The Evergreen State College Institutional Repository

Rambo_C2013.pdf

Media

Part of Urban Orchard Stewardship: Volunteer Motivations and Manager Perspectives

extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)

Urban Orchard Stewardship: Volunteer Motivations and Manager Perspectives

by
Charles Alonzo Rambo

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2013

i

© 2013 by Charles Alonzo Rambo. All Rights Reserved.

ii

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Charles Alonzo Rambo
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

Martha L. Henderson
Member of the Faculty

Date

iii

Abstract
Urban Orchard Stewardship: Volunteer Motivations and Manager Perspectives
Charles Alonzo Rambo
City Fruit is an organization dedicated to growing and caring for healthy and
productive fruit trees in Seattle. In cooperation with the City of Seattle, City Fruit is
currently managing an urban orchard stewardship program that relies on volunteer
stewards to maintain and care for the fruit trees in orchards at seven different publicly
owned locations in Seattle. This study focuses on the motivations and experiences of the
volunteer orchard stewards. The specific research question that guided this study is: what
influences the decision of volunteers to join and continue to participate in urban orchard
stewardship programs? Also of interest, how do the volunteers determine if the programs
are successful and what recommendations do the volunteers have for improving the
program? In order to answer these questions four urban orchard stewards as well as four
program managers working for the City of Seattle's Department of Parks and Recreation,
City Fruit, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources were interviewed.
The results of this study demonstrate that volunteer orchard stewards are motivated by a
variety of concerns including: a desire to learn about fruit tree maintenance and fruit
production, the social opportunities that orchard stewardship provides, and public safety.
The program manager interview respondents were all very aware of the financial
limitations of the City of Seattle and stressed the important role that volunteer
organizations such as City Fruit play in maintaining public goods and building
community relationships.

iv

Contents

I. Chapter 1: Introduction...................................................................................................1
II. Chapter 2: Literature Review.........................................................................................4
a. Public Goods and Co-Production..............................................................................5
b. Volunteer Motivations.............................................................................................14
c. Volunteer Management............................................................................................21
d. Research Methods....................................................................................................23
III. Chapter 3: City Fruit and Volunteers...........................................................................25
a. Managing Seattle Parks for Services Rather than Material Goods..........................25
b. Material Published by the City of Seattle on Urban Orchards, Urban Agriculture,
and Urban Forest Management..............................................................................28
c. The Benefits of Urban Forests.................................................................................34
d. Urban Agriculture in the U.S...................................................................................36
e. Food Security in Washington State..........................................................................38
f. Civic Engagement of Environmental Stewardship Groups.....................................41
g. City Fruit..................................................................................................................44
IV. Chapter 4: Data Analysis............................................................................................ 51
a. Results from Interviewing Urban Orchard Stewards...............................................54
b. Results from Interviewing Program Manager Respondents....................................60
V. Chapter 5: Conclusion.................................................................................................66
VI. Bibliography...............................................................................................................69
v

Acknowledgments

Without the support of many people this work could not have been accomplished. I
would like to extend my gratitude to the many people that contributed to this project;
your participation, suggestions, corrections, and encouragement have helped improve this
project immeasurably.
I would like to thank:
My reader, Martha L. Henderson, Director of the Master of Environmental
Studies Program and Faculty Member of The Evergreen State College. Your mentorship
and encouragement was vital to the success of this project. Thank you for your
indefatigable support and patience. Thank you to the members of my thesis research
group. Our many hours together provided countless insights that helped me shape this
project and I couldn't have asked for a better group of highly intelligent and motivated
people to work alongside. Thank you to the members of my cohort in The Master of
Environmental Studies Program. I learned so much from you all and this project is better
for it. Thanks to Gail Savina of City Fruit, for helping me develop this research project,
introducing me to every interview respondent, and for all of the advice you gave along
the way. Thanks to my wife, Emily Rambo, this project is as much yours as it is mine.
Your careful editing and advice, and allowing me to use you as a sounding board when
you would have preferred to be asleep; made me this project what it is. I would finally
like to thank each person that agreed to be interviewed for this project; their dedication,
words, and insights are truly inspiring.

vi

Chapter 1: Introduction

There are a growing number of urban orchards located on public properties in
Seattle that are being maintained by groups of volunteer orchard stewards. These urban
orchards are a public good that are being co-produced by the City of Seattle and a
dedicated group of volunteers. The non-profit organization City Fruit manages the
volunteer orchard stewards, provides training for new and continuing stewards, and
operates as the liaison between the City of Seattle and the individual groups of volunteer
orchard stewards. The volunteer orchard stewardship program offers a unique
opportunity to study environmental volunteerism, volunteer management, and the role of
orchards in the urban environment. This study focuses on the motivations and
experiences of volunteers and paid staff working for and in support of an urban orchard
stewardship program in Seattle.
City Fruit is a non-profit that works to protect and maintain existing fruit trees
growing on both private and public properties in Seattle. In addition to providing
maintenance and pest management courses for interested fruit tree owners, City Fruit
works to harvest and donate unused fruit to those lacking food security in Seattle. City
Fruit is able to harvest and donate thousands of pounds of fruit from private fruit trees
through a yearly harvest program in the Phinney Ridge neighborhood, South Seattle, and
West Seattle. Coinciding with the harvest program, City Fruit's urban orchard
stewardship program specifically targets fruit trees growing on public spaces and works
to restore and maintain healthy and productive urban orchards.
The specific research question that guided this study is: what influences the
decision of volunteers to join and continue to participate in urban orchard stewardship
1

programs? Also of interest, how do the volunteers determine if the programs are
successful and what recommendations do the volunteers have for improving the program?
In order to answer these questions four urban orchard stewards as well as four program
managers working for the City of Seattle's Department of Parks and Recreation, City
Fruit, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources were interviewed. The
results of the interviews allowed for a number of conclusions to be made about volunteer
motivations and management and the important contributions that environmental
stewardship groups can make to cash-strapped municipalities.
The results of this study demonstrate that volunteer orchard stewards are
motivated by a variety of concerns including: a desire to learn about fruit tree
maintenance and fruit production, the social opportunities that orchard stewardship
provides, and public safety. The program manager interview respondents were all very
aware of the financial limitations of the City of Seattle and stressed the important role
that volunteer organizations such as City Fruit play in maintaining public goods and
building community relationships.
This study is composed of five chapters. Chapter Two is a literature review that
demonstrates the scientific tradition of similar studies and justifies the research methods
that were chosen for this study. The literature review begins with a description of coproduction and public goods theory as they pertain to volunteering. This is followed by a
thorough examination of the research methods and results of a number of studies that
examined volunteer motivations and management. A brief description of the research
methods used for this study is then provided.
Chapter Three provides a review of the descriptive background information
relating to urban orchards in Seattle and City Fruit's urban orchard stewardship program.
2

A history of parks management, a review of material published by the City of Seattle, as
well as a discussion of the benefits of urban forest, urban agriculture, and the role that
environmental stewardship groups play in maintaining public spaces is provided before
an extensive introduction to City Fruit is presented.
Chapter Four presents an analysis of the data that was collected for this study.
The chapter begins by a more thorough description of the interview and data analysis
process that was used in this study. The results of the interviews are then presented;
beginning with the results of the interviews conducted with volunteer orchard stewards
and ending with the results of the interviews conducted with the paid employee
respondents. The study is again summarized in the concluding Chapter Five. A
bibliography completes the study.

3

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The purpose of this chapter is threefold: to introduce the theoretical approach that
was taken for this study; to present the methods and findings of related peer-reviewed
literature; and finally, to demonstrate why the particular qualitative research methods
were chosen for this study. The specific research question that guided this study is: what
influences the decision of volunteers to join and continue to participate in urban orchard
stewardship programs? A secondary research question is how do the volunteers
determine if the programs are successful and what recommendations do the volunteers
have for improving the program? This chapter will demonstrate not only why these are
important and scientifically relevant research questions but also why the particular
research methods were chosen to answer these questions.
This chapter is composed of three parts. The first section presents the theoretical
approach of this thesis project, namely public goods theory and co-production. The
economic implications of co-production and the value of volunteering are also discussed
in the first section. The second section presents an examination of the peer-reviewed
literature relating to volunteer urban orchard stewardship and is organized into a series of
common findings and similar research methods. Volunteer motivations and volunteer
management are discussed in some detail. Finally, the third section describes the
qualitative research methods of this study as well as the justification for why these
particular methods were chosen over others.

4

Public Goods and Co-production
Understanding the role of volunteerism and urban environmental stewardship
must include an analysis of public goods and co-production as they pertain to the
management of urban orchards by volunteer orchard stewards. The distinctions between
public goods and common-pool resources, the economic implications of co-production,
and the value of volunteer work are all relevant to the management of public goods.
Public goods are resources that are available to all and are characterized by little
competition between resource users. It is often difficult or unnecessary to regulate the
use of public goods. Many public services such as the light from a street lamp, public
swimming beaches, public parks and urban orchards or remnant fruit trees that may be
growing in public spaces are all examples of public goods. Another important
characteristic of public goods is that one's use of the resource does not necessarily
diminish the value of the resource to another potential user. Therefore, one member of
the public's enjoyment of an urban orchard does not limit the future enjoyment of another
member of the public.
Common-pool resources are often subject to instances of resource exploitation
commonly referred to as the “tragedy of the commons.” The tragedy of the commons
refers to instances where resources are over-exploited to the point that the resource
collapses and is not able to sustain itself. A tragedy of the commons will arise when
there are no practical limits to the use and exploitation of a resource. Garrett Hardin
(1968) wrote: “Ruin is the destination towards which all men [or women] rush, each
pursuing his [or her] own interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the
commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.” According to Ostrom, commonpool resources (CPRs) are those where it would be too expensive to exclude beneficiaries
5

and where the exploitation by one user reduces the available resource to another. A
“tragedy of the commons” occurs when, “These two characteristics—difficulty of
exclusion and sub-tractability—create potential CPR dilemmas in which people
following their own short-term interests produce outcomes that are not in anyone’s longterm interest” (Ostrom et al. 1999, pgs. 278-279). In other words, a CPR occurs when
competition for a limited resource leads to its degradation or possible destruction.
Ostrom argues that the management of common-pool resources needs to be
flexible and well suited to whatever problem is at hand. According to Ostrom, choosing
the appropriate management policy is complex and, “It all depends on the nature of the
problem that we are trying to solve” (Ostrom et al. 2012, pg. 70). Urban orchards are a
common-pool resource of a kind; however they don't suffer from the issues of rivalry,
exclusion, and over-exploitation that are common to many of the natural resources that
Ostrom examined during her lengthy career. Therefore, public goods theory and the
management strategy of co-production provide a more accurate theoretical approach to
the management of urban orchards.
According to Vlad Turko, a public good is similar to a common-pool resource in
that it is hard to exclude free riders—but there is little rivalry between users of a public
good and the resource does not necessarily diminish much through either consumption or
rivalry (Ostrom et al. 2012, pg. 58). City-owned properties, including parks and urban
orchards, meet all of the requirements of public goods. Urban parks provide the same
services to all potential users, whether or not their taxes were spent on the maintenance of
the park; therefore it is hard to exclude free riders. Because urban parks are designed to
provide equitable access to all potential users, rivalry between those who use the parks
and enjoy the orchards is limited. Finally, what rivalry there may be between users of
6

urban parks and urban orchards, the use of the public good does not greatly diminish the
service or function that the parks and orchards provide to the greater community.
Depending on the goals of the managing agency or service provider and the
service consumer, public goods can be managed in a number of ways. Urban orchards
could be managed in a way that maintains the strict authority of the local government so
that the local parks department handles all of the regular maintenance of the fruit trees as
well as rules surrounding public access to the trees and their fruit. This is an unlikely
scenario given the financial investment that such a management strategy would require.
Regarding the management of common-pool resources, Mark Pennington writes:
Should there be only one rule-making body, then any errors are likely to
have systematic effects. In polycentric orders, mistakes, though inevitable,
are confined to the resource owners in question. Adaptation is also
speedier than in a more unitary equivalent—actors can learn from and
imitate the most successful models adopted by their neighbors without
waiting for approval from some overarching authority or majority.
(Ostrom et al. 2012, pg. 35)
The argument in favor of a polycentric rule-making body is an extension of Ostrom's call
for flexible policy positions for natural resource management mentioned above. Not only
should managers be able to adapt their policies and management strategies, but they
should also avoid monolithic management approaches that have the potential to
mismanage the natural resource. In this case then, a polycentric management strategy is
the most efficient way to care for urban orchards.
A management strategy that exemplifies the flexibility that is needed for natural
resource management and the democratization of authority in the planning, production,
and provision stages of the public service of natural resources (in this case, urban
orchards) is co-production. Co-production refers to a long-term relationship between
professionalized service providers and service users where both groups make substantial
7

resource contributions (Joshi and Moore 2004, Bovaird 2007). Examples of coproduction include: parental involvement in schooling, citizen participation and review of
police activities, and in the case of this study—volunteer urban orchard stewardship. The
co-production of urban orchards in Seattle refers to the relationship between the
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the volunteer urban orchard stewards
working for City Fruit (please refer to the description chapter for greater detail on City
Fruit).
Traditional natural resource management would task the DPR with caring for
every aspect of the maintenance of the orchards and the distribution of the fruit that the
orchards produce. Through co-production, the volunteer orchard stewards assume much
of the management responsibility and despite being the recipients and users of much of
the public services provided by the urban orchards, the volunteer stewards are heavily
involved in producing the service. According to their website, City Fruit describes the
orchard stewardship program as a “significant public-private collaboration” between the
volunteers, the City of Seattle's DPR, and Washington State's Department of Natural
Resources. City Fruit hopes that: “Such a model could hopefully be adapted by other
communities interested in preserving an important community resource” (City Fruit
2013).
The economic implications of co-production can be expressed by the wages of the
traditional service provider and the opportunity costs of the volunteers. Vlad Turko
(2012) describes these economic realities in greater detail: “The reality outcome, how
much is produced and the relative involvement of the regular producer and the consumerproducer depend on the relative costs encountered by them: the production costs (wages
and so on) paid by the regular producer versus the opportunity cost to the consumer of
8

