The Summit

            The results of Assessing the Progress of Urban and Community Forestry Research and Technology Transfer were used as a starting point for planning an effective process for the Summit.  Research and technology transfer greatest needs, as identified in the survey, were influential in categorizing the broad realm of technical disciplines.  The assessment results helped all participants think broadly in terms of the full scope of research and technology transfer needs. 

            An advisory committee (listed separately in the participants section), representative of the constituent groups involved in urban and community forestry and arboriculture, was formed to design an effective working agenda and process to achieve the objective.

            The Summit sought to gain consensus on the top issues in urban forestry research and technology transfer, satisfying the Congressional reporting requirement that NUCFAC, as stated in the 1990 Farm Bill.  Special efforts were made to consider all perspectives and interests.  The goal was to foster a sense of collaboration and cooperation.  The Advisory Committee established the following Summit objectives:

1)      Involve environmental, ecological, biological, social and practical representation in constructive, consensus driven dialogue and decision processes;

2)      Assess and incorporate, as appropriate, the existing research opportunities and constraints as identified in the 2000 – 2002 Assessment into an updated national research agenda;

3)      Assess and incorporate as appropriate the existing technology transfer opportunities and constraints as identified in the 2000 – 2002 Assessment into an updated national technology transfer agenda;

4)      Establish urban forestry and arboriculture needs and funding recommendations for research and technology transfer for the next decade.

This Advisory committee carefully and objectively assembled a list of constituents that needed to be represented.  The organizations were chosen to represent a full range of perspectives, from small communities or organizations, through to the national view of federal agencies.  Professionals involved in the green industry, from nurseries propagating new trees to commercial arboriculture firms involved in tree maintenance and removal were invited to participate. Allied professionals, such as landscape architects and public works engineers, and restoration ecologists were included.  A full complement of urban forestry champions representing a diversity of organizations also contributed. These following organizations and constituent groups agreed to send a representative. 

Alliance for Community Trees

American Forests

American Nursery and Landscape Association

American Society of Consulting Arborists

American Society of Landscape Architects

American Public Works Association

ANSI Z60.1 Standard (Nursery Stock)

ANSI Z133 Standard (Safety)

ANSI A300 Standard (Tree Care)

Cities, large and small

Council of Landscape Architects Registration Boards

Commercial Arborists

Conservation organizations

Ecological Restoration

Environmental/interpretation educators

International Society of Arboriculture

Minority interests

National Arborist Association

National Association of State Foresters

NASA

National Recreation and Parks Association

National Association of Homebuilders

National Arbor Day Foundation

National Tree Trust

NUCFAC

Society of American Foresters

Society of Municipal Arborists

TREE Fund

TreeLink

USDA Forest Service (Technology Transfer)

USDA Forest Service (Research)

USDA Forest Service (Director's office, U&C Forestry)

USDA Cooperative State, Research, Education, and Extension Service

Utility Arborists Association

Urban forestry/arboriculture educators

US Environmental Protection Agency

            The Summit was intended to provide an opportunity for research users to interact with research producers as part of the priority setting process.  To provide a framework for discussion and prioritizing, the Advisory Committee also carefully constructed a list of 32 ‘technical disciplines’ (see next section) that comprise the breadth of urban and community forestry and arboriculture.  An expert in each of the disciplines was invited to participate as a technical resource and to lead relevant discussions. 

            Once the Summit convened on December 16, 2002, the committee co-chairs, and facilitators briefed all participants on the process, expectations, and tasks of the Summit.  Participants were asked to think broadly with a vision for the future of urban forestry over the next ten years.  A presentation of the Assessment of the 1991 Agenda provided everyone with sufficient background to approach the current agenda.  Overview discussions gave way to careful development of technical disciplines or ‘ topic areas’ in small groups. Each technical discipline was considered and priorities for outstanding research needs and technology transfer needs were identified, and confirmed or declined by the full group in a voting process.  Once fully developed common themes began to emerge across the individual disciplines.  The whole group, worked to identify and distill these themes, and then small groups worked to refine them. 

            On the third day, in closing, the entire group considered the funding needed to address the expressed priorities.  Strategies for putting the agenda into wide use were also discussed.