Community Capacity for Managing Trees in the Residential Landscape:

Emerald Ash Borer Preparedness in St. Louis Park, Minnesota

Environmental Science, Policy and Management 4041W: Problem Solving for Environmental Change

Report 5/8 prepared for the City of St. Louis Park by:

Sara Fechtelkotter Rachael Kropp

Jenna MacKenzie (project leader) Peter Terwilliger Andrea Woodside

December 14, 2010

Table of Contents

List of Figures ........................................................................................... iiList of Tables ............................................................................................ iiAcknowledgments .................................................................................... iiiExecutive Summary ................................................................................. ivIntroduction ................................................................................................ 1

Community Capacity for EAB Preparedness ...................................... 2Vision and Goals .................................................................................. 4

Site Description .......................................................................................... 4Methods ..................................................................................................... 6

Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 6Informal Interviews .............................................................................. 6Case Studies ......................................................................................... 8

Findings ..................................................................................................... 8EAB and Its Spread Throughout Minnesota ........................................ 8Appreciation of Outdoor Aesthetics and Diversification .................... 9Awareness .......................................................................................... 11Role of the Parks and Recreation Department ................................... 14Role of Neighborhood Leaders .......................................................... 14Preferred Communication Methods ................................................... 15Resident Concerns ............................................................................. 18EAB Control and Funding ................................................................. 19

Recommendations .................................................................................... 20Recommendation 1 ............................................................................ 20Recommendation 2 ............................................................................ 22Recommendation 3 ............................................................................ 23Recommendation 4 ............................................................................ 25Recommendation 5 ............................................................................ 26

Conclusion ............................................................................................... 27References ................................................................................................ 28

Appendix A: Questionnaire for HomeownersAppendix B: Letter to HomeownersAppendix C: St. Louis Park’s Emerald Ash Borer BrochureAppendix D: Phone Prompt/Interview Questions for Neighborhood LeadersAppendix E: Summary of Questionnaire Responses: Response Rate and Percent per

Question

i

List of Figures

Figure 1: Emerald Ash Borer in the Midwestern United States, 2010 ...... 2Figure 2: Emerald Ash Borer in Minnesota, 2009. .................................... 3Figure 3: St. Louis Park, MN Relative to the Twin Cities Metro

Area, 2010 ............................................................................................ 5Figure 4: Interviews Conducted with Neighborhood Leaders,

St. Louis Park, 2010 ............................................................................. 7Figure 5: Residents’ Preferred Replacement Tree Type, St. Louis

Park, 2010 .......................................................................................... 11Figure 6. Sources from which Residents Found Emerald Ash Borer

Information, St. Louis Park, 2010 ..................................................... 12Figure 7. Resident Perceived Emerald Ash Borer Threat by

Self-described Level of Awareness, St. Louis Park, 2010 ................. 13Figure 8. Resident Choices regarding Ash Trees on Private Property,

St. Louis Park, 2010 ........................................................................... 15Figure 9. Preferred Emerald Ash Borer Communication Pathways of

Residents, St. Louis Park, 2010 ......................................................... 16Figure 10. Most Effective Emerald Ash Borer Communication

Pathways with Residents Age 60+, St. Louis Park, 2010 .................. 16Figure 11. Resident Concerns Regarding Emerald Ash Borer, St.

Louis Park, 2010 ................................................................................ 19

List of Tables

Table 1: Main Pathways of Communication to Residents through Neighborhood Leaders, St. Louis Park, 2010 ................................... 17

ii

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the City of St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Departmentfor allowing us to use our knowledge first hand in developing an emerald ash borer(EAB) study and recommendations. In particular, we give a special thanks to JimVaughan for helping us narrow the scope of the project and devoting his time tofurther its development. We also thank the St. Louis Park neighborhood leaders whoplayed a large role in helping us gather qualitative data to further our project throughphone interviews and the residents who completed the EAB questionnaire and sharedinformation about their thoughts and values related to the spread of the beetle. Wewould also like to thank Dr. Kristen Nelson and Dr. Gary Johnson for their direction,assistance and guidance with the project. Specifically, Dr. Kristen Nelson’srecommendations and suggestions pertaining to the questionnaire development havebeen invaluable in forming our proposal.