getting involved in the production process” (Ostrom et al. 2012, pgs. 59-60). Through
co-production, the producer relies on help from the consumer because it will lower
production costs. The opportunity costs of the consumer are lost wages and other
opportunities that volunteers give up to participate in co-production. In the case of City
Fruit's urban orchard stewardship program, Seattle's DPR represents the producer of
public goods—parks and other city-owned properties—which the volunteer orchard
stewards are helping to co-produce. The co-production of healthy and productive urban
orchards (that are a public good) also happens to result in positive externalities (fruit
which is either donated or used for fund-raising purposes).
Co-production is not simply a means of lowering the cost of providing public
services to a community. City Fruit's volunteer urban orchards do provide a free service
that would otherwise either be performed by the DPR or left undone. The co-production
of urban orchards also helps improve local communities and strengthens the relationship
between Seattle residents and their local government representatives as well as their
relationship with urban natural areas. Co-production is an efficient option for managing
public goods that utilizes the previously unappreciated resources of the users of public
services. Co-production not only allows volunteers to become involved in the production
of public services, but it also makes the entire system more efficient: “The central idea in
co-production is that people who use services are hidden resources, not drains on the
system, and that no service that ignores this resource can be efficient. The people who
are currently defined as users, clients or patients provide the vital ingredients which allow
public service professionals to be effective” (Boyle and Harris 2009, pg 11).
It should also be noted that volunteers do not work without costs to their
managing organization. This is to say that both City Fruit and the City of Seattle have
9

real organizational costs associated with managing urban orchard stewards. Indeed,
managing organizations often find that they incur greater costs with every new volunteer
but that a constantly growing volunteer force does not necessarily result in ever greater
returns of services provided (Govekar and Govekar 2002). Therefore, a constantly
growing urban orchard stewardship program may not be in the best interest of either City
Fruit or the City of Seattle because it would raise the organizational costs of running the
program without ensuring an equal rise in services provided.
Co-production refers solely to the production of a public good and does not
typically refer to the use of the public good. It is assumed that the use and eventual
consumption of the resource has already been determined and that this determination is
what drives the levels of production in the first place. Nesbit argues the following:
There are two parts to public goods—provision and production. In the
provision stage the actors determine which public goods or services to
produce, how much to produce, and who will receive the benefits. The
production stage is the determination of who and how the good will be
produced and how it will be carried out. When discussing coproduction
we are concerned with production alone. We assume that the provision
decisions have already been determined, and we want to focus on the
actual production of the good. (Nesbit 2002, pg. 8)
The fruit that is produced through City Fruit's urban orchard program is utilized by the
individual orchard stewardship groups for fund-raising purposes or donated to food banks
and other outlets that serve Seattle's needy.
The donation of the fruit does not determine the urban orchards' level of
production. In order for production to meet demand, greater amounts of fruit would have
to be grown from greater numbers of fruit trees and orchards. Neither the City of Seattle
nor City Fruit have the financial resources or volunteer force to meet these demands.
How the fruit grown from urban orchards is provisioned is not the sole factor that

10

compels the City of Seattle and City Fruit to co-produce the urban orchards. The use of
Seattle's public parks and the enjoyment of the orchards but not necessarily the fruit that
is produced are the uses that drive the co-production of the urban orchards. Seattle's
Department of Parks and Recreation and City Fruit are co-producing urban orchards
because they are a public good. Ensuring healthy trees, regular maintenance, and pest
reduction are the means through which the orchards are co-produced and the orchard fruit
is grown for distribution to the needy.
The following is a useful definition of volunteering: “Volunteer activity is work
performed without monetary compensation that creates social output that would
otherwise require paid resources” (Govekar and Govekar 2002, pg. 36). This definition is
particularly true for volunteer urban orchard stewards. Orchard stewards perform
necessary tasks that have significant benefit to society and that would otherwise require a
greater resource investment from The City of Seattle's DPR. As is discussed below in
this chapter in greater detail, volunteers are often motivated by either self interest or
altruism: “The research argues that individuals may be motivated to volunteer because of
some private motive in addition to or in place of pure altruism” (Govekar and Govekar
2002, pg. 40). That there are a variety of motivations for volunteering suggests that
volunteer work can often be rewarding to the volunteers. In other words, “the fact that
volunteers are not pursuing wages suggests that volunteering produces something of
value to volunteers as well as to the recipients of volunteer-assisted services” (Brown
1999, pg. 5). It is not only important to understand that which motivates the volunteer
orchard stewards to participate in the co-production of a public good, but it is also
essential to recognize that their volunteer work produces real value to the orchard
stewards.
11

The value to society of volunteering can be expressed in a variety of ways. The
dollar value of volunteering is often described as the following: “volunteering has value
both to the volunteers, measured by what they willingly give up to volunteer, and to
clients, measured by what they might have been willing to pay for volunteer-assisted
services had they been given a choice between those services and cash” (Brown 1999, pg.
14). There are many variables that determine these values, and placing a purely
economic value on volunteering is difficult because the opportunity cost is different for
every volunteer. A higher paid individual sacrifices more opportunity cost than a lower
paid individual, but this does not necessarily mean that ones volunteer time is more
valuable than another. It is also important to recognize that the individual needs of
volunteer-assisted clients are many and ever changing, so while one service has more
value on one day it may not hold its value for the client over time.
Given the difficulty of assigning value to the lost opportunity costs of volunteers
or the value of the service to clients, the value of volunteering is often measured by the
value of the work that is performed. Indeed, “It is important to remember that when a
doctor, lawyer, craftsman, or anyone with a specialized skill volunteers, the value of his
or her work is based on his or her volunteer work, not his or her earning power”
(Independent Sector 2012). The Independent Sector report uses the average wage for
“production or nonsupervisory work” in each state plus an additional 12% to determine
the dollar value of volunteer work. According to this metric the dollar value of work in
Washington State is $21.18 (Independent Sector 2012). When measured across the entire
country, “about 61.8 million Americans, or 26.4 percent of the adult population, gave 8
billion hours of volunteer service worth $162 billion in 2008”(Independent Sector 2012).
While there are many benefits to managing a public good through co-production,
12

it is not always the most appropriate policy approach to managing natural resources or
public sector services. Co-production can often lead to instances where cooperating
management agencies have disagreements: “Where co-production occurs, power,
authority and control of resources are likely to be divided (not necessarily equally),
between the state and groups of citizens in an interdependent and ambiguous fashion”
(Joshi and Moore 2004, pg. 40).
There are also many problems that may arise through the implementation of coproduction: “Coproduction is not a panacea. Problems arise, including conflicts resulting
from differences in the values of the coproducers, incompatible incentives to different
coproducers, unclear divisions of roles, free riders, burnout of users or community
members, and the undermining of capacity of third sector to lobby for change” (Bovaird
2007, pg. 856). Other limitations that can result from co-production include: the dilution
of public sector accountability, democratic challenges relating to representation,
participation, and professional expertise, and unequal distributions of power that may
benefit some members of society more than others (Bovaird 2007, pg. 856). If coproductive methods of managing natural resources or providing public services are
designed inappropriately they can lead to a number of problems.
Co-production is simply supposed to improve the production and distribution of
public services and strengthen the relationship between members of the public and the
professionals that provide the public services. It is not supposed to result in
disproportionate power dynamics or lead to some members of the public having greater
access or control over a public good. City Fruit volunteers and the employees of the City
of Seattle should constantly keep in mind the limitations of co-production so that Seattle's
urban orchards can continue to be accessed and appreciated equally.
13

Volunteer Motivations
Because volunteering produces value to the volunteer it is important to understand
the motivations of volunteerism. Only when we understand why volunteers decide to
participate in programs such as City Fruit's volunteer urban orchard stewardship program
will we be able to better cater volunteer opportunities in a way that maximizes the
number of volunteer participants and volunteer retention time. The following section
examines the important studies focusing on volunteer motivations and management.
While there has been little peer-reviewed work published on the topic of volunteer urban
orchard stewardship or indeed urban orchards in general, there are a number of similar
research subjects that are directly related. Descriptions of the research methods and
conclusions of a number of research studies related to volunteer urban orchard
stewardship are provided. The descriptions of the authors' methods demonstrate how
particular research methods have been used and why the qualitative research methods of
this study are well suited for measuring volunteer urban orchard steward perceptions.
A number of studies employing qualitative research methods have concluded that
volunteers are motivated by self-interests (Allison et al. 2002, Barnes and Sharpe 2009,
Mannarini et al. 2010, Miles et al. 1998). These studies employed a variety of qualitative
research methods, including: survey instruments, delivered either in person or through the
mail (Allison et al. 2002, Mannarini et al. 2010), and a case study that relied on a review
of the literature, researcher observations, and in-depth interviews (Barnes and Sharpe
2009). The results of these studies (presented below) demonstrate that volunteers are
often driven by self interests and seek out volunteering opportunities where they will be
able to feel good about their work and by extension their general outlook on life, learn
from their activities, and participate at a low personal cost.
14

In an Italian study measuring willingness to participate in future civic engagement
activities, Mannarini et al. (2010) distributed a survey questionnaire to 194 members of
three urban planning meetings. The findings of the study indicate that while both
personal and community-related variables are both important for citizen participation,
personal-related variables, particularly costs and benefits and “the arousing of positive
feeling” were more important than creating a sense of community. Moreover,
participants were more likely to choose to engage in civic activities where the benefits
were clear and the costs were low than activities centered around community building
(Mannarini, et al., 2010). Miles et al. (1998) found similar results in their examination of
the psychological benefits of participating in environmental restoration work. Volunteers
that participated in restoration activities were found to have high levels of satisfaction
related to their work, feelings that increased with the amount of time the volunteers spent
working in the program. The volunteers also reported having high “life satisfaction” and
“life functioning,” that led the authors to conclude that volunteering played a positive role
in the overall lives of the volunteers (Miles et al. 1998).
Learning opportunities and the potential for career advancement also motivates
volunteers. In a case study investigating the volunteer management approach of Dufferin
Grove Park in Toronto, Barnes and Sharpe (2009) interviewed ten volunteers and other
informants with management authority of the park and found that the park volunteers
were driven by self-interest and looked for volunteer work that was skills based and
offered the opportunity for personal growth and advancement. The researchers
concluded that volunteers were motivated to become and remain active in the park
because of their individual interests, passions, and values (Barnes and Sharpe 2009).
Allison et al. (2002) employed a mixed methods mailed survey with both Likert
15

scale questions related to the Value Function Inventory (VFI) test which focuses on six
psychological motivations (career, esteem, protective, social, understanding, and value)
as well as open-ended questions soliciting in-depth written responses of environmental
volunteers. The findings of the study indicate that the value variable—being able to act
on one's altruistic beliefs and humanitarian concern for others—was the most important
motive for volunteer activity. Value was closely followed in importance by the motives
esteem (feeling good about oneself) and understanding (learning from volunteer
experience). Social (participating with others), protective (escaping from one's own
troubles), and career (advancement) all scored low on the VFI and were not often
mentioned in the written responses as motivations for volunteer activity (Allison et al.
2002).
Volunteers are often motivated by self-interests and often seek out low cost
volunteer opportunities that provide clear benefits to the individual. These self-interests
are precisely the reason why individuals who would otherwise be simple consumers of a
public service choose to participate in the coproduction of a public good. The volunteer
urban orchard steward benefits not only directly through the realization of a properly
maintained urban orchard, but this type of stewardship also provides a number of
intangible benefits that are directly related to the volunteers own self interests.
Not all volunteers are motivated merely by self-interest. The altruistic nature of
volunteer work suggests that those that choose to participate are not solely driven by selfinterest and that there are many selfless motivations that drive people to give up their
time to work without financial remuneration. Presented below are descriptions of some
of the literature that has focused more closely on the altruistic motivations for
volunteering. A number of recent qualitative studies have concluded that volunteers are
16

motivated by a wide variety of more altruistic reasons which demonstrate that volunteers
are not solely interested in personal growth and advancement (Moskell et al. 2010,
Romolini et al. 2012, Westphal 2003, Wolf et al. 2011). These studies employed the
following research methods: surveys and focus group discussions (Moskell et al. 2010),
interviews and a 3CM cognitive mapping exercise (Romolini et al. 2012), mailed surveys
(Westphl 2003), and interviews which included a thematic clustering exercise of the
dominant themes reported by the participants (Wolf et al. 2011). The results of these
studies demonstrate that not only are there a diverse set of motivations for volunteering
but that the social outcomes of their work are often as important if not more important to
the volunteers than the environmental goals of the managing organizations.
In a mixed-methods study, Moskell et al. (2010) employed surveys to examine the
motivations of volunteers at street tree-planting events in Brooklyn, as well as surveys
and recorded group discussions to measure urban forestry practitioner approaches to
volunteer management during an industry convention in Portland, Oregon. The results
from the volunteer surveys indicate that there are a wide variety of motivations for
volunteer activity. The respondents were motivated by environmental and social benefits,
benefits to youth, enjoyment of the activity, and a number of other reasons. The majority
of the participants were affiliated with a church, school, or nonprofit organization that
encouraged their volunteering. Interestingly, the results showed that participants with
previous urban forestry experiences were more interested in simply helping the treeplanting organization itself, a finding that the researchers took as an indication for a
greater likelihood of future volunteering. The results from the focus group indicate that
the major challenges that urban forestry practitioners face in engaging and maintaining a
strong base of volunteer workers is a lack of public understanding about urban forestry
17

