoming community St. Louis Park strives to be. By working to
articulate the city’s action on public property and familiarize residents with the tree
inspection service, the Parks and Recreation Department could accomplish these goals
for St. Louis Park and ultimately increase the community’s capacity to respond to
EAB.
Recommendation 3: Enhance community awareness by utilizing
neighborhood leaders
Education is a key component when addressing environmental concerns; equally
important is the source of the education. Adults are more receptive to information
from a respected leader within their community (Rogers 2003). This indicates that
although the Parks and Recreation Department may be the EAB experts, education and
direction will have a greater impact when the neighborhood leaders are also
advocating for appropriate actions. On average, St. Louis Park’s neighborhood leaders
have lived in their neighborhoods approximately 18 years and have been a
neighborhood leader an average of 12 years, giving them an abundance of experience
and understanding of neighborhood concerns.
23

Neighborhood leaders provide an easy and effective way to communicate with the
public. As mentioned earlier, neighborhood leaders trust the Parks and Recreation
Department and are willing to disseminate information given to them about EAB. The
city can continue to foster the relationship because working with the neighborhood
leaders as information disseminators can be effective. In addition, neighborhood
associations already print newsletters and send emails, meaning the city would not
have to bear additional costs to disseminate educational materials to residents.
As stated in Recommendation 1, it would be beneficial for one EAB message to be
given to leaders to use in neighborhood newsletters and emails. In the information
provided, it is important to focus on positive outcomes so as not to panic residents or
make combating the threat seem like an impossible task. Because leaders expressed
interest and concern over EAB spread, removal and preservation, we suggest the Parks
and Recreation Department begin providing neighborhood leaders with information
on:
• How EAB spreads
• Ways to avoid spread
• Tips on how to safely purchase/acquire firewood
• Steps the city is taking to reduce the risk of infestation
• Signs of EAB
• Services the Parks and Recreation Department offers (such as a first detector
program)
• Preservation options and estimates, should the city choose to endorse these: If the
city does not choose to endorse chemical use on ash trees as a method of defense,
it is recommended they educate residents as to the reasons.
After this initial information, it will be important to listen and adjust the
communication program based on questions and concerns the city receives about
EAB. If even one person asks a question, it is likely there are many other residents
who have the same question, but do not know who to ask or do not have the time to
ask.
Some challenges the Parks and Recreation Department may face in implementing this
recommendation include leadership position changes as well as illustrating the EAB
threat as a priority over other neighborhood concerns. Leadership changes over time,
but maintaining a relationship built on strong communication with current leaders will
make future leadership transitions smoother. It is advisable for the city to ask the
current neighborhood leader to explain the importance of prioritizing EAB efforts to
any new neighborhood leader. Strong relationships between the city and neighborhood
leaders will also increase communication about neighborhood and city priorities. If
neighborhood leaders understand why action against EAB is a priority, they will be
more likely to adopt the effort as a main concern for the neighborhood. This will also
allow the city to understand the neighborhood’s priorities and possibly address them
more completely.
24