Thanks are also due to Sean Gosiewski, the Program Director for the Alliance forSustainability in St. Louis Park, for letting us attend community events and gatherinformation. It is also necessary to thank Zachery Jorgenson and his colleagues forsharing their St. Paul EAB survey draft, which aided in the development of the St.Louis Park EAB questionnaire.

iii

Executive Summary

The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota is a beautiful first ring suburb just outside ofMinneapolis. It is an active and aspiring community. Currently, St. Louis Park isbeing threatened by the potential of an infestation of emerald ash borer (EAB), aninvasive beetle that attacks the bark of native ash trees (Fraxinus spp.). Following thefirst discovery of EAB within the United States in 2002, the beetle has graduallyadversely impacted the Midwest’s ash tree population (USDA Forest Service et al.2010). EAB was first discovered in Minnesota in May 2009 near St. Paul. Since then,the beetle has been spreading at a higher rate than that of its natural migration due tothe transportation of infested firewood. In order to prevent rapid spread, a quarantinearea, which includes St. Louis Park, has been established. “The quarantine isdesigned to limit the movement of potentially infested firewood or other materials,such as live ash trees, that might harbor EAB larvae” (Minnesota Department ofAgriculture 2010).

St. Louis Park’s urban forest includes ash trees (Fraxinus spp.), which makes EAB animportant concern for the community. More than one-third of St. Louis Park isprivate property, obligating residents to participate in the response to EAB (City ofSt. Louis Park, MN 2010). This report provides an assessment of residentpreparedness for an EAB invasion and proposes recommendations developed toenhance community preparedness for a future infestation.

Three methods were used to assess St. Louis Park’s EAB preparedness: questionnaire, informal interviews, and case studies. We found that there was a widerange of EAB awareness in St. Louis Park, from those who consider themselves veryaware to those who have never heard of EAB. It was also evident residents had a highdegree of trust in the city’s ability to guide them in the appropriate actions. This isimportant as data also suggests many residents will need to be guided when makingdecisions regarding EAB. For example, as trees are removed and replaced, datasuggests residents prefer replacing with similar species, which poses threatsassociated with lack of biodiversity.

Based on these findings, we developed five recommendations for the City of St.Louis Park to enhance their ability to prepare for EAB:

1. Increase the clarity and accessibility of EAB information by branding a uniformmessage from the city

2. Publicize the Parks and Recreation Department’s response to the threat ofemerald ash borer on public property as a model for private landowners

3. Enhance community awareness by utilizing neighborhood leaders4. Promote and maintain high tree diversity through education and planning

iv

5. Secure funding and reduce costs to support timely implementation of the city’sEmerald Ash Borer Management Policy & Plan

The City of St. Louis Park has demonstrated its commitment to being a connectedand engaged community, and, as a result, the city is likely to address the threat ofEAB in an effective way. Addressing this issue as one like-minded community willallow St. Louis Park to align with its vision of ensuring a safe and vital community.

v

Introduction

St. Louis Park, Minnesota is a first-ring suburb of 10.8 square miles, just west ofMinneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. The city is home to roughly 45,000 people. Theproximity of St. Louis Park to the Twin Cities affords residents the opportunity toenjoy the attractions, events, and excitement of the Twin Cities. However, recentlythis adjacency threatens the health of residents’ ash trees. Emerald ash borer (EAB) isa non-native, invasive beetle that attacks native ash trees (Fraxinus spp.). In May2009, EAB was found in St. Anthony Park, St. Paul (Minneapolis Park andRecreation Board, Forestry Division 2009). It was estimated this initial infestationhad been present for four years, but it went undetected due to the fact that it can taketime for beetle populations to increase enough to be detected by other wildlife(Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 2010). Shortly after this initial finding, EABwas found to have spread to Prospect Park, Minneapolis (Minneapolis Parks andRecreation Board 2010). EAB has the potential to further its spread to othercommunities in the Metro area, including St. Louis Park, posing a considerable threatto ash trees on public lands, boulevards and private property. The potentialannihilation of ash trees due to an infestation of EAB will not only devastate theurban forest, but create challenges for restoring aesthetics, allocating resources andensuring the environmental health of the community.

The adult EAB beetle, only 7.5 to 13.5 mm long, may not appear to be a threat;however, by laying eggs on the bark of an ash tree, the beetle inflicts significantdamage. The white segmented larvae burrow into the bark and feed on the sap(phloem) of the ash tree, cutting off the transportation of essential nutrients and waterfrom the roots to the leaves. Typically, the top third of the ash tree will die first. Keyindicators of EAB are the S-shaped tunnels beneath the bark, which are left by EABlarvae after feeding, and the D-shaped holes made after the metamorphosis of thelarva into pupa and finally into an adult. The adults exit the tree in mid to late Juneand travel to other trees, beginning this cycle again (USDA Forest Service et al.2010).