and weak communication with the general public (Moskell et al. 2010).
Romolini et al. (2012) employed a mixed methods design of in-depth interviews
and a 3CM cognitive mapping exercise to investigate practitioner views about urban
environmental stewardship in Seattle. The results suggest that the following value groups
motivate stewards: environmental, personal, and concern for community. Similar to the
results of Miles et al. (1998), urban environmental stewardship was found to improve the
livability of a targeted community and provide psychosocial benefits to participants that
are thought to be strong motivators for volunteer activity. Finally, the researchers
conclude that social outcomes are at least as important as the ecological benefits of
stewardship activities, indicating that social motivations, and not just environmental
motivations are strong indicators of voluntary environmental stewardship activity
(Romolini et al. 2012).
Results from this study are similar to those of an earlier study of environmental
stewardship stakeholders in Seattle that concluded that the social and individual
motivators of the stewardship participants and community were more important than
were the environmental goals of the stewardship organizations (Wolf et al., 2011).
Interview results from this study indicate that people who choose to participate in
environmental stewardship programs in Seattle are motivated by a variety of
environmental, personal, and social reasons. The researchers suggest that despite the
overlying environmental goals of the stewardship organizations, the motivations of the
participants suggest that social and personal-related goals are as important, if not more
important, than the environmental goals of the program (Wolf et al. 2011).
Finally, in a study of long-term volunteers working for environmental stewardship
programs in Michigan, Ryan et al. (2001) concluded that volunteers are motivated by the
18

tangible results of their work. Furthermore, the authors found that helping the
environment and gaining knowledge were the main motives of the participants
volunteering. Furthermore, the authors conclude that environmental stewardship
programs offer a unique opportunity for people to “help the environment in a very
tangible way” (Ryan et al. 2001). These results highlight how important participation
and being able to see and claim ownership for the results of your work are to motivating
long-term environmental stewardship volunteers.
In addition to the many self-interested and altruistic motivations for volunteer
work, a number of peer-reviewed studies examine the relationship between
environmental disturbance and environmental stewardship (Hunter 2011; Tidball et al.
2010; Tidball and Krasny 2007). In each, the role of disaster is seen as a great motivator
for stewardship activity. In a review of the literature, Tidball and Krasny (2007) argue
that environmental stewardship programs increase both urban ecological diversity and the
diversity of human communities, both of which makes urban areas more resilient to
future disturbance events (Tidball and Krasny 2007). Furthermore, in a more recent
review of the literature, Tidball et al. (2010) conclude that communities and individuals
turn to stewardship projects such as community gardening and urban forestry because it
makes the participating individuals feel better after a disturbance event, it provides a
needed learning experience, and it strengthens the general community (Tidball et al.
2010).
In a study with similar conclusions, Hunter (2011) employed a mailed survey to
measure the reactions of Ann Arbor residents following a windstorm that resulted in the
loss of a large number of street trees. The findings indicate that proximity to disturbance
increases interest of stewardship. Moreover, people become more engaged and willing to
19

participate in stewardship programs after experiencing environmental disturbance
(Hunter 2011). The author suggests that the study was limited because the returned
surveys were not matched to households, and therefore there was no way to match
individual surveys to households or to ensure that single households were not returning
multiple surveys.
The literature clearly shows that volunteers are motivated by environmental,
social, personal, and other considerations. Like the studies that concluded that volunteers
are primarily motivated by self-interests, these findings are important because they
highlight that volunteers can act on diverse motivations; a lesson volunteer managers
would be wise to keep in mind when designing volunteer programs. Because volunteers
are motivated by both the social and environmental implications of their work, volunteer
managers would be also be wise to address these issues in their attempts to recruit and
maintain a large pool of volunteers. Finally, as important as volunteer motives may be, it
is often enough to recognize that the volunteer may benefit from his or her work. This is
particularly the case where public goods are concerned: “The provision of a public good
for one's own sake benefits others. As when parents volunteer in their children's
classrooms or coach their children's soccer teams. The distinction between altruism and
self-interest is not always observable; neither is it particularly relevant” (Brown 1999, pg.
12). This is to say that while it may be hard to estimate the social benefit of the work that
volunteer orchard stewards perform, it might be enough to recognize that they too receive
the value of an improved public good.

20

Volunteer Management
Qualitative research methods have also been used to research volunteer
management strategies (Millar 2003, Straka et al. 2005). Understanding the best
practices for volunteer management is very important. The strength of any volunteer
organization is based not only on the dedication of its volunteers but also on how well the
organization is managed. The following study descriptions will describe the particular
qualitative research methods that were employed in order to study volunteer management,
as well as the findings they provided and their relevance to this research project.
In a research project exploring what makes stewardship and conservation
organizations successful, Millar (2003) employed telephone interviews with program
experts and made a number of conclusions that have implications for volunteer
management in general. Namely, that stewardship and conservation organizations all
rely heavily on volunteers, and that the best way to utilize this labor force is to provide
targeted tasks. Organizations are able to retain a more engaged volunteer force for a
longer period of time when their appointed tasks are clearly defined in terms of
expectations, duration, and the type of volunteer skill set that is needed to perform their
tasks. Therefore, it is very important for volunteer managers to make their expectations
known and to clearly define the exact nature of the work that the volunteers will be
tasked with.
The previously mentioned studies by Barnes and Sharpe (2009) and Ryan et al.
(2001) also provide some important conclusions that are relevant to volunteer
management. Barnes and Sharpe (2009) find that organizations should be as flexible as
possible in their volunteer management strategies so as to provide work experiences that
are centered on the interests of the volunteers. Moreover, because volunteers are aware
21

of and motivated by the costs and benefits of their potential volunteer work managers
should factor this ratio into their management strategy (Barnes and Sharpe 2009).
Similarly, Ryan et al. (2001) found that in addition to providing opportunities where the
volunteers can achieve a sense of accomplishment, volunteer managers should seek to
provide opportunities for continued learning that appeal to as many volunteer interests as
possible. Additionally, the authors provide a list of useful volunteer management
strategies that include: considering volunteer motivations, providing learning
opportunities, demonstrating to the volunteers how their work has benefited the
environment, creating time for socialization, allowing time for reflection, and improving
the organization of the project (Ryan et al. 2001).
Studies suggest that a lack of public awareness is a large barrier that limits the
number of people that choose to volunteer for environmental stewardship programs
(Millar 2003, Straka 2005). Millar (2003) found that in addition to their lack of financial
resources, the organizations all identified a lack of public awareness about their programs
as major barriers to success. The organizations all agreed that focusing on social issues,
in addition to environmental issues, would broaden their appeal and improve public
awareness of their organizations (Millar 2003). Similarly, when researching participation
in urban and community forestry programs in South Carolina, Straka et al. (2005)
distributed surveys through the mail and concluded that public awareness was one of the
major barriers to successful volunteer management. The researchers found that the
participants were primarily involved because of job requirements as well as professional
and personal reasons. However, previous participation was a very strong indication of
future participation and the non-participants cited not knowing about the programs as the
main reason for their lack of participation. The authors conclude that raising public
22

awareness is a crucial management strategy for organizations that rely on volunteers
(Straka et al. 2005).

Research Methods
The examination of the studies relating to volunteer motivations and management
has direct relevance to my study. Their methods and conclusions provide a useful
framework for how I conceptualized and carried out my thesis project. I have yet to find
any indication that researchers have dealt with the subject of volunteer recommendations
for the organizational improvement of environmental stewardship programs in all of the
studies that I have so far described or in the greater literature research that I have carried
out. My thesis project is not only a continuation of previous research on the topics of
volunteer motivation and management, it is also provides new insights into the role that
volunteers play in environmental stewardship programs and their potential for making
previously overlooked recommendations for organizational improvements.
The present chapter has reviewed the literature on the important studies relating to
volunteer urban orchard stewardship. These studies demonstrate the wide variety of
questions that researchers in these fields are attempting to answer. The majority of
studies reviewed above relied upon qualitative methods to measure the opinions and
beliefs of human respondents and provides a clear methodological history that
demonstrates that the qualitative research methods chosen for this study are appropriate
for measuring the opinions and perceptions of volunteer urban orchard stewards. The
studies related to volunteer motivations and management cover a variety of disciplines
with varied theoretical and methodological approaches. Each of these methodological
approaches is equally valid in their own right, and the diversity of the approaches only
23

strengthens the overall understanding of their topics.
Eight interviews were conducted between January and February of 2013 (Please
refer to the Data Analysis Chapter for a greater description of the interview process).
Four volunteer orchard stewards as well as four paid program managers were interviewed.
The interviews were all recorded with a digital audio recording device and transcribed
onto a computer with a word processor. Once the transcriptions were complete an initial
review of the texts was performed. The interview transcripts were then analyzed for
dominant and recurring themes. Particular categories and themes that fit within the texts
were identified and coded in order to recognize the dominant themes of the respondents.
When possible, the most commonly used words or phrases were identified to further help
determine the dominant themes of the respondents.
Similar to previous studies measuring human perceptions and opinions, this
research project relied upon in-depth interviews of volunteer urban orchard stewards
provides a greater understanding of volunteer motivations, volunteer management, and
organizational structure. This research project also provides suggestions for
understanding and improving volunteer experiences, as well as strengthening volunteer
urban orchard stewardship programs. All of these insights will improve the management
of urban orchards in particular and public goods in general. This thesis project also adds
greater understanding to the role that environmental stewardship organizations play in
urban environments and the management of public goods. The following chapter of this
research project will address many of the issues surrounding urban orchard stewardship.

24

Chapter 3: City Fruit and Volunteers

In order to fully understand the many implications of City Fruit's urban orchard
stewardship program, an examination of the many issues surrounding urban agriculture
and forestry are necessary. The important issues surrounding urban orchard stewardship
are presented below. To begin with, a brief history of the development of Seattle parks is
provided to demonstrate the context in which the current legalities surrounding urban
orchards and agriculture in public spaces of the City of Seattle were developed. The legal
context for urban agriculture and urban orchards is then illustrated by a thorough
discussion of the legislation, initiatives, and other materials published by the City of
Seattle. The benefits of urban forestry are then discussed in some detail, followed by
exhaustive descriptions of urban agriculture and food security. A review of the role that
non-profit stewardship groups are increasingly playing in the management of urban green
spaces is then provided. Finally, City Fruit and the urban orchard stewardship program is
described in detail.

Managing Seattle Parks for Services Rather than Material Goods
The following section addresses the history of parks in Seattle in order to explain
the reasoning behind regulations that technically prohibits people from growing and
harvesting food on public properties. Before Seattle's system of urban parks and open
spaces were developed there was a debate between members of the City Council about
the role that parks should play in urban environments. On one hand stood those in favor
of having a system of parks that would provide material goods, such as firewood and
hunting grounds, and on the other hand were people that believed that parks were
25

supposed to provide services—rather than material goods—to the community. The
debate was eventually settled and parks in Seattle were initially built in order to provide
social services to the community in order to promote the development of the city and the
efficient use of tax money.
In addition to beautifying the city, parks were thought to help integrate previously
separate sections of the city and encourage business opportunities. Another important
social service that the parks were thought to provide was a way to control immigrant
populations that were growing in Seattle by the turn of the 20th century. Blackford (1980,
pg. 558) writes, “They viewed parks, municipal ornaments, and a civic center as tools to
beautify Seattle and as the means to harmonize the often clashing values of the city's
fragmented social classes and groups.” Parks, playgrounds, and playfields were traininggrounds for democracy that would “lift people out of the slums” and were designed to
“teach ethnic groups and working-class children the fundamentals of middle-class morals
and values” (Blackford 1980, pg. 561). Seattle parks were, therefore, specifically
designed to provide particular services to the city that spaces for fire wood, hunting, or
other private interests would not have been able to provide.
The demand for a citywide system of parks in Seattle was so great that work
progressed quickly and over the course of only two decades a parks plan was adopted and
developed. The City of Seattle hired an initial landscape architect to develop a system of
urban parks in 1892 but a final agreement over the designs could not be made by the city
council. Little came of this early work and it was not until 1903 when the Olmsted firm
of landscape architects was hired that real progress was made. John C. Olmsted
developed a plan that was adopted by the City Council, and the City of Seattle spent four
million dollars over the next decade building a system of parks throughout the city:
26

“During the first ten years after its submission, most of the primary elements of the plan
would, through purchase, gift, condemnation, or bonded indebtedness, be incorporated
into the city's structure” (City of Seattle 2012c). By 1913 the park system was mostly
completed and “Twenty-five improved parks, twelve playgrounds, and twenty-five miles
of boulevards lay within Seattle's boundaries” (Blackford 1980).
The visions of the early park proponents and the Olmsted firm persist to this day.
Seattle parks continue to provide services to the community rather than resources or
material goods. Seattle Municipal Code 18.12.070 states:
It is unlawful for any person except a duly authorized Department of Parks
and Recreation or other City employee in the performance of his or her
duties, or other person duly authorized pursuant to law, to remove, destroy,
mutilate or deface any [...] shrub, tree, [...] plant, flower, [...] in any park.
(City of Seattle 1977)
This regulation has been interpreted to also mean that not only is it illegal to remove
plants from city property, but it is also illegal to remove even a part of a plant (such as an
apple, blackberry, or other edible part of a plant that may grow in city parks). In either
case the distinction is irrelevant because violators are threatened with heavy fines and
imprisonment (McLain et al. 2012). That the City of Seattle has consented and allowed
City Fruit's orchard stewardship program as well as 73 community garden projects to
operate on Seattle-owned land suggests that in some cases the regulations that prohibit
the removal of plants from city parks are being ignored.
The history of managing parks and other city properties for services rather than
material goods is also evident in the position that the City of Seattle takes on growing
fruit trees on public properties adjacent to private homes. The ban on growing fruit trees
on street parking strips that are owned by the City of Seattle is still enforced, which
according to Nordahl (2008) makes all who dare to violate this ban “vigilantes” and
27

presents an interesting legal situation that will have to be remedied in the future.
Regardless of the type of public property involved, City Fruit's urban orchard stewardship
program is actively reshaping how the City of Seattle views its public spaces and
regulations surrounding park management and urban agriculture. The following section
will go into more detail about the City of Seattle's legal positions on urban agriculture,
public orchards, and the use of public spaces for growing food.