Recommendation 4: Promote and maintain high tree diversity through
education and planning
Tree diversification is important to maintain a viable urban forest in and around the St.
Louis Park. Urban forests not only provide ecological stability, they also create livable
spaces for people in urban centers. As a long-term response to EAB, St. Louis Park
can reinforce community education on the importance of species diversification
accompanied by a community plan to foster diverse tree planting.
Residents need to be informed or reminded that species diversification is important
because it enables ecosystems to be resilient to pests, changes in climate and other
threats. Without diversification, urban forests are threatened when invasive species,
such as the EAB, arrive and have the ability to kill a high percentage of the city’s
trees. Residents need to begin with an understanding of monocultures and their
susceptibility to pests due to the lack of species diversity. When a pest thrives off that
species, it has the ability to spread quickly, especially through urban areas. In these
areas, trees are typically closer in proximity and monocultures are more prevalent due
to past management decisions and similar species preferences among residents. Pest
outbreaks are not only devastating for the natural aesthetics and possibly the well-
being of a community, but they can also be expensive to address all at once. For this
reason, it is important for residents to be informed about diverse ages, sizes and types
of trees necessary when thinking about the future composition of an urban forest.
Evidence from case studies, neighborhood leader interviews and residential
questionnaires support this recommendation. Dwyer et al. (1991) highlight the
importance of old growth trees in urban communities, stating that trees are valued
mainly for emotional ties rather than rational reasons, and are therefore necessary for a
community’s well-being. Other studies demonstrate that residents appreciate urban
forests as a buffer within the urban community. Most neighborhood leaders in St.
Louis Park stressed the importance of trees in their immediate community, some
specifically stating the emotional ties they have with older trees. Although St. Louis
Park residents highly value trees in general, questionnaire respondents did not place an
exceptionally high value on individual ash trees. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being of low
value and 5 being of high value), residents who had an ash tree on their property
assigned it a mean value of 3.7. This suggests that specific tree species do not play as
much of a role in valuation as other tree amenities, such as shade, aesthetics and
emotional values.
Education about diversification can be conducted in concert with EAB education. For
example, all EAB educational materials, both those to residents and neighborhood
leaders, could also employ tree diversity education. In addition to providing
information on the importance and benefits of tree diversity, these materials can offer
lists of trees and their attributes in order to familiarize residents with various tree
options. In addition, St. Louis Park’s plan for tree diversity on public lands to reduce
25

potential damage of EAB in the future can be publicized to private land owners. One
way to ensure a sustainable and diverse tree stand is through the application of the
“30, 20, 10” rule, a general guideline for tree planning and replanting projects (see 3/8:
Residential Tree Inventory and Assessment report for further information).
From questionnaire comments, it is evident a large portion of residents in St. Louis
Park would prefer to replace their ash tree, if removed, with maple. This is likely due
to residents’ preference for shade trees. It is also clear many residents are familiar with
the possible overabundance of maple trees in St. Louis Park and are urging the city to
reevaluate its planting patterns. These conflicting values will be a challenge when
planning for future tree diversity in St. Louis Park. Many people are emotionally
attached to large, shade-providing trees making it difficult to promote new species that
residents have not previously seen in the area.
Providing tree diversity education in concert with EAB education may not be difficult.
Though there are conflicting thoughts about using maples trees to replace ash trees in
St. Louis Park, it is clear that people value these trees for shade. Because maple is one
of the most well-known and common shade trees today, it is easy for residents to jump
to quick conclusions about wanting one on their property. If residents knew the
features of other shade providing trees that could be purchased at similar or lesser cost,
gradually they may become interested in other species. St. Louis Park has the
opportunity to lead by example through planting diverse shade-providing trees on
public land, instead of maples. These examples would be helpful in supporting
resident choices. Overall, it is important for the City of St. Louis Park to encourage
continued communication about the importance of tree diversity. This exchange of
information can have an important influence on resident decisions and aid in the
sustainability of its urban forest, ultimately improving community capacity.
Recommendation 5: Secure funding and reduce costs to support timely
implementation of the City’s Emerald Ash Borer Management Policy &
Plan
As the threat of EAB intensifies, the need for funding will become a determining
factor in the city’s capacity to respond effectively to an infestation. The city’s ability
to continue selectively removing ash trees on public property as well as to replant new
species is dependent on the level of funding the city dedicates to the effort. We
suggest seeking funding for this program become a top priority, as it also supports the
response to EAB on private property. In fact, 48% of questionnaire respondents cited
removal/tree loss as one of their main concerns.
There are a variety of potential funding sources the city could pursue. First, the city
could work with neighboring communities to salvage and sell the wood from removed
ash trees. Using the State of Michigan as an example, they could sell their ash wood to
manufacturers of railroad ties, dowels and wood flooring. Since the beetle lives
26