It is hypothesized EAB arrived in the United States from its native Asia on cargoships or airplane shipments containing solid wood packing material (USDA ForestService 2010). The first discovery of EAB within the United States was insoutheastern Michigan near Detroit in 2002. It can now be found in 13 other statesincluding Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New York,Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia as well asCanada (Figure 1; USDA Forest Service et al. 2010). In 2009, EAB was found inMinnesota, specifically in St. Anthony Park, St. Paul, and Prospect Park, Minneapolis(Figure 2; Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board 2010). Minneapolis alone has anestimated 900,000 trees on public and private property. Of these, 21% are ash trees(Thomas 2010), signifying the disease has the potential to spread quickly.

1

Figure 1. Emerald Ash Borer in the Midwestern United States, October 1, 2010.(Source: htttp://www.emeraldashborer.info/files/Multistate_EABpos.pdf)

Even though EAB has not yet reached St. Louis Park, the city is preparing for animpending EAB intrusion. EAB populations are expected to naturally spread five toten miles per year as they search for new host trees, but may artificially spread overhundreds of miles through the shipment of ash wood (Nazzaro 2006). St. Louis Parkis located within the region of quarantine, where the shipment of ash trees and logs isclosely regulated. The transportation of firewood outside of quarantined areas hasbeen prohibited by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (Minnesota Departmentof Agriculture 2009).

Community Capacity for EAB Preparedness

Depending on how quickly EAB spreads, responding to the problem may be costlyfor both the city and its residents. The City of St. Paul estimated tree removal anddisposal as a result of EAB to be approximately $700 per tree (St. Paul Parks andRecreation/Forestry Department 2009). More than one-third of St. Louis Park isprivate property (City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota 2010), obligating residents tohave a substantial role in the response to EAB. Developing EAB managementstrategies that foster close relationships with private property owners can help protect

2

St. Louis Park from the rapid and unruly spread of EAB. These strategies will providethe ciy with a stronger ability to address higher demands for resources as a result ofEAB.

Figure 2. Emerald Ash Borer in Minnesota, June 2009.(Source: http://www.emeraldashborer.info/files/mn_june_2009_statewide_eab_map.pdf)

This study focuses on St. Louis Park private property owners’ knowledge andconcerns regarding EAB, as well as their values guiding tree management on theirproperties. This report provides recommendations that the St. Louis Park Parks andRecreation Department can use to continue to enhance the community capacity of thecity as it moves forward in preparing for a potential EAB infestation. Communitycapacity is defined as “the interaction of human capital, organizational resources, andsocial capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solvecollective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of a given community”(Chaskin 2001), and is a vital component in managing community trees and preparingfor EAB.

3

Seniors from the University of Minnesota pursuing degrees in EnvironmentalScience, Policy, and Management prepared this report for St. Louis Park’s Parks andRecreation Department. Students enrolled in the course Problem Solving forEnvironmental Change assisted the City of St. Louis Park with eight projectsfocusing on the sustainability of the city: Nature Center master plan, alternativevegetation management options, residential tree inventory and assessment, invasivespecies management, storm water pond management, multifamily housing recyclingprogram, citywide organic waste management plan, and community capacity inresponding to EAB. Together, these projects were designed to assist the City of St.Louis Park in their environmental stewardship initiative, a concept citizens of St.Louis Park requested to be a priority for their city.

Vision and Goals

The vision of the City of St. Louis Park is to “Deliver responsive municipal servicesto ensure a safe, welcoming and vital community now and in the future” (City of St.Louis Park, MN 2010). Through the project participation of those enrolled in thecourse Problem Solving for Environmental Change, students envisioned that St.Louis Park will be a model of environmental stewardship by providing residents andfuture generations with educational tools and sustainable practices to foster acommunity of ecologically conscious and engaged citizens. The specific vision of thethis project on the community capacity for EAB preparedness in St. Louis Park wasto provide the building blocks for St. Louis Park to become a knowledgeable andwell-prepared community in regards to the threat of EAB. The main goal of thisproject was to assist the City of St. Louis Park in enhancing community’s capacity torespond to the threat of EAB. This goal was accomplished through the followingobjectives:

1. Gather data through a residential questionnaire and neighborhood leaderinterviews to assess St. Louis Park residents’ knowledge of EAB as well asattitudes and values toward trees,

2. Analyze data to understand residents’ decision-making process regarding treemanagement and assess their capacity to prepare for emerald ash borer,

3. Examine case studies for insight on the related experiences of other communities,4. Recommend ways to enhance the community capacity in St. Louis Park regarding

preparedness and responsiveness to EAB on private property.