Material Published by the City of Seattle on Urban Orchards, Urban Agriculture,
and Urban Forest Management
The City of Seattle has recently been very public in its support of promoting
urban agriculture as a desired use of public lands. The following section presents the
major publications and reports, initiatives, and positions surrounding park management
and the use of public spaces that the City of Seattle has taken in the last decade. In
October 2012 the City of Seattle released the Food Action Plan, which is a
comprehensive strategy to improve the local food system. In the face of a number of
environmental and social challenges the City of Seattle hopes to “identify ways to ensure
that everyone in Seattle is able to participate in a food system that promotes health,
environmental sustainability, racial and social equity, and a thriving economy” (City of
Seattle 2012a, pg. 8). The four goals of the Food Action Plan are: healthy food for all,
grow local, strengthen the local economy, and prevent food waste. One of the five
strategies the plan suggests for growing more food locally is to “Develop and support
programs to produce food on City-owned land” (City of Seattle 2012a, pg. 22).
Furthermore, two of the approaches that are listed in the introduction of the plan are to
“Enhance partnerships with the public and private sectors and community-based
28

organizations in the City and across the region” and to “Stimulate collaboration among
community organizations, institutions, neighborhoods, and governments” (City of Seattle
2012a, pg. 3). The Food Action Plan clearly stresses community involvement and the
appropriate use of public spaces for urban agriculture.
Although not specifically named in the report, City Fruit's urban orchard
stewardship program is a recognized component of the Food Action Plan's strategy for
encouraging food production on city-owned land. The orchard stewardship program is
briefly described in the Grow Local section of the report. In addition to arguing that the
stewardship program provides food for the community, the report states:
There are more than 37 orchards and fruit gardens, small and large, on
City of Seattle-owned land, from which volunteers harvested over 1,500
pounds of fruit in 2011. Proper maintenance and harvesting of these trees
and shrubs will help expand and sustain this valuable food resource for
years to come. Nine of these orchards are currently maintained through a
partnership between Department of Parks and Recreation, volunteers, and
a community-based non-profit organization.
(City of Seattle 2012a, pg. 22)
Despite not naming City Fruit in this brief description of the orchard stewardship
program, the City of Seattle clearly values the program and benefits from the publicity it
allows.
The orchard stewardship program is also an example of the type of local
initiatives called for by the Seattle City Council in the Local Food Action Initiative,
which was released by the council with support from the mayor in April of 2008. One of
the goals of the Local Food Action Initiative is to increase access for all residents to
healthy and local foods. One of the suggested ways to reach this goal is: “Increasing the
opportunities for Seattle residents to purchase and grow healthy food in the city” (City of
Seattle 2008). Urban orchard stewardship is the type of 'specific action' called for by the

29

Local Food Action Initiative that can “strengthen Seattle and the region's food system in
a sustainable and secure way” (City of Seattle 2008).
In 2007, the City of Seattle released its Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP),
which describes the urban forest as, “all trees in the city on both public as well as private
property. This forest includes street trees, park trees, forested parklands, trees on
institutional campuses, and trees in many private ownership settings” (City of Seattle
2007, pg. 11). The UFMP is intended to reverse decades of neglect and canopy cover
loss by improving the management of existing and future trees while simultaneously
meeting the ecological, economic, and social goals of urban forest management.
Although no specific mention is made to fruit trees in the UFMP, the document stresses
the importance of encouraging community engagement in urban forest management.
The following three goals are presented in the Community Framework section of
the UFMP: enhance public awareness of the urban forest as a community resource;
engage the community in active stewardship of the urban forest; and promote citizengovernment-business partnerships (City of Seattle 2007, pg. 6). The orchard stewardship
program is an ideal example of a way to meet all three of these goals. That being said,
fruit trees are only mentioned a single time in the report, and then only in reference to the
cumulative impact on the declining canopy cover due to private fruit tree owners
resorting to cutting their fruit trees down in frustration over fallen leaves and fruit (City
of Seattle 2007, pg. 31).
A critical issue that is made apparent through a review of the UFMP is that the
City of Seattle is currently understaffed to meet the maintenance demands of its urban
forest. Both street trees as well as park trees are on a maintenance schedule that is well
below current industry standards. The following provides an apt description of the
30

maintenance realities for the trees in Seattle's parks: “Parks is responsible for 90,000 trees
in developed park properties and along park-owned boulevards [...] The 2000 Pro Parks
Levy added a third 3-person tree crew to Parks that has been dedicated to providing
preventive tree maintenance in high-use park locations. As a result, Park’s tree pruning
cycle went from 26 years to 18 years” (City of Seattle 2007, pg. 39). While the
Department of Parks and Recreation employs three 3-man crews and prunes its trees
every 18 years, other U.S. cities staff their departments to meet industry standards so that
each tree is given maintenance attention every 5-7 years. Not only is the City of Seattle
not meeting industry standards of tree maintenance schedules but much of the
maintenance work done by Seattle's Departments of Parks and Recreation is done in
response to: “demand-based tree-related emergencies, primarily the removal of dead,
diseased, or fallen trees” (City of Seattle 2007, pg. 39). Given these realities it is no
wonder that the City of Seattle is not able to devote enough resources to its urban
orchards and must rely upon a dedicated group of volunteer orchard stewards.
Initially completed in 1994 and frequently updated, Seattle's Comprehensive Plan
guides land-use for both public and private lands. The Comprehensive Plan also attempts
to find a balance between environmental sustainability and economic growth in the face
of a growing population in Seattle. The policy guidelines of the Open Space Network of
the Urban Village Element section of the Comprehensive Plan state that the City of
Seattle must: “Promote inter-agency and intergovernmental cooperation to expand
community gardening opportunities” and “Create opportunities for people to experience
the natural environment by including parks, forested areas, community gardens (PPatches), and viewpoints among the priority uses to be considered for the City’s surplus
properties” (City of Seattle 2005). These policy guidelines are significant not only
31

because they make all departments within the City of Seattle responsible for promoting
urban gardening but also because they dictate that unused public properties should be
used to expand such gardening opportunities. Through these policy guidelines the City of
Seattle has taken an unprecedented step in recognizing the role that local food and urban
gardening can play in sustaining healthy environments and growing populations.
In describing Seattle's comprehensive plan as the “most empowering document
available to any municipality,” Nordahl (2008, pg. 58) writes: “Seattle's comprehensive
plan demonstrates the municipality's commitment to urban agriculture, and offers hope of
a new mindset for the increasing number of public officials across the country who
believe growing food is not only an acceptable land use, but necessary for the health and
well-being of the community and environment.” City Fruit's urban orchard stewardship
program is an example of an alternative use of public open-spaces, and its continued
success will encourage other municipalities across the country to follow Seattle's lead and
invest in greater support of urban agriculture and non-profit stewardship groups.
Despite the City of Seattle's broad acceptance of using public spaces for urban
agriculture and environmental stewardship, it is difficult to find much published material
on urban agriculture or orchard stewardship in Seattle. This knowledge gap makes it
difficult to discern whether the City of Seattle's positions on urban agriculture and the use
of public spaces are actually being put into action. There are not many models that
demonstrate an appropriate use of public spaces for urban agriculture and orchard
stewardship; therefore many of the advances that have been made by the City of Seattle
in this regard are groundbreaking. This situation is not limited to Seattle: “The topic of
public produce—that can more descriptively be defined as municipal agriculture—does
not receive a lot of publicity or fanfare, so it is difficult to unearth research on this topic.
32

As such, many municipalities are implementing programs more or less from scratch”
(Nordahl 2009, pg. xiii). There was no model of orchard stewardship on which the City
of Seattle could base its partnership with City Fruit. The orchard stewardship program
has had to start from scratch, and each lesson in city land use regulations, or in
cooperating with city employees or other members of the orchard stewardship
organization have had to be learned first hand.
Volunteer urban orchard stewards are responsible for maintaining a small yet
important component of Seattle's urban forest. Urban orchards are public goods that
provide many benefits to the community. Sarah Foster, the Manager of the Urban and
Community Forestry Program of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
said the following about the benefits of urban orchards:
And those multiple benefits, you can get food and you can get canopy and
you can get clean air and clean water. So they still have, most fruit trees
still have all of the other benefits—just on a much smaller scale. Because
they generally don't get very big. Most fruit trees don't get bigger than 25
feet and by the time they get that big they start to decline.
(Foster, Personal Interview Jan. 16, 2012)
It is necessary to understand the benefits of urban forests to realize why it is so critical
that they be properly maintained so that they do not decline and stop providing their
benefits. The following section presents a review of the many environmental and social
benefits of urban forests that are generally under-appreciated by the public and
demonstrates the importance of the work being done by City Fruit's volunteer orchard
stewards.

33

The Benefits of Urban Forests
In addition to the fruit they produce, urban orchards contribute to many of the
services that are provided by urban forests. A brief review of some of the many benefits
that are provided by urban forests is warranted. The environmental and social benefits of
urban forests are well known. In a literature review written for the U.S. Forest Service,
McPherson (1992) presents some of the many benefits of urban forests: energy savings,
carbon sequestration, improved air quality, reduced storm water runoff, and enhanced
recreational opportunities. All of which have real monetary benefit to the impacted
community (McPerson 1992). Urban orchards are a part of a complex urban forest and
the implications of the work of volunteer orchard stewards reaches far beyond mere fruit
production and individual tree maintenance. Productive and healthy urban orchards are a
public good that contribute to an extensive list of public services that deserve to be better
appreciated.
As was demonstrated by the discussion of the City of Seattle's Forest
Management Plan (please see above), maintaining and improving urban forests requires
great effort and financial expenditures. Given the high level of commitment necessary
for urban forests, Zhu and Zhang (2008) used an economic model to examine the demand
for urban trees so as to better understand how willing people are to pay for the benefits of
urban forests. The researchers examined 242 cities in the U.S. with populations over
100,000 and concluded that the demand for urban forests is related to income, so that for
every 1% change in income the demand for urban forests will fluctuate by 1.76%.
Moreover, urban forest cover is also related to the price of urban trees so that for every 1%
increase in price, the demand will drop by 1.26% (Zhu and Zhang 2008).
While examining the real environmental and monetary benefits of urban forests,
34

Nowak (2006) found similar results. Urban forest plot data as well as air pollution and
meteorological data were used in a predictive modeling tool to determine pollution
removal, carbon sequestration, and impacts to water quality. Furthermore, a number of
species specific allometric equations were used to measure the “root to shoot” biomass of
each tree measured in the sampled plot. The author concludes that urban trees play a
large role in removing pollutants, sequestering carbon, and improving water quality (all
of which has very real monetary value) in 13 large cities in the U.S. as well as Toronto
and Beijing. The author also argues that urban forestry should be seen as a
biotechnological way to improve the urban environment (Nowak 2006).
Given the many benefits of urban forests and orchards, the conclusions of Wolf
and Kruger (2009) are significant because they find that public appreciation and
understanding of the benefits of urban forestry was lacking. Interestingly, the researchers
also find that community engagement and stewardship should be encouraged to preserve
and improve the human and economic benefits of urban forest spaces (Wolf and Kruger
2009). These findings are important because they demonstrate that the public does not
fully appreciate the benefits of urban forests and that greater public appreciation of urban
forests would lead to more environmental stewardship and a stronger dedication to
maintaining urban forests.
Urban orchard stewards are not only participating in fruit tree maintenance, they
also demonstrate to the public that food production can be one of the many benefits of the
urban forest. The urban orchard stewards raise awareness about the benefits of urban
forests and the practical benefits of urban agriculture. The following section will provide
a more thorough review of the definitions and practical implications of urban agriculture.