directly under the bark and not within the trunk of the ash tree, even infected trees
would be salvageable for this purpose (Northley 2006). Ash trees small in diameter
could be given free of charge to be incinerated at a nearby energy facility with the
capacity to burn wood, saving the city money in disposal costs. This method of
disposal has been a success for the City of St. Paul, which gives its wood to District
Energy in downtown St. Paul (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry Department
2009).
Replanting saplings in place of removed trees will be a major expense. Costs include
workers’ salaries, trucks, service requirements and saplings themselves. St. Paul is
working with their local federal delegation to help determine possible funding sources.
In addition, they have decided to issue permits to residents who are willing to pay for
replanting out of their own pocket (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry Department
2009). This would save the city money related to replanting. We recommend St. Louis
Park consider working with other municipalities and their local federal delegation to
determine long-term sources for additional funding. If the city is able to gradually
secure enough funding for removal and replanting of public trees as well as inform
and perhaps partially support residents with the cost of private removal, they will be
able to maintain the treed community that St. Louis Park residents greatly value.
Conclusion
The City of St. Louis Park envisions itself providing services to the community in
order to ensure its safety, vitality and welcoming quality (City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota 2010). The city’s vision is reinforced when responding to a threat such as
EAB. Because EAB has reached other metropolitan suburbs, St. Louis Park is taking
the initiative to evaluate its threat and propose a plan to address the issue.
It is important to note the strong sense of trust neighborhood leaders and residents
have in the City of St. Louis Park. This trust attests to the credibility and reliability of
St. Louis Park’s local government in addressing citywide challenges, such as the threat
of EAB. The City of St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community. Similarly, interview and questionnaire responses demonstrated that
residents are ready to take action against the EAB threat, even if it may be on an
individual basis. It is clear community members are willing to listen to the city as well
as each other when it comes to addressing the threat of an infestation. Residents want
to be informed about the topic and the first steps in the EAB planning process.
Environmental stewardship is supported by St. Louis Park residents and is therefore at
the forefront in the city. The community has experienced the challenges associated
with invasive species in the past and has articulated their motivation to take
preventative action against similar issues in the future. From this study, it is evident
27

people care about their surrounding environment even when they are not fully
informed about what is happening. Overall, members of the community have
emphasized the value they have for trees as a part of the environmental and aesthetic
quality of the community.
By advancing the public’s awareness of EAB and the threat it poses, St. Louis Park
will be prepared to address the problem before it becomes considerable and costly.
Education will play a substantial role in increasing the public’s knowledge of EAB, its
spread and the importance of tree diversification, ultimately building the community’s
capacity to address the issue. By utilizing neighborhood leaders, the City of St. Louis
Park can increase the clarity and accessibility of EAB preventative techniques and
community preparedness strategies, ensuring the long-term health of their urban
forest.
References
Chaskin, R. 2001. Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case
studies from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review 36:
291-323. Accessed October 2010. doi: 10.1177/10780870122184876.
City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2010. Accessed October 2010.
www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/index.asp.
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota. 2010. Accessed October 2010.
www.stlouispark.org.
City of St. Louis Park Emerald Ash Borer Management Policy & Plan. 2010. St. Louis
Park Parks and Recreation Department, January.
Dwyer, J., H. Schroeder, and P. Gobster. 1991. The significance of urban rrees and
forests: Toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture
17:276-284.
Frieder, A., K. Wilson, A. Gulsvig, W. Hertel, and S. Potter. 2010. Residential tree
inventory and assessment. ESPM 4041W Problem Solving for Environmental
Change, Report 3/8. University of Minnesota.
Hansen-Møller, J., and L. Oustrup. 2004. Emotional, physical/functional and symbolic
aspects of an urban forest in Denmark to nearby residents." Scandinavian Journal
of Forest Research 19:56-64.
Heimlich, J., T. D. Sydnor, M. Bumgardner, and P. O’Brien. 2008. Attitudes of
residents toward street trees on four streets in Toledo, Ohio, U.S. before removal
of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) from Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis).
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(1):47–53.
Jorgensen, Z., R. Coyle, K. Mueller, and N. Cunningham. 2010. Residential Survey of
Emerald Ash Borer in St. Paul Minnesota. St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry
Department.
Minnesota’s Constitutionally Dedicated Funds. 2010. Outdoor Heritage Fund.
Accessed November 2010. www.cdf.leg.mn/outdoor-heritage-fund.
28