Site Description

The City of St. Louis Park is located west of Minneapolis, MN, and has a totalpopulation of 44,126 people. Single-family residences make up the largest portion ofland use in the city at approximately 33%, followed by streets, commercialdevelopments, apartment complexes, parks, schools, and miscellaneous land-use

4

types (City of St. Louis Park, MN 2010). Trees and other vegetation are prominentlandscape characteristics due to the large amount of residential landscape and publicrecreation areas.

As a first-ring suburb directly on the border of an urban center, St. Louis Park will bean indicator of EAB spread outside the Minneapolis and St. Paul area (Figure 3). Asresidential and woody landscapes become more prevalent outside of urban centers,the number of ash trees will increase. Increased numbers and areas dense with ashtrees will likely promote the spread of the beetle throughout western Minnesota overthe next 20 years.

EAB has been found in the St. Anthony Park neighborhood of St. Paul, MN, and theProspect Park neighborhood of Minneapolis, MN (Figure 2; Minneapolis Parks andRecreation Board 2010). The Prospect Park neighborhood, the closer of the twoneighborhoods to St. Louis Park, is approximately 10 miles from the northeast borderof St. Louis Park.

Figure 3. St. Louis Park, MN, relative to the Twin Cities Metro area, December 5, 2010.(Source: http://www.mapquest.com/)

5

Methods

Two primary data collection methods and one secondary data collection method wereused to asses St. Louis Park’s community capacity to prepare for EAB: aquestionnaire, informal interviews, and case studies. The questionnaire providedquantitative and qualitative data, while the informal interviews and case studiesexclusively provided qualitative data.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was used to determine the values, opinions, and knowledge of St.Louis Park residents regarding EAB. It consisted of 14 questions, including 12closed-ended questions (Appendix A). A majority of closed-ended questions wereasked because they provide more quantifiable data and also increase the response rate(Hallie Preskill and Darlene Russ-Eft 2009). The sample was a stratified randomsample of 178 private properties in St. Louis Park selected from the populationsurveyed by the Residential Tree Inventory and Assessment group (Report 3/8). Treesurveyors chose a 16 block sample based on a pre-sample, determined by the shape ofSt. Louis Park roadways. (See Report 3/8 for more details.)

The questionnaire was delivered to residents between late October and mid-November. It was placed in an envelope along with a cover letter, a copy of St. LouisPark’s EAB education brochure and a stamped and addressed return envelope(Appendices A-C). The envelope was then put in a plastic bag hung on the doorhandles of each home. Respondents filled out and mailed the questionnaires back tothe University of Minnesota. Sixty-six out of 178 questionnaires were returned, arepose rate of 37%.

Quantitative data from the questionnaire was recorded and analyzed using MicrosoftExcel. Descriptive statistics were used for the analysis with the majority of attentiongiven to the mean and the mode. Qualitative data responses were coded and thengrouped based on similarities.

Informal Interviews

Phone interviews were conducted with neighborhood leaders of St. Louis Park to gainin-depth knowledge about the preparedness for EAB in these neighborhoods. Of the35 recognized neighborhoods, 25 listed an active leader with contact information onthe St. Louis Park website. Of the 25 contacted, 17 neighborhood leaders participatedin an interview (Figure 4). These participants were chosen based on their leadershipposition, which, in this study, is assumed to come with knowledge of theneighborhood and resident concerns.

6

Figure 4. Interviews conducted with neighborhood leaders, St. Louis Park, October 2010.

Interviews were conducted by phone, based on pre-written prompts and questionsntended to supplement data from completed questionnaires (Appendix D). Interviewquestions were chosen to engage neighborhood leaders about their ownneighborhood’s preparedness for EAB and their capacity to lead the neighborhoodresponse effort. During the interviews, the candid responses were written down by theinterviewer on a premade transcript. If a participant provided information unrelated tothe question, but it was considered to be useful for the project, or if intervieweeresponses generated more questions, the interviewer wrote down these questions andresponses in an available space. After all interviews were completed, responses weregrouped by question and typed into one document. From here, responses wereanalyzed for patterns by question and then for themes throughout the entire interview.