35

Urban Agriculture in the U.S.
The term “urban agriculture” has been used rather loosely up to this point in this
report and should therefore be defined in greater detail. Urban agriculture can be defined
very broadly. Any food being grown and harvested in any manner in a non-rural
environment can be considered urban agriculture. The utilization of any space for
growing food, no matter how small, can be an important contribution to the diet of a
person, family, or community. Luc Mouget (1999) writes, “urban agriculture, including
food production, is typically practiced over smaller and more dispersed areas than rural
agriculture, uses land and water more sparingly and efficiently, integrates systems more
effectively, and produces much higher yields and more specialty crops and livestock”
(International Development Research Centre 1999, pg. 16).
A more specific definition of urban agriculture is: “the growing, processing, and
distribution of food and other products through intensive plant cultivation and animal
husbandry in and around cities” (Katherine H Brown and Carter, 2003, pg. 3). These
definitions of urban agriculture allow for a large variety of practices that include the
management and stewardship of urban orchards. It is also important to stress that even
public properties fall under the large umbrella of urban agriculture and should be
considered areas of great potential for growing and raising food to support their
communities.
The following brief description of two recent studies on urban agriculture in the
U.S. highlights the typical spatial distribution of urban agriculture as well as the potential
for food self-sufficiency in modern American cities. In a study examining urban
agriculture spaces in Chicago, Taylor and Lovell (2012) used remote sensing data to map
public and private urban agriculture spaces. Food producing gardens were found in a
36

wide range of places across Chicago. Vacant lot gardens were concentrated in
economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, home gardens were concentrated in areas
where households had larger yard spaces for gardening, and the majority of residents do
not live in a Census tract with a community garden—a trend that is most apparent in
economically disadvantaged areas of the city. The researchers found that the majority of
urban agriculture spaces in Chicago were on private property, which would suggest that
there is a potential for a greater investment in urban agriculture if more public spaces
were devoted to growing food.
Similarly interested in the potential for urban agriculture, Grewal and Grewal
(2012) examined the scenarios by which different land uses could result in food selfreliance in Cleveland. The authors conclude that Cleveland's current self-reliance in food
is between 1.7% and 0.1%, and that with particularly intensive gardening techniques and
the use of commercial rooftops and more private garden spaces the city could reach 100%
in fresh produce, 94% in chickens, and 100% self-reliance in honey. The authors argued
that because food self-reliance is technically possible, more attention should be paid to
unused urban spaces for urban agricultural purposes. The authors did not include
available public lands such as parking strips and open spaces in city parks, which
suggests that Cleveland's potential for food self-reliance would only increase with the
inclusion of these spaces.
Taylor and Lovell (2012) make the important contribution of mapping existing
community gardens, but the authors fail to explore the potential of the unused public
spaces in Chicago. Similarly, Grewal and Grewal (2012) ignore public spaces such as
parking strips and open spaces in city parks in their modeled estimates of the food
growing potential of Cleveland. A reasonable conclusion is that the potential for urban
37

agriculture would be far greater if public spaces, such as Seattle's urban orchards, were
recognized and included in urban food management plans. As Stephanie Butow, a
volunteer urban orchard steward at the Picardo P Patch pointed out:
Also, I'm a social worker and I work with elementary school kids and
there are a lot of kids who don't have enough food. And it just really
frustrates me because when you look at all the land that is available.
Because even just all along the city streets, if they planted fruit trees
instead of grass, there would be a lot of fruit available for [the hungry].
(Butow, personal interview 4 Feb. 2013)
Once individuals begin growing even a small amount of their own food, they become
much more aware of the many open spaces that could more efficiently be utilized for
growing food to help the food insecure. Finding a legal and safe way of utilizing some of
these unused spaces is one of the major challenges facing urban agriculture. City Fruit's
urban orchard stewardship program is actively engaged in challenging the boundaries of
suitable spaces for growing food in urban environments. Furthermore, volunteer urban
orchard stewards are actively demonstrating the role that everyday people can take to
help care for public goods and feed the hungry. The following section will go into much
more detail about food security and demonstrate the need for community-based programs
such as City Fruit's urban orchard stewardship program.

Food Security in Washington State
One of the major goals of City Fruit is to use and share otherwise wasted food in
order to “effectively link those who have fruit with those who need it” (City Fruit 2013).
Every year City Fruit delivers many thousands of pounds of fruit to numerous
organizations, including but not limited to: a large number of food banks, retirement
communities, shelters for battered women, summer camps, church groups, and cooking

38

classes for the W.I.C. (Women Infants and Children) program. Food security is a major
problem in Seattle and City Fruit is among many organizations dedicated to helping feed
the needy. The following section provides some information on the state of food security
in the U.S. and demonstrates the need for programs like City Fruit's urban orchard
stewardship program.
Urban agriculture has the potential to help alleviate hunger and bolster the food
security of the urban poor. Hunger and poor nutrition are not problems of the developing
world that the United States can ignore. Hunger is a problem the world over, including in
wealthy countries, and policy makers in the United States should recognize that a
significant number of Americans suffer from hunger. Hunger is closely linked with
poverty, and according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are many poor people in the U.S.:
The nation's official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent, up from 14.3
percent in 2009 ─ the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate.
There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million
in 2009 ─ the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest number in
the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.
(US Census Bureau 2012a)
The numbers for shared households and individuals in Washington State are even
worse. As of 2011, 464,673 shared households (17.7%) and 775,510 additional
individuals (15.2%) were at or below the poverty level (US Census Bureau
2012b). The poverty threshold for a single person in the U.S. is $11,139 (US
Census Bureau 2012a).
Although the thresholds are higher for families and people with children,
being at or below the poverty line is an incredible strain on millions of Americans
and can lead directly to food insecurity. According to the United States
Department of Agriculture's “Economic Research Service,” 14.70% percent of

39

households in the U.S. and 15.4% of households in Washington State experienced
'low or very low food security' at some point between 2009-2011 (USDA 2012).
If such high levels of poverty in the United States remain steady, or indeed
continue to grow, the need for urban agriculture will only become more apparent.
Any increase in poverty at the individual, family, or community level weakens a
person's ability to purchase an adequate amount of nutritious food. Hunger is a symptom
of poverty, and despite a public image of obesity, the United States has a lot of hungry
citizens. Those that are food insecure are: “people who frequently skip meals or eat too
little, sometimes going without food for a whole day. They tend to have lower quality
diets or must resort to seeking emergency food because they cannot afford the food they
need” (Brown and Carter, 2003). Food expenditures are a burden to millions of
Americans. Buying enough food, and particularly food that is healthy, is a daily struggle
for those lacking food security. Urban agriculture and urban orchardry should be viewed
as a way to relieve this burden and as an acceptable avenue for the poor to receive more
'emergency' food that would only otherwise be distributed by government or non-profit
agencies at great cost to other people.
When the demographics of who goes hungry in the United States are examined,
the inequities of American society are all too apparent. Minorities and the young are the
most at risk for experiencing hunger. According to Patricia Allen: “Many of the hungry
are children, and 76% of the hungry are people of color” (International Development
Research Centre 1999, pg. 178). These figures become even more striking when you
learn of the true magnitude of the problem. Allen argues that, “Food security eludes the
estimated 30 million Americans who suffer chronic underconsumption of adequate
nutrients” (International Development Research Centre 1999, pg. 178). Thirty million
40

may be a conservative estimate of the number of people that do not have food security.
Gorgolewski argues that, “a total of 50 million Americans were food-insecure in 2007,
including more than 17 million children” (Gorgolewski, 2011).
According to the Food Bank for New York City: 48% or 3.9 million people in
New York City had “difficulty affording food” during 2008 (Quets and Spota, 2011).
This amazing failure of the United States illustrates that the American food system is
fundamentally flawed and illustrates how important community level programs such as
City Fruit's urban orchard stewardship program are to addressing food insecurity. The
following section will go into more detail about the relationship between environmental
stewardship groups (like City Fruit) and local governments, and describe how they work
together to manage public spaces.

Civic Engagement of Environmental Stewardship Groups
A number of studies have examined the relationship between nonprofit
environmental stewardship organizations, such as City Fruit, and the management of
urban green spaces and other public goods and found that nonprofits play an integral role
in maintaining public goods. Pincetl (2003) examined the relationship between local
government and nonprofits in Los Angeles and concluded that nonprofits play an
important and growing role in park management. Through an analysis of historical park
provision, current newspaper and park bond documents, and interviews with experts
related to the field, the author concludes that nonprofits have become partners with local
governments and important players in the governance of the area. Environmental
nonprofits have also become leaders in finding new sources of funding that are necessary
given the financial situation of cash-strapped local governments (Pincetl 2003). In a
41

related article reviewing the literature about park management in Los Angeles, Pincetl
(2010) examines a tree planting program in Los Angeles in the context of the sustainable
management of urban areas. The author concludes that private stewardship groups have
assumed the responsibility for the daily management, maintenance, and fundraising
support of many city parks (Pincetl 2010).
A number of studies have looked more closely at the environmental management
relationship between private organizations and local governments (Connoly et al. 2012,
Svendsen and Campbell 2008, Young and McPherson 2012). In each, collaboration
between the groups is stressed. Svendsen and Campbell (2008) conclude that although
the stewardship groups in their study are of various sizes and funding levels and are
dedicated to different agendas and goals, they all depend heavily on volunteers and often
collaborate with the agencies responsible for the management of urban ecological
services. The authors conclude that the most commonly cited barriers to organizational
success and growth is lack of adequate financial resources (Svendsen and Campbell
2008). Connoly et al. (2012) describe this as a bi-modal relationship between the
stewardship groups and public agencies. The relationship is one of convenience for both
sides and often concludes in either contentious or cooperative results for both parties.
The authors also find that the stewardship groups participating in one or more of these bimodal partnerships can be distinguished from simple ecosystem managers because they
are often responding foremost to social conditions, with improvements to environmental
services a secondary (yet still important) concern (Connoly et al. 2012). Interestingly,
Young and McPherson (20120 found that the majority of public, private, and community
stakeholders identified their local governments, and the management strategies of their
respective mayors in particular (but not private or community groups), as having the
42

greatest influence on the management of urban green infrastructure.
Partnerships between community stewardship groups and local governments
manifest themselves in a number of ways and are increasingly challenging the legal
boundaries of urban agriculture and the use of public spaces. In a review of existing fruit
gleaning groups and the legal environment for such projects in Seattle, McLain et al.
(2012) reviewed all of the relevant city documents and websites of urban fruit harvesting
organizations and conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with a number of community
gleaning organizations, urban forest conservation organizations, and with employees of
the Seattle City Council and Departments of Neighborhoods, Planning and Development,
Transportation, and Parks and Recreation. The authors conclude that the traditional
views of parks services to the public are rapidly expanding to include parks and open
spaces as areas of production.
Urban community gleaning organizations (including City Fruit's urban orchard
stewardship program) and forest conservation organizations are working in partnership
with the City of Seattle in their efforts to produce edible food for those suffering from
food insecurity in Seattle. While most of this activity has occurred on private land,
volunteer orchard stewards working for City Fruit are now maintaining a number of
remnant orchards on public lands and their work is expanding the definitions of urban
environmental stewardship and changing the way parks and open spaces are viewed
(McLain et al. 2012). The following section will describe City Fruit, and the orchard
stewardship program in particular, in greater detail.

43

City Fruit
City Fruit is well known for its harvesting program in the Phinney Ridge
neighborhood, South Seattle, and West Seattle. Over the last several years City Fruit has
successfully harvested many thousands of pounds of unused fruit from trees growing on
private property that would have otherwise gone to waste. This harvested fruit is donated
to several organizations that feed the under-served. According to the City Fruit website:
“City Fruit promotes the cultivation of urban fruit in order to nourish people, build
community and protect the climate. We help tree owners grow healthy fruit, provide
assistance in harvesting and preserving fruit, promote the sharing of extra fruit, and work
to protect urban fruit trees” (City Fruit 2013).
The goals of City Fruit are as follows: conservation and preservation of fruit trees
on public and private properties, preservation of the urban tree canopy which includes
increasing the number of fruit trees planted on public and private properties, stewardship
to improve the care of fruit trees and reduce the impacts of fruit pests and diseases using
non-toxic methods, increasing the amount of harvested fruit, making sure that the fruit is
used and shared by those who need it, and community building through strengthening the
“connections within community groups through planting, stewardship, harvest and/or
preservation of fruit” (City Fruit 2013). More recently however, City Fruit has started an
orchard stewardship and has organized groups of volunteers interested in maintaining
fruit trees growing on public lands.
In order to more properly care for fruit trees growing on public lands (i.e. public
goods), City Fruit began its orchard stewardship program in 2010. Groups of dedicated
volunteer stewards receive training in fruit tree care and maintenance in order for them to
help maintain remnant orchards on properties owned by the City of Seattle. The orchard
44

stewardship program has a different mission than City Fruit's harvesting programs
oriented towards private property fruit trees in that the program is intended to “train and
encourage community investment in fruit tree maintenance on publicly owned property.
The Fruit Tree Stewards program indicates that urban environmental stewardship is
taking place across wild and cultivated natures on both private and public property in
Seattle” (McLain et al. 2012). McLain et al.'s (2012) central argument is that
organizations like City Fruit are actively engaging in a blurring of the harvesting
boundaries between public and private urban spaces and promoting public spaces for
urban agriculture and gleaning purposes.
The orchard stewardship program greatly expands City Fruit's presence on the
urban landscape of Seattle, thereby increasing its outreach to the public and forcing
greater dialogue and activism about the legal realities surrounding urban agriculture.
According to McLain et al., the results of these collaborations “foster dialogue between
food policy and urban forestry advocates, and further blur perceptual boundaries between
wild and cultivated areas” (McLain et al. 2012, pg. 6). Perhaps a more important result
of the orchard stewardship program is that it simply demonstrates that fruit is and can be
grown in unconventional urban areas: “Often fruit goes unused because people are not
sure when to harvest it, how to eat it, or they are put off by damage caused by preventable
disease and pests. We are reclaiming the urban orchard, showing people how to harvest
and use what they need, and to share the rest with others” (City Fruit 2013). In addition
to providing necessary maintenance services for the orchards, the stewards are also
demonstrating that public spaces can be utilized for growing and harvesting fruit.
The orchard stewardship program began from a simple need to maintain fruit trees
growing in Seattle parks. In 2012, Seattle's Department of Parks and Recreation created
45