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Minnesota Department of Agriculture State
Formal Quarantine Report no. RF-1036, RF-1076. (Minnesota: Minnesota
Department of Agriculture, 2009). Accessed October 26, 2010.
www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab/eabquarantine.aspx.
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 2010. Accessed October 2010.
www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=1059.
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Forestry Division. 2009. Emerald Ash Borer
UpdateMinneapolis Park and Recreation Board, June. Accessed October 2010.
www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=1059.
Nazzaro, R. Invasive Forest Pests: Lessons Learned from Three Recent Infestations
May Aid in Managing Future Efforts. (Washington D.C.: Government
Accountability Office, 2006).
Northley, H. 2006. Beetle battle: As funding slips, the Emerald Ash Borer gains
ground in Michigan. ej Magazine, Spring. Accessed November 2010.
www.ejmagazine.com/2006a/beetle.html.
Preskill, H. and D. Russ-Eft. 2009. Evaluation in Organizations: A Systematic
Approach to Enhancing Learning, Performance, and Change. New York: Basic
Books.
Rogers, E. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press.
Schwab, J. C. 2009. Branching out. Planning 75(3):10-15.
St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry Department. 2009. Emerald Ash Borer
Management Program the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota. June 12. Accessed
November, 2010.
www.highlanddistrictcouncil.org/.../Emerald%20Ash%20Borer/EAB%20Respons
e%20Management%20Plan%206-15.pdf.
Thomas, D. 2010. Staying ahead of the ash borer. Southwest Journal, March.
Accessed October 2010.
www.swjournal.com/index.php?tag=18&story=15156&page=152&category=63.
USDA Forest Service, Michigan State University, Purdue University and Ohio State
University. 2010. “Emerald Ash Borer.” Accessed October 2010.
www.emeraldashborer.info/faq.cfm.
29

Appendices
Appendix A: Questionnaire for Homeowners
Question

Appendix A : Questionnaire for Homeowners
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) St. Louis Park Residential Questionnaire
EAB Awareness and Communication
The following questions will guide us in understanding community awareness of emerald ash borer, as
well as help us evaluate communication in your community about emerald ash borer.
1) How would you rate your level of awareness about emerald ash borer (EAB)? Please check one.
o Very aware
o Somewhat aware
o I am not aware of emerald ash borer
2) Do you think EAB has been found in St. Louis Park?
o Yes
o No
o I don’t know
3a) Where have you found or received information about EAB? Please check all that apply
o National EAB website
o University of Minnesota Extension
o Minnesota Department of Agriculture
o Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
o City of St. Louis Park website
o City of St. Louis Park contacted me
o City of St. Louis Park: Park and Recreation demonstrations
o Park Perspective (St. Louis Park newsletter)
o Sun Sailor (St. Louis Park newspaper)
o Other ______________________________
o I have not looked for or received information on EAB
b) The following are methods of communicating information about EAB and tree management
to residents in your community. Please rank your top three choices from the following list with 1
being most effective and 3 being least effective.
__ St. Louis Park website
__ Park Perspective (SLP newsletter)
__ Sun Sailor (SLP newspaper)
__ Door flyers
__ Mail
__ Included with utility bill
__ Other _____________________________
4) On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no threat at all and 5 being a major threat, do you think EAB is a threat
to St. Louis Park? Please circle one number or “I don’t know”
No threat 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ----5 Major threat
o I don’t know
5) Do you know that the City of St. Louis Park provides a FREE inspection service for trees on your
property and that they will also provide maintenance recommendations?

o Yes, I do know of this service
o No, I did not know of this service
Tree Care: Practices and Values
The following questions will help us understand what guides your tree management practices.
6a) Do you have any ash trees on your property?
o Yes
o No
o I don’t know
b) If yes, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not valued at all and 5 being highly valued,
how much do you value your ash tree? Please circle one number
Not valued at all 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ----5 Highly valued
7) If you have an ash tree on your property, what action (if any) would you take? Please check one
o Have the tree inspected for EAB
o Have the tree treated with a preventative pesticide
o Have the tree removed, and not replace it
o Replace the tree with a different type of tree
o Wait until signs of stress appear
o Take no action
o I don’t know
8a) If an infected ash tree was found on your property and was removed, would you be willing to replace
it?
o Yes
o No
b) If yes, with what type of tree would you replace it? Check one that you would consider.
o Flowering (Example: Serviceberry, Japanese lilac)
o Fruiting (Example: Crabapple, Hawthorne, Ginkgo)
o Non-fruit dropping (Example: White Oak, Basswood, Maple, Birch)
o Shade (Example: Oak, Elm, Catalpa)
o Evergreen (Example: Pine, Spruce, Fir)
o I don’t know
c) If no, why do you prefer not to replace it?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________
9) What are your concerns related to EAB? Please check all that apply
o Tree removal/loss of tree canopy
o Cost
o Use of pesticides
o Spread of EAB/infection of other trees
o Property values
o Aesthetics of the neighborhood

o Other ___________________________
o I have no concerns related to EAB
o I don’t know
10) Are you aware that the transportation of firewood contributes to the spread of EAB?
o Yes
o No
11) If an infected ash tree was found on your property, how much money would you expect to spend to
have it removed?
o Less than $500
o $500-$1000
o $1001-$1500
o More than $1500
A Bit about You
These questions will help in analyzing EAB preparedness needs by generating some general
demographics. These answers will not be traced to you.
12) How many people live in your household? ________
13) What are the ages of the adults living in the household?
Age of Adult 1______ Age of Adult 2______ Age of Adult 3______ Age of Adult 4______
14) Please provide any other comments or concerns involving EAB that have not been addressed in the
questionnaire:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
If you would like to receive the results from this project, please include your email address:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR MORE INFORMATION
We would be happy to communicate with you if you have any questions or comments about this study. You can
reach us by email at kcn@umn.edu or by phone at 612-624-1277. If you have any questions about participants’
rights, please call the University of Minnesota IRB office at 612-626-5654.

October 29, 2010
Dear Homeowner,
You have been selected to participate in a research study carried out by students from the University of
Minnesota about emerald ash borer (EAB), a growing concern for managing our ash trees. Over the
course of the next two months, we will be assisting the City of St. Louis Park as they move forward on
plans to address the potential threat of EAB within the city. We will be creating a report for the City of
St. Louis Park to give them insights about residents’ thoughts regarding trees and how best to deal with
the potential threat of EAB within the community.
In the enclosed questionnaire, we ask you a variety of questions that will help provide a better
understanding of community awareness as well as current tree care practices and values in relation to
EAB. There are no right or wrong answers to any of these questions. The questionnaire should take
approximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete. In order to complete the questionnaire we require that you be
at least 18 years old and a primary decision maker in the household.
Please be assured that all questionnaire information will be kept confidential. Only summary data will be
presented in our report. Your participation in this study is voluntary and you do not need to answer all of
the questions, however, any and all information that you provide will be extremely helpful to our study.
You represent a small number of randomly selected St. Louis Park residents who are being asked to
complete this questionnaire and we would greatly appreciate your participation. In exchange for your
participation, you can opt to receive a summary of the results by including your email address in the
final question of the questionnaire.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Kristen Nelson (Associate Professor,
Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota) by phone at 612-624-1277 or by e-mail at
nelso468@umn.edu. If you would like to talk to someone other than the researchers with any additional
questions or concerns regarding the questionnaire, you can contact the Research Subjects’ Advocate Line,
at D528 Mayo, 420 Delaware St. Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455; (612) 625-1650.
If you would like more information on EAB, please visit: http://www.emeraldashborer.info.
Once you have completed the questionnaire to the best of your ability, please use the enclosed envelope to
return the completed questionnaire by Friday, November 12, 2010.
Thank you for sharing your ideas with us.
Sincerely,
Jenna MacKenzie, Group Leader
Kristen C. Nelson, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Forest Resources