a website titled Urban Food Systems as a resource for those curious about the
opportunities for urban agriculture on parks properties. A link to City Fruit is provided
on the site, as is the following brief description of the City's goal for the urban orchard
stewardship program: “to work with communities to better care for and nurture existing
fruit trees on Parks property” (City of Seattle 2012b). The City of Seattle and the DPR
are sorely underfunded and are not able to provide the level of maintenance that fruit
trees require. Before the orchard stewardship program was started, many if not most of
the fruit trees on public lands were highly degraded, had not been pruned or cared for in
years, and were often overgrown with non-native invasive species.
The orchard stewardship program was born out of necessity and a need to
maintain a public good and return the fruit trees to productive order. According to City
Fruit's website:
While these trees are of value to the community as a source of food and
canopy cover and as a link to Seattle's past, Seattle Park's landscaping
budgets cannot cover the costs of the pruning, pest management and
harvest of fruit trees. City Fruit was awarded a grant from the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources in cooperation with the US Forest
Service to develop a community stewardship program to care for fruit
trees in Seattle parks. (City Fruit 2013)
Gail Savina, the Director of City Fruit, related to me that the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources has funded the orchard stewardship program through
three one-year funding cycles: “we received a grant for $9800 in 2010-11. Another grant
for about $9500 for 2011–12. And now we just received a grant for $9900 starting in
2013” (Personal Communication, 4 Feb. 2013). The Urban and Community Forestry
Program at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources is responsible for
funding community urban forestry programs across the state. The mission statement of
the program is as follows: “to educate citizens and decision-makers about the economic,
46

environmental, psychological, and aesthetic benefits of trees and to assist local
governments, citizen groups, and volunteers in planting and sustaining healthy trees
where people live and work in Washington” (Washington State DNR 2012). The City of
Seattle, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, as well as City Fruit all
share similar goals and are dedicated to improving the health and productivity of urban
fruit trees.
The number of orchards currently managed by stewardship groups in Seattle is
steadily growing. Gail Savina provided a working list of the nine orchards that have had
steward groups established. In the first year of the program Bradner Gardens, Burke
Gilman Trail, Dr. Jose Rizal Park, Martha Washington Park, and Meadowbrook Park
were established. In the second year of the program steward groups were started in
Queen Pea P Patch, Picardo P Patch, Kirke Park, and Meridian Park (Please refer to
Figure 1 below to view park locations). In the next year the program is expected to
expand to another four parks. It should be noted that City Fruit is no longer associated
with the stewardship group in Meadowbrook Park and although a group was trained for
Kirke Park the program was abandoned at this site due to park remodeling (Personal
Communication, 4 Feb. 2013).
Incomplete lists of the stewarded orchards can be found on both City of Seattle
and City Fruit websites (City of Seattle 2012b, City Fruit 2013). That the records have
not been able to keep up with the growing program is a reflection of the struggle for
resources and funding facing both the City of Seattle and City Fruit. However, City
Fruit's website does provide in-depth descriptions of the first seven orchard stewardship
locations that are still associated with the program, including site descriptions and history,
locations shown on a map, and complete fruit tree inventories (City Fruit 2013).
47

The City of Seattle provides a website that displays an alphabetized list of all of
the parks managed by Seattle's DPR with links to individual park pages that present brief
historical accounts of each park as well as the current amenities offered at each park
location (City of Seattle 2013). These individual park descriptions do not make any
mention of the orchards being maintained by volunteer orchard stewards. Only City Fruit
provides detailed inventories and descriptions of the urban orchards on park properties.
Map of City Fruit’s Orchard Locations

Figure 1. Approximate locations of all current City Fruit
orchards. (original map taken from City Fruit 2013 and
altered by author)
48

For example, the orchard inventory at Bradner Gardens is as follows: “In addition to an
historical apple tree, Bradner hosts and espalier apple along its southern fence and several
columnar apples, a crabapple, blueberries, and a new (2010) Jam Session plum” (City
Fruit 2013).
Since a group of stewards has been organized to maintain the orchard along the
Burke Gilman Trail at the North end of Lake Union, monthly work-parties have
uncovered more than twenty-five fruit trees. The first fruit trees uncovered along the
Burke Gilman Trail were identified as: Common Delicious, Golden Delicious, Hawkeye
Delicious (an heirloom variety), an undetermined Delicious, and crabapple (City Fruit
2013). As a final example, the inventory of the orchard at Dr. Jose Rizal Park at the
North end of Beacon Hill is as follows: “The orchard contains more than fifteen apple
trees, including a stand of winesaps, fifteen crabapples and a black walnut” (City Fruit
2013). Winesap apples are also an heirloom variety, which along with the Hawkeye
Delicious apple tree in the Burke Gilman Trail orchard demonstrate both the age of the
trees as well as the horticultural knowledge of whomever planted the fruit trees in the
first place.
City Fruit provides training workshops on fruit tree biology and maintenance that
provides the stewardship groups with the education and experience necessary to care for
the orchards. The training is composed of three separate lectures on basic fruit tree
biology and fruit production, pruning, and pest management with an added permaculture
component (City Fruit 2013). After the more than 30 volunteer orchard stewards have
been organized and trained, they are mostly left to their own devices to manage the
orchards as they see fit. The volunteer orchard stewards are a diverse group with varying
levels of experience with fruit trees. Some of the stewards are brand new to fruit tree
49

maintenance while others have been working with fruit trees and (sometimes the very
trees they are now officially stewarding) for years. In addition to the extensive pruning
maintenance the fruit trees require, the specific accomplishments of the many orchard
stewards include: “hold cider parties, pull blackberries and ivy, spread zoo-doo, mulch,
harvest, and create policy around their orchards” (City Fruit 2013). Apart from the City
of Seattle regulations about tree maintenance, including a ban on all pest control and
fertilizer applications and a restriction on the use of ladders by volunteer stewards (often
unenforced), the City of Seattle leaves much if not all of the management of the orchards
to the stewardship groups. However, the Seattle DPR does provide assistance when staff
and large equipment are needed to perform renovation pruning, provide mulch, and to
haul away brush (City Fruit 2013). The volunteer orchard stewards therefore are often
left with a level of autonomy that is unusual for volunteers working on public properties
and managing public goods.
This chapter demonstrates that urban orchard stewardship is a very complicated
issue. There is a long history of parks management and city regulations that dictate the
use and purpose of public spaces. The positions of the City of Seattle and its departments
as well as the city council are changing and the legal landscape is slowly evolving in
favor of urban agriculture and urban orchards. Urban orchards are a public good that
provide many environmental and social benefits to the City of Seattle. Urban orchards
contribute to the benefits provided by the urban forest and produce a large amount of
highly nutritious fruit that is used to address the problems associated with food security in
Seattle. The following chapter will present the major findings of this research project as
well as the specific methods of qualitative research and data analysis that were employed.

50

Chapter 4: Data Analysis

This chapter presents the results of eight in-depth interviews with volunteer
orchard stewards and program managers that were performed for this study. The
qualitative research methods and the procedures for analyzing the data that were
employed in this study are described in detail. The specific research question that guided
this study is: what influences the decision of volunteers to join and continue to participate
in urban orchard stewardship programs? Also of interest, how do the volunteers
determine if the programs are successful and what recommendations do the volunteers
have for improving the program? Not only were some of the specific motivations for
volunteer orchard stewardship identified, but a number of other meaningful conclusions
were made related to urban orchard stewardship programs, volunteering, and the
budgetary issues facing both the City of Seattle and City Fruit. As a result of this study,
urban orchard stewards were found to be motivated by the opportunities to learn about
fruit tree maintenance and fruit production, a love of gardening and caring for fruit trees,
the opportunity to interact with their community, and a need to improve public safety.
The program managers all spoke extensively about the funding difficulties facing the City
of Seattle and City Fruit as well as the important role that the orchard stewardship
program plays in the community.
The research methods used in this study rely upon in-depth interviews with four
volunteer urban orchard stewards, two representatives from the City of Seattle's
Department of Parks and Recreation, an employee of the State of Washington's
Department of Natural Resources, and the Director of City Fruit. The questions varied
51

depending on whether the interviewee was a volunteer or a working professional. When
interviewing volunteer orchard stewards, the following set of questions were used:
1. Can you briefly describe the orchard stewardship program and what you do for it
to me?
2. How long have you participated in the program?
3. Do you make any personal sacrifices in order to participate in the program?
4. Are there any personal benefits to participating in the program?
5. Why do you participate in the program and are some reasons more important than
others?
6. How long do you intend to participate in the program, and what influences this
decision?
7. In your opinion, what are the overall goals of the orchard stewardship program
and have you been able to meet these goals?
8. Where do you see the program in ten years?
9. Is the program lacking in any way? If so, are there any improvements that you
would like to see to the program?
10. What is your favorite part about participating in the program?
11. What is your least favorite part about participating in the program?
12. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about the program or your
involvement?
When interviewing representatives of local government or City Fruit, the following set of
questions were used:
1. Can you describe the orchard stewardship program for me? What are its overall
52

goals? And how would you describe your role in the program?
2. Have the goals of the program been met?
3. Where do you see the program in ten years?
4. What are the benefits and drawbacks of relying primarily on volunteer stewards?
Are volunteers best suited for this work or would you rather rely on paid staff?
5. Can you describe the relationship between the Department of Parks and
Recreation and the volunteer stewards?
6. What does the City of Seattle get out of the program?
7. What do you think motivates the volunteers to participate?
8. What is the best way to ensure that volunteers are committed and remain in the
program?
9. Do you think the program is having an effect on the legal landscape of using
public spaces for urban agriculture?
Furthermore, a number of follow up and more targeted probing questions were used
during every interview when needed to elicit more detailed responses.
The interviews were conducted between December 2012 and February 2013. All
but one of the interviews occurred in Seattle, which occurred in downtown Olympia. The
locations for the interviews were chosen by the participants and ranged from places of
work to more public locations like coffee shops and the orchards where the stewards
volunteer their time. Two interviews were conducted on February 4, 2013 during a
steward group work party at the Picardo P Patch orchard. The interviews lasted a half an
hour on average, but sometimes were shorter or longer according to the time restrictions
of the participants.
53

The interviews were all recorded with a digital audio recording device and
transcribed onto a computer with a word processor. Once the transcriptions were
complete an initial review of the texts was performed. The interview transcripts were
then analyzed for dominant and recurring themes. Particular categories and themes that
fit within the texts were identified and coded in order to recognize the dominant themes
of the respondents. When possible, the most commonly used words or phrases were
identified to further help determine the dominant themes of the respondents.

Results from Interviewing Volunteer Urban Orchard Stewards
Similar to the results of many of the studies presented in the literature review, the
results of this study indicate that volunteer urban orchard stewards are motivated by a
variety of concerns. Each volunteer described a different and unique motivation,
including both self-interested as well as altruistic motivations, when they were asked why
they chose to participate in the program. For example, Matt Maria—an orchard steward
volunteering at Bradner Gardens Park—responded to the question about motivation with
the following: “I mainly wanted to learn more about how to take care of fruit trees”
(Maria, Personal Interview 29 Jan. 2013). Stephanie Butow—an orchard steward
volunteering at Picardo Farm P-Patch—responded differently to the same question: “I
love to garden. If I could garden all the time I would be really happy. And I want to help
people” (Butow, Personal Interview 3 Feb. 2013). The responses of Mr. Maria and Ms.
Butow to the question about why they participate clearly demonstrate that volunteer
orchard stewards are motivated by self-interests including growing fruit and continually
gaining new experiences and insights into successful fruit tree production. Ms. Butow's
54

response: “And I want to help people” also indicates that the volunteer orchard stewards
are motivated by altruistic concerns as well.
Trent Elwig—an orchard steward also volunteering at the Picardo Farm PPatch—is motivated by being part of an important community project. When asked why
he chooses to participated in the program, Mr. Elwig responded with the following: “So I
guess I can't really put it into words, and I'm probably not going to be able to, but just that
emotion or feeling, maybe being part of something that back at the house that I rent I am
not part of” (Elwig, Personal Interview 3 Feb. 2013). It is clearly important for
volunteers to feel like they are participating in something that is larger than their own
efforts and that the implications of their work extend beyond the everyday volunteer tasks
that they perform. Volunteers that are not able to realize the importance of their
participation or gain a sense of accomplishment in their work will not be motivated to
continue dedicating their time and efforts to an unrewarding volunteer experience.
Another altruistic concern that motivates some volunteer orchard stewards is
public safety. Describing his work over the last decade at the Dr. Jose Rizal Park,
volunteer orchard steward and recipient of the 2012 Denny Award (which recognized the
volunteer work done by individuals and organizations for Seattle Parks and Recreation)
Craig Thompson described the work that he and other orchard stewards have done to
reclaim the park that had previously been overgrown by non-native invasive species and
been home to a dangerous drug trade that threatened the local community and prevented
people from enjoying the park. According to Mr. Thompson, “I got involved in this
program as a means to get more varied use of this area [...] the more people that come
here, the safer it is and the more it becomes established as a park” (Thompson, Personal
55

Interview 25 Feb. 2013). Through their efforts the volunteer orchard stewards and
forestry volunteers have opened up Dr. Jose Rizal park and it is presently a much safer
public space than it was only a few years ago. When asked why he continued to
participate in the program since he was able to realize the goals that motivated his initial
participation, Mr. Thompson responded that in addition to the leadership skills that he has
learned through his participation: “I would say that I like the apples, I like working with
people” (Thompson, Personal Interview 25 Feb. 2013). The aforementioned findings
about the motivations for volunteer orchard stewardship suggest that the volunteers are
motivated by a number of considerations. Volunteer organizations would be wise to
recognize that volunteers may be motivated by diverse and vastly different set of
considerations and know that not all volunteers will respond to the same calls for
participation.
The volunteers' responses to a number of other questions revealed more of their
personal motivations for participating in a volunteer urban orchard stewardship program.
When the volunteers were asked what their favorite part about participating in the
orchard stewardship program was, a common theme of the respondents was that they
enjoyed the opportunities the program afforded them to participate with other people,
work in teams, and form relationships with other orchard stewards. Mr. Maria's response
was as follows: “I guess just the opportunities that I am afforded to talk to people and
learn from people in the food system's world” (Maria, Personal Interview 29 Jan. 2013).
Ms. Butow and Mr. Thompson gave similar responses: “Well my most favorite part is the
team. And working together and creating edible fruit. It is so cool when it is harvest
time” (Butow, Personal Interview 3 Feb. 2013), “The people that I have gotten to know”
56