Who: Student from the University of Minnesota working on a senior class project creating
recommendations for Parks and Recreation Department of St. Louis Park
What: Project focuses on community capacity through resident awareness/preparedness for emerald ash
borer (EAB) and tree management
How benefits: Info used for Park and Recreation Department planning. It will assist in learning resident
perspectives and concerns as they relate to EAB preparedness.
Why you: Because you are a neighborhood president, you have an important perspective on neighborhood
preparedness. Would you be available for a short phone interview?
Neighborhood
Name
Date
Start Time
End Time
Caller
Tell me a little about the history of your
neighborhood.
How long have you lived in this neighborhood?
How long have you been neighborhood (title)?
What aspects of the neighborhood are residents
proud of?
Thinking about the look of the neighborhood
and what residents value, how important
do you think trees are for this
neighborhood?
Regarding trees, emerald ash borer is a non-
native invasive beetle that attacks ash trees.
Were you aware of the emerald ash borer
problem in the Twin Cities?
Have people in your neighborhood expressed
concerns to you about emerald ash borer?
Yes – what are their concerns?
No – why do you think they have not expressed
concerns?
 Awareness – What do you think would be the
most effective method to increase awareness
regarding emerald ash borer to the residents in
your neighborhood?
 Lack of priority
 Don’t care
 Not a threat
 Do NOT have ash
 Not the right person to contact
What are current challenges your neighborhood
is facing?

 How would you compare/rank the threat
of emerald ash borer to these
challenges?
What actions do you think neighborhood
residents would take in response to emerald ash
borer infestation?
 What do think is the best response
resident’s could have in dealing with
Emerald Ash Borer on their property?
Don’t Know – Examples given (if needed):
Do you have any concerns for your
neighborhood regarding emerald ash borer?
Yes – what are they?
No
What role do you think the neighborhood (titles)
could play in preparing for EAB among
residents?
What is the main pathway you use for
communication with the residents of your
neighborhood?
Is there anything else you believe we should be
considering as we think about EAB and SLP
residents’ capacity to respond?
Thank you very much…..this will be very helpful in making suggestions about how St. Louis Park can
strengthen community capacity for EAB preparedness.

Question
EAB Awareness and Communication
1.) How would you rate your level of awareness about the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
Very aware 6 9 9
Somewhat aware 44 67 67
I am not aware of the Emerald Ash Borer 16 24 24
Total: 66
2.) Do you think EAB has been found in Saint Louis Park?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
Yes 20 30 30
No 20 30 30
I don’t know 26 40 40
Total: 66
3a.) Where have you found or received information about EAB?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
National EAB Website 2 3 3
University of Minnesota Extension 7 11 11
Minnesota Department of Agriculture 2 3 3
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 6 10 10
City of St. Louis Park 6 10 10
City of St. Louis Park Contacted Me 2 3 3
City of St. Louis Park: Park and Recreation
demonstrations
0 0 0
Park Perspective (SLP newsletter) 14 22 22
Sun Sailor (SLP newspaper) 13 21 21
Other (Local News)
Other (Current Survey)
Other
23
8
2
32
3
13
32
3
13
Total: 66
3b.) What do you feel is the most effective way to communicate information about EAB and tree management
to residents in your community?
Most
Effective
Method
Answers
% of
Respondents
(Most
Effective)
Top 3
Answers
% of
Respondents
(Top 3)
St. Louis Park Website 3 5 12 18
Park Perspective (SLP newsletter) 12 18 32 48
Sun Sailor (SLP newspaper) 5 8 30 45
Door Flyers 12 18 38 58
Mail 15 23 44 67
Included with Utility Bill 11 17 28 42
Other 7 11 7 11
Total: 66
4.) On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no threat at all and 5 being a big threat, do you think EAB is a threat to St.
Louis Park?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
1 1 2 2