(Thompson, Personal Interview 25 Feb. 2013). Mr. Elwig was the only respondent to not
respond in a similar fashion to the question about their favorite part of participating, but
in response to the question which asked if there were any personal benefits to
participating Mr. Elwig responded: “It's good exercise, you get to be out is the sun. I've
got plenty of community members down here that I get to see, stop by and chat with”
(Elwig, Personal Interview 3 Feb. 2013). All of the volunteer orchard stewards clearly
value the opportunities to interact with their fellow orchard stewards as well as the
greater community. Volunteer managers should not overlook the importance of this
finding and volunteer efforts should be structured in a way that ensures that the
volunteers are able to fulfill whatever desire they have for social interaction.
Volunteer stewards lead busy lives and can leave the program at any time. In
order for the urban orchard stewardship program to continue to be successful it is
important for current volunteers to try to recruit new stewards that will continue the work
in the future. When asked how long he intended to participate in the program, Mr. Maria
responded that he intended to stay in the program for at least another year. Mr. Maria
also recognizes the importance of continued stewardship and admitted that he has so far
been unsuccessful in ensuring that he will not be missed when he chooses to stop
stewarding the orchard at Bradner Gardens Park. According to Mr. Maria: “Certainly on
of the goals is to continue stewardship and I'm not as worried here because this place is
pretty well taken care of and people are attracted to this place. But, I personally haven't
done anything to get new people that are excited about taking care of these particular fruit
trees” (Maria, Personal Interview 29 Jan. 2013).
The participation of volunteer orchard stewards can end due to particular life
57

circumstances that make it difficult to continue, as is the case with Mr. Maria, but
volunteers can also stop participating if they feel like they are not being treated fairly or
with enough respect. At the time of her interview Ms. Butow was in the middle of a
struggle with the Department of Neighborhoods (which have management control of
urban orchards, such as Picarado Farm P-Patch, that are on p-patch properties).
According to Ms. Butow, despite her many hours working in the orchard, the Department
of Neighborhoods was trying reduce her number of garden plots at the p-patch. Ms.
Butow was very upset over the situation and when asked where she see's her program in
ten years she replied:
Well, who knows? Because I don't know if I am going to be continue to
be involved. Because I was here practically every day last summer and
you know nobody is paying me to do that. And I had good feelings about
doing that because I wanted to give back. But with this recent turn of
events it's just like I don't even want to be here.
(Butow, Personal Interview 3 Feb. 2013)
Later in the interview, when asked if she makes any sacrifices to participate in the
program Ms. Butow replied: “Well not being paid, it really doesn't bother me so long as
I'm treated with respect and appreciation. I don't do it to get paid. I do it because I love it”
(Butow, Personal Interview 3 Feb. 2013). The participation of volunteer orchard
stewards clearly depends not only on personal life circumstances but also how they are
treated within the program. Volunteers want to feel like they are appreciated and
respected and the City of Seattle as well as City Fruit would be wise to avoid alienating
the volunteer orchard stewards.
As has been previously mentioned, one of the primary research questions of this
study was to determine whether the volunteers could provide any recommendations for

58

how to improve the urban orchard stewardship program. Two of the respondents, Mr.
Elwig and Mr. Maria did not believe the program was lacking or in need of improvement.
Mr. Maria said: “As far as I can say, it is not lacking” (Maria, Personal Interview 29 Jan.
2013).
Both Ms. Butow and Mr. Thompson gave responses that indicated that they
believed the program was lacking in financial resources and that they would like more
support from the City of Seattle. According to Ms. Butow: “It would be nice if there was
a little bit of a budget so that we could get things that we might need, but it's not
necessary. If you get enough people together you can pool your resources and
accomplish” (Butow, Personal Interview 3 Feb. 2013). Mr. Thompson gave a similar
response and recommends that the City of Seattle should absorb the management and
maintenance duties of public orchards into its forestry programs so that more public
money and volunteer efforts can be devoted to the orchards:
I think that needs to be addressed so that Parks and Recreation looks at
stewardship programs as being one program with several facets as opposed
to seeing them as separate pieces. That it would benefit the programs as a
whole and also make it possible to better use facilities and resources at a
time when those facilities and resources are constrained for budgetary
reasons. (Thompson, Personal Interview 25 Feb. 2013)
Not only is funding important, but the nature of the work that volunteer orchard stewards
are asked to do is also important for retaining committed stewards. When asked about his
participation, Mr. Elwig spoke about how it is important to make sure that the volunteer
stewards are not asked to do too many dreary tasks that can cause volunteers to burn out.
While not providing a direct recommendation for improving the orchard stewardship
program, Mr. Elwig's response does provide some insight into how to retain volunteers:

59

“You know how community volunteer efforts go, if it takes a lot of un-fun things to do
it's probably not going to get done” (Elwig, Personal Interview 3 Feb. 2013). These
responses indicate that even though some of the volunteers were not able to provide any
recommendations for improving their orchard stewardship program at least some of the
City Fruit volunteers recognize that more resources and lively tasks would allow the
volunteer program as well as the City of Seattle to be more successful in caring for the
urban orchards.

Results from Interviewing Program Manager Respondents
Two major themes were found in the responses of the four program manager
respondents. The respondents all were very concerned with funding issues and the
financial situation of both the City of Seattle as well as City Fruit. City Fruit's urban
orchard stewardship program was viewed by all of the program manager respondents as
an inexpensive means of ensuring fruit tree maintenance that would otherwise have been
left undone. The program manager respondents also all stressed the importance that
programs such as City Fruit's urban orchard stewardship play in the community. The
work that the orchard stewards perform is viewed as an integral part in community
building that strengthens the connections between community members as well as
between the community and local government. The following discussion presents these
findings in greater detail.
When asked how important volunteer stewards are for managing urban forests Ms.
Foster, the Urban and Community Forestry Program Manager for the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, replied: “To the local level it is critical. And most of
60

our community forestry programs really couldn't exist without volunteers” (Foster,
Personal Interview 16 Jan. 2013). The two employees of the City of Seattle's Department
of Parks and Recreation that were interviewed for this study share this opinion. When
asked to describe the main goals of the orchard stewardship program Bob Baines—a
Ground Maintenance Crew Chief at Seattle Parks and Recreation—replied: “Park staff
really...our budget doesn't include specialty maintenance of fruit trees. Successful fruit
trees require additional maintenance, so the idea behind the orchard stewardship program
is to set up a system where we have volunteers to do this” (Baines, personal interview 3
Jan. 2013). According to Ms. McElroy—an employee of Seattle Parks and RecreationWestbridge: “I don't think the department has put a lot of resources into caring for the
[fruit] trees. So without the community stewards, the volunteers, they would just kind of
be there and not cared for” (McElroy, Personal Interview 3 Jan. 2013).
When asked about the benefits of relying of volunteers the program manager
respondents stressed that volunteers are an essentially free source of labor and are able to
perform the maintenance work that the City of Seattle is not funded to do. Ms. McElroy
said, “Volunteers provide an amazing amount of care for the properties that we would
just not be able to afford otherwise” (McElroy, Personal Interview 3 Jan. 2013). This
maintenance work that the volunteers are performing has particular significance for the
life span of the fruit trees. According to Ms. Foster, when urban trees are not maintained
they fall into such disrepair that they are not able to provide the services that are expected
of them and they become a liability. Ms. Foster argues: “If you don't take care of them
[urban trees], they are not going to give you the benefits. And as soon as trees start
causing problems more and more are removed” (Foster, Personal Interview 16 Jan. 2013).
61

The volunteer orchard stewards are maintaining the urban fruit trees at no or very little
cost to the City of Seattle, therefore ensuring that the trees continue to be a public good to
the community rather than a nuisance or liability. The orchards would not exist without
the efforts of the volunteer stewards.
Not only is the City of Seattle facing a budget shortfall, but City Fruit too is not
funded at the level that is necessary to ensure the continued stewardship of the urban
orchards. When asked where she thought the program would be in ten years, Ms. Savina
replied that the Department of Natural Resource Grants are not enough to sustain the
program over a long-term period of time (please see the Description chapter for further
detail about the grants that fund the orchard stewardship program). The continued
success of the program depends upon either a more consistent source of future funding or
a change in management strategy where the City of Seattle would assume more of the
management responsibilities of the orchards. According to Ms. Savina: “who's going to
pay for what it costs to really run a stewardship program? Is it going to be the general
public or is it going to be agencies or is it going to be some sort of cost sharing?” (Savina,
Personal Interview 30 Jan. 2013). When asked whether the program could support itself
without future funding Ms. Savina responded that the program would have a hard time
sustaining itself:
We are going to lose stewards. People lose interest or they move. Things
happen. So to keep new stewards coming in and interested, and keeping
them trained and knowledgeable. And just keeping the interest level is
really the issue. So if there are no inputs in two or three years I can see it
dying just kind of in a natural slow way.
(Savina, Personal Interview 30 Jan. 2013)
The City of Seattle as well as City Fruit are cooperating and trying to figure out a way to

62

make the current orchard stewardship program more sustainable. There is a clear need
for more money, and until future sources of funding are found the program is going to
continue to rely upon the work of volunteer orchard stewards.
Another theme that was identified throughout the interviews with the program
managers was the important role that the orchards and the orchard stewards play in the
community. The activities of the volunteer orchard stewards are very public. Whether
the orchard stewards are working on the fruit trees, staging cider press fundraisers, or
soliciting additional help from interested passing community members, the orchards and
their stewards play an important role in introducing new community members to each
other. When Mr. Baines was asked about the benefits of relying upon volunteers, he
responded that the work of the volunteer orchard stewards help to strengthen their
communities:
So wherever we are doing it we have volunteers in the community that are
speaking with their neighbors and soliciting additional volunteers. They
keep an eye on the site. They provide assistance with the harvesting and
distribution. I think the whole idea of these orchards is that they are really
assets to the community and connecting the community is an important
part of their success. (Baines, Personal Interview 3 Jan. 2013).
Ms. Savina had a similar yet slightly different take on the same question about the
benefits of relying on volunteers. According to Ms. Savina, the actions of a dedicated
group of volunteer orchard stewards results in a stronger connection between the
community and their publicly owned park and green spaces. Ms. Savina argues: “I think
that by having volunteers, there is something about them taking ownership of that orchard
as citizens that brings it more into the community than if you just had a parks department
staff go out and cut down the blackberries. It embeds it in the community more” (Savina,

63

Personal Interview 30 Jan. 2013). The volunteer orchard stewards have a sense of
ownership over their work and their public spaces that would not be possible if they did
not participate in the stewardship program.
The sense of ownership over the urban orchards that volunteer stewards develop
through their work maintaining fruit trees results in a different understanding of the
relationship that private citizens can have with their public spaces. When asked if
volunteers were best suited for the orchard stewardship program, Ms. McElroy responded:
“I think it is so important for community members to be involved with what their spaces
look like” (McElroy, Personal Interview 3 Jan. 2013). Apart from the fruit that the
stewarded orchards produce, the physical improvements to the orchards is one of the most
public and lasting contributions that the volunteer orchard stewards make to their
communities. The volunteer orchard stewards are not only caring for fruit trees, they are
actively shaping their public spaces and demonstrating that they are meant to be safe
places to be enjoyed by all and that quality food can be grown in the unlikeliest of urban
spaces. Both Mr. Maria and Mr. Elwig stressed that their respective orchards are
demonstrations to the public of how to grow fruit trees in urban areas. According to Mr.
Elwig, “But it's kind of the idea like, someone who comes across a tree that has maybe
been allowed to grow a little oddly, how to get it back into a shape where it can produce
food that people can actually use” (Elwig, Personal Interview 3 Feb. 2013). While Mr.
Thompson seemed very proud of the work the volunteer stewards have done to restore the
orchard at Dr. Jose Rizal Park, he made it clear that removing the non-native invasive
plants and once again making the park a safe place for the community was an equal if not
more important result of their work (Thompson, Personal Interview 25 Feb. 2013).
64

Urban orchard stewards are motivated by a desire to learn more about fruit tree
maintenance, a love of gardening and caring for fruit trees, the opportunity to interact
with their community, and a need to improve public safety. The program managers all
spoke the funding difficulties facing the City of Seattle and City Fruit as well as the
important role that the orchard stewardship program plays in the community. One of the
lasting findings of this study is that the orchard stewardship program is made up of a
collection of individuals. One stewards' motivations are not the same as another, and
differ even more from a program manager or employee of the City of Seattle. The
motivations of all of the participants are as varied as the parks and orchards themselves.
The diversity of motivations increases the difficulty of volunteer management and the
task of ensuring volunteer retention. Conversely, the many motivations of the orchard
stewards can also be seen as a means of ensuring continued interest and participation in
the program. The diversity of motivations helps bring in more participants. If increased
fruit tree maintenance was the only result of the program, all of the participants motivated
by social considerations and concerns over public safety would not participate. When
seen in this light, the diversity of motivations is not a liability but an asset.