2 7 11 11
3 20 31 30
4 13 20 20
5
Don’t Know
4
20
6
31
6
30
Total: 65
5.) Do you know that the City of St. Louis Park provides a FREE inspection service for trees on your
property and that they will also provide maintenance recommendations?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
Yes, I do know of this service 51 77 77
No, I did not know of this service 15 23 23
Total: 66
Tree Care: Practices and Values
6a.) Do you have any ash trees on your property?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
Yes 13 20 20
No 31 47 47
Total: 66
6b.) If yes, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not valued at all and 5 being highly valued, how much do you value
your Ash tree?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
1 1 9 2
2 2 18 3
3 1 9 2
4 3 27 5
5 4 37 6
Total: 11
7.) If you have an ash tree on your property, what action (if any) would you take?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
Have the tree inspected for EAB 18 41 27
Have the tree treated with a preventative
pesticide
6 14 9
Have the tree removed, and not replace it
Replace the tree with a different type of tree
2
4
5
9
3
6
Wait until signs of stress appear 6 14 9
Take no action 2 5 3
Total: 44
8a.) If an infected ash tree was found on your property and was removed, would you be willing to replace it?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
Yes 51 86 77
No 8 14 12
Total: 59
8b.) If yes, with what type of tree would you replace it?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
Flowering (Serviceberry, Japanese lilac) 8 13 12
Fruiting (Crabapple, Hawthorne,
Ginkgo)
3 5 5

Non-fruit dropping (White Oak,
Basswood, Maple, Birch)
19 30 29
Shade (Oak, Elm, Catalpa) 14 22 21
Coniferous (Pine, Spruce, Fir) 4 6 6
Total: 64
8c.) If no, why do you prefer not to replace it?
* Responses not included in Table
9.) What are your concerns related to EAB?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
Tree removal/loss of tree canopy 31 18 48
Cost 35 20 55
Use of pesticides 24 14 38
Spread of EAB/infection of other trees 34 19 53
Property values 15 8 23
Aesthetics of the neighborhood 23 13 36
Other 3 2 5
I have no concerns related to EAB 3 2 5
Total: 176
10.) Are you aware that the transportation of firewood contributes to the spread of EAB?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
Yes 56 86 85
No 9 14 14
Total: 65
11.) If an infected ash tree was found on your property, how much money would you expect to spend to have
it removed?
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
Less than $500 30 52 45
$500-$1000 15 26 23
$1001-$1500 8 14 12
More than $1500 5 8 8
Total: 58
A Bit about You
12.) How many people live in your household
Answers
% of
Answers
% of
Respondents
1 17 28 26
2 25 42 38
3 8 13 12
4 7 12 11
5 or more 3 5 5
Total: 60
13.) What are the ages of the adults living in the household?
14.) Please provide any other comments or concerns involving EAB that have not been addressed in the
questionnaire:

Community Capacity for Managing Trees in the Residential Landscape

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Community Capacity for Managing Trees in the Residential Landscape

Similar to Community Capacity for Managing Trees in the Residential Landscape (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Community Capacity for Managing Trees in the Residential Landscape