65

Chapter 5: Conclusion

This study examined why environmental volunteers choose to participate and
continue participating in an urban orchard stewardship program in Seattle. There are
many self-interested and altruistic motivations that drive environmental volunteers to
participate in stewardship activities. It is important to recognize that not all volunteers
are alike, and volunteer efforts should accordingly be structured towards meeting a
variety of motivational demands.
Eight in-depth interviews were conducted in order to better understand the
motivations and experiences of volunteers and paid staff working for and in support of an
urban orchard stewardship program run by City Fruit. Four urban orchard stewards as
well as four paid respondents working for the City of Seattle's Department of Parks and
Recreation, City Fruit, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources were
interviewed. The results of the interviews allowed for a number of conclusions to be
made about volunteer motivations and management and the important contributions that
environmental stewardship groups can make to environmentally conscious, yet cashstrapped municipalities.
The results of this study demonstrate that volunteer orchard stewards are
motivated by a variety of concerns including: a desire to learn about fruit tree
maintenance and fruit production, the social opportunities that orchard stewardship
provides, and public safety. From these findings alone it is apparent that environmental
volunteers are not solely motivated by environmental concerns. Heartfelt social and
political concerns also motivate City Fruit's urban orchard stewards.
66

Because of the financial limitations currently facing the City of Seattle, volunteers
will continue to be relied upon to help maintain the city’s urban orchards, parks, and
green spaces open to the public. In order for the City of Seattle to be able to rely upon a
constant source of volunteer labor, the question of why volunteers decide to join and
continue to participate in an environmental stewardship effort is very important. This
study has identified some of the motivations of volunteer orchard stewards in Seattle and
can be used by City Fruit to more accurately target potential volunteers and maintain the
current volunteer pool. Every volunteer program and stewardship effort is unique and the
motivations of one volunteer are not the same as another. While this study can be useful
for volunteer managers working under different circumstances, greater attempts at
communication should be made by all volunteer managers to keep their volunteers
satisfied and willing to continue participating.
The program manager interview respondents were all very aware of the financial
limitations of the City of Seattle and stressed the important role that volunteer
organizations such as City Fruit play in maintaining public goods and building
community relationships. The City of Seattle would not be able to maintain the urban
orchards, much less give them the care that is required for healthy and productive trees,
without the help of City Fruit's urban orchard stewards. Not only are the urban orchard
stewards caring for the fruit trees, they are also building valuable connections within the
community that can only serve to ensure the future stewardship of the orchards and the
potential expansion of urban orchard stewardship.
It is worth noting once more that City Fruit’s volunteer orchard stewards are
performing a valuable service that the City of Seattle would not be able to do otherwise.
67

Urban orchard stewardship is a unique case of volunteerism, yet it is emblematic of the
role that volunteers play in maintaining urban green spaces. Most urban green spaces
that have maintenance needs beyond lawn mowing rely upon volunteers. This study has
shown that volunteers decide to join and continue participating in stewardship efforts for
very particular reasons. More work should be done to identify volunteer motivations so
that future stewardship projects can be better catered to meet the needs and expectations
of a volunteer force that the larger public is dependent upon.
Seattle's urban orchards are a public good that provide many benefits to the
community. Through a co-productive relationship, the City of Seattle achieves an
otherwise impossible level of fruit tree care and maintenance and the volunteer orchard
stewards enjoy a number of valuable experiences. Urban orchards present a unique
opportunity to study environmental volunteerism, volunteer management, and the role of
orchards in the urban environment. This study has shown that volunteers choose to
become orchard stewards for a number of reasons and it is important to recognize that the
orchards are places where volunteer orchard stewards can come to meet with one another,
learn about fruit production, and produce a large amount of healthy and local food. The
orchards are also available for the public to enjoy as they see fit and add to the character
and beauty of many of Seattle's public spaces. Given the critical role that the volunteers
play in maintaining the public good, it is vital to continue to engage and ascertain the
motivations of the volunteer orchard stewards.

68

Bibliography

Allison, Laura D. et al. “Assessing Volunteer Motives: A Comparison of an Open-Ended
Probe and Likert Rating Scales.” Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology. Vol. 12 (2002): 243-255. Print.
Baines, Bob. Personal Interview. 3 Jan. 2013.
Barnes, Martha L. and Erin K. Sharpe. “Looking Beyond Traditional Volunteer
Management: A Case Study of an Alternative Approach to Volunteer Engagement
in Parks and Recreation.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 20 (2009): 169-187. Print.
Blackford, Mansel G. "Civic Groups, Political Action, and City Planning in Seattle,
1892-1915.” Pacific Historical Review. Vol. 49.4 (1980): 557-580
Bovaird, Tony. "Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community
Coproduction of Public Services." Public Administration Review. Vol. 67.5
(2007): 846-860. Print.
Boyle, David, and Michael Harris. "The challenge of co-production." London, New
Economics Foundation (2009).
Brown, Eleanor. “Assessing the Value of Volunteer Activity.” Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly. Vol. 28 (1999): 1-17. Print.
Brown, Katherine H, and Anne Carter. “Urban Agriculture and Community Food
Security in the United States  : Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe.”
Agriculture. Vol. 27 (2003) Print.
Butow, Stephanie. Personal Interview. 3 Feb. 2013.
69

City of Seattle. “Seattle Municipal Code 18.12.070.” (1977).
<http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us>. Web. Feb. 2013.
City of Seattle. “Seattle's Comprehensive Plan: Towards a Sustainable Seattle.” (2005).
<http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Seattle_s_Comprehensive_Plan/Comprehen
sivePlan/>. Web. Feb. 2013.
City of Seattle. “Urban Forest Management Plan.” (2007).
<http://www.seattle.gov/environment/documents/final_UFMP.pdf>. Web. Jan.
2013.
City of Seattle. “ Local Food Action Initiative, Resolution 31019.” (2008).
<http://www.seattle.gov/council/conlin/food_initiative/>. Web. Jan. 2013.
City of Seattle. “Food Action Plan.” (2012a).
<http://www.seattle.gov/environment/documents/Seattle_Food_Action_Plan_1024-12.pdf>.

Web. Jan. 2013.

City of Seattle. “Parks Urban Food Systems (PUFS) Grow.” (2012b).
<http://seattle.gov/parks/pufs/grow.htm>. Web. Jan. 2013.
City of Seattle. “Park History—Olmsted Parks.” (2012c).
<http://www.seattle.gov/PARKS/parkspaces/olmsted.htm>. Web. Feb. 2013.
City of Seattle. “Park List.” (2013). <http://www.seattle.gov/parks/listall.asp>. Web. Feb.
2013.
Connolly, James J. et al. “Organizing Urban Ecosystem Services Through Environmental
Stewardship Governance in New York City.” Landscape and Urban Planning. In
Press, Corrected Proof (2012).
Elwig, Trent. Personal Interview. 3 Feb. 2013.
70

Foster, Sarah. Personal Interview. 16 Jan. 2013.
Gorgolewski, Mark. Carrot City: Creating Places for Urban Agriculture. 1st ed. New
York: Monacelli Press, 2011. Print.
Govekar, Paul L. and Michele A. Govekar. “Using Economic Theory and Research to
Better Understand Volunteer Behavior.” Nonprofit Management & Leadership.
Vol. 13 (2002): 33-48. Print.
Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, New Series. Vol. 162 (1968):
1243-1248. Print.
Hunter, MaryCarol R. “Impact of Ecological Disturbance On Awareness of Urban Nature
and Sense of Environmental Stewardship In Residential Neighborhoods.”
Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 101 (2011): 1311- 138. Print.
Independent Sector. “Value of Volunteer Time.”
<http://www.independentsector.org/volunteer_time>. Web. Dec. 2012.
International Development Research Centre (Canada). For Hunger-Proof Cities:
Sustainable Urban Food Systems. Ottawa: International Development Research
Centre, 1999. Print.
Joshi, Anuradha, and Mick Moore. "Institutionalised Co-Production: Unorthodox Public
Service Delivery In Challenging Environments." Journal of Development Studies
40.4 (2004): 31-49. Print.
Lu, Jacqueline W.T. et al. “Biological, Social, and Urban Design Factors Affecting
Young Street Tree Mortality in New York City.” Cities and the Environment. Vol. 3
(2010): Article 5. Print.
Mannarini, Terri et al. “Public Involvement: How to Encourage Citizen Participation.”
71

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. Vol. 20 (2010): 262-274.
Print.
Maria, Matt. Personal Interview. 29 Jan. 2013.
McElroy, Shanyanika. Personal Interview. 3 Jan. 2013.
McLain, Rebecca et al. “Producing Edible Landscapes in Seattle's Urban Forest.” Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening. Vol. 11 (2012): 187-194. Print.
McPherson, Gregory E. “Monitoring Urban Forest Health.” Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment. Vol. 26 (1993): 165-174. Print.
Miles, Irene et al. “Ecological Restoration Volunteers: The Benefits of Participation.”
Urban Ecosystems. Vol. 2 (1998): 27-41. Print.
Millar, Heather. “Successful Stewardship and Conservation Organizations – Case Studies
and Best Practices.” The Leading Edge, Stewardship & Conservation in Canada.
(2003).
Moskell, Christine et al. “Examining Motivations and Recruitment Strategies for Urban
Forestry Volunteers.” Cities and the Environment. Vol. 3 (2010): Article 9. Print.
Nesbit, Becky. "Catalysts for Democracy: Non-profit Organizations Facilitating Citizen
Coproduction of Government Services." Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana
University. 2002.
Nordahl, Darrin. Public Produce: The New Urban Agriculture. Washington: Island Press,
2009. Print.
Nowak, David J. “Institutionalizing Urban Forestry as a 'Biotechnology' to Improve
Environmental Quality.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. Vol. 5 (2006): 93100. Print.
72

Ostrom, Elinor, et al. "Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges." Science
284.5412 (1999): 278-282. Print.
Ostrom, Elinor et al. “The Future of the Commons: Beyond Market Failure and
Government Regulation.” London: The Institute of Public Affairs, 2012. Print.
Peachey, Bruce. “Environmental Stewardship—What Does It Mean?” Process Safety and
environmental Protection. Vol. 86 (2008): 227-236. Print.
Pincetl, Stephanie. “Nonprofits and Park Provision in Los Angeles: An Exploration of the
Rise of Governance Approaches to the Provision of Local Services.” Social
Science Quarterly. Vol 8 (2003): 979-1001. Print.
Pincetl, Stephanie. “From the Sanitary City to the Sustainable City: Challenges to
Institutionalizing Biogenic (Nature's Services) Infrastructure.” Local
Environment. Vol. 15 (2010): 43-58. Print.
Quets, Gail, and Astrid Spota. New York City Hunger Experience 2011: Sacrifice and
Support. Food Bank For New York City. New York, NY. Web. 2 Feb. 2012.
Romolini, Michele et al. “What is Urban Environmental Stewardship? Constructing a
Practitioner-Derived Framework” United States Department of Agriculture.
Research Note PNW-RN-566. May 2012. Print.
Ryan, Robert R. et al. “Predicting Volunteer Commitment in Environmental Stewardship
Programs.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Vol. 44 (2001):
629-648. Print.
Savina, Gail. “Re: Updated list of stewarded parks?” Message to Charles Rambo. 4 Feb.
2013. E-mail.
Savina, Gail. Personal Interview. 30 Jan. 2013.
73

Straka, Thomas J. et al. “Individual Characteristics Affecting Participation in Urban and
Community Forestry Programs in South Carolina, U.S..” Journal of
Arboriculture. Vol. 31 (2005):131-137. Print.
Svendsen, Erika S. and Lindsay K. Campbell. “Urban Ecological Stewardship:
Understanding the Structure, Function, and Network of Community-Based Urban
Land Management.” Cities and the Environment. Vol. 1 (2008): Article 4. Print.
Taylor, John R. and Sarah Taylor Lovell. “Mapping Public and Private Spaces of Urban
Agriculture in Chicago Through the Analysis of High-Resolution Aerial Images
in Google Earth.” Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 108 (2012): 57-70. Print.
Thompson, Craig. Personal Interview. 25 Feb. 2013.
Tidball, Keith G. et al. “Stewardship, Learning, and Memory in Disaster Resilience.”
Environmental Education Research. Vol. 16 (2010): 591-609. Print.
US Census Bureau. “US Census Bureau Poverty Main Page.” (2012a)
<http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf> Web. 23 Jan. 2012.
US Census Bureau. “Poverty and Shared Households by State: 2011.” (2012b)
<http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-05.pdf> Web. 26 Mar. 2013.
US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service “Food Security in the U.S.”
(2012) <http://www/ers/usda/gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-securityin-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#.UWrn45BDt5s> Web. 14 Apr. 2013.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. “Urban and Community Forestry
Program.” (2012).
<http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/rp_urban_program_info2012.pdf>
Web. 26 Mar. 2013.
74

Wolf, Kathleen L. and Linda E. Kruger. “Urban Forestry Research Needs A Participatory
Assessment Process.” Journal of Forestry. Vol. 108 (2010): 39-44. Print.
Wolf, Kathleen L. et al. “Environmental Stewardship Footprint Research: Linking
Human

Agency and Ecosystem Health in the Puget Sound Region.” Urban

Ecosystems.

(2011): 1-20. Print.

Young, Robert F. and E. Gregory McPherson. “Governing Metropolitan Green
Infrastructure in the United States.” Landscape and Urban Planning. In Press,
Corrected Proof (2012).
Zhu, Pengyu and Yaoqi Zhang. “Demand for Urban Forests in United States Cities.”
Landscapes and Urban Planning. Vol. 84 (2008): 293-300. Print.

75