7

Where appropriate, responses were coded using frequencies and descriptive statisticsin Microsoft Excel.

Case Studies

To supplement collected data and enhance recommendations, municipal case studieswere reviewed. Criteria for the case studies included stage of EAB infestation, sitecomparison to St. Louis Park and results of EAB management. Cases of communitiesin varying stages of the EAB threat were used in order to understand how these citiesprepared for EAB as well as how they managed resources relative to EAB,specifically funding. Literature was also used to better understand the cognitive andemotional aspects of residents’ perceptions of trees, helping to further developrecommendations for EAB management. The cases reviewed included the cities of St.Paul, MN; Toledo, OH; and Copenhagen, Denmark, as well as the State of Michigan.

Findings

EAB and Its Spread Throughout Minnesota

Due to St. Louis Park’s proximity to the areas within the Twin Cities that have beenaffected by EAB, it is likely the beetle will impact the city’s urban forest, causingmany challenges the community will need to be prepared to manage. Although it isunclear to what extent EAB will affect St. Louis Park, aesthetic degradation, resourcedemands, and safety/liability are some of the major concerns posed by EAB and theloss of ash trees within other communities. Fellow students in the Residential TreeInventory and Assessment group conducted a tree inventory of St. Louis Park privateproperties and found approximately 12% of the trees inventoried were Fraxinus spp.,commonly known as ash (Frieder et al. 2010). We found that 20% of St. Louis Parkquestionnaire respondents stated they have an ash tree on their property, while 33% were unsure.

The city’s urban forest will be altered as ash trees decline. A loss of large, mature ashtrees will result in canopy deficits and may change the appearance and character ofthe community (Jorgensen 2010). This loss will also change the biology of St. LouisPark’s urban forest. Trees are important for biological functions and ecosystemservices including soil erosion reduction, temperature regulation, carbonsequestration, rainfall interception, and habitat enhancement (Schwab 2009).Boulevard ash trees are already being removed at a rate of 5% per year in hopes ofslowing the infestation (City of St. Louis Park EAB Management Policy and Plan2010), meaning residents will soon experience the repercussions of the EAB threat.Neighborhood leaders articulated that trees are very important to citizens of St. LouisPark. Additionally, 77% of survey respondents would be willing to replant new trees

8

if an infected ash tree was found and removed from their property. The community’swillingness to replace infected trees is beneficial for both the community and ecologyof the urban ecosystem.

Appreciation of Outdoor Aesthetics and Diversification

When thinking about the effects EAB could have on the physical composition of St.Louis Park, it is important to consider residents’ values concerning landscapeaesthetics, especially their value for trees. It is important for the St. Louis Park Parksand Recreation Department to understand the broad array of values residents have fortrees and outdoor aesthetics in order to efficiently and equitably respond to EABwithin the urban ecosystem. This understanding can inform city decisions regardingEAB tree management and resident support programs.

According to Dwyer et al. (1991), trees play an important role in urban settings.Researchers stress the necessity of taking a broad perspective on the benefits of treesbased on the “deep psychological ties between people and urban trees and forests”(Dwyer et al. 1991). Often times, values associated with trees and tree preservationare emotional rather than merely rational. For this reason, successful treemanagement requires regard for emotions and values instead of solely rationaljustification, such as energy savings and increased property values.

St. Louis Park neighborhood leaders echoed these insights, indicating an especiallystrong importance of trees among their neighbors as well as general pride in theoutdoor aesthetics of their neighborhood. Neighborhood leaders also expressed manyresidents do, in fact, have an emotional connection to the trees within theirneighborhood. In response to the question, When thinking about the look of theneighborhood and what residents value, how important do you think trees are for thisneighborhood, one neighborhood leader stated, “People are upset when they losetrees. It leaves a gap in the neighborhood physically and emotionally.” Anotherneighborhood leader described losing a tree to be “like losing a family member.” Thissuggests residents may be apprehensive about tree removal associated with EABbased on their emotional connection.

In addition to emotional values, trees are valued for their ecological significance.When asked about some of the best attributes of urban forests, respondents of a studyin Denmark highlighted the importance of having a variety of tree species and ages inorder to provide for seasonal aesthetics, wildlife habitat and species abundance(Hansen-Møller et al. 2004). The majority of these respondents also indicated urbanforests are the most attractive areas in which to live because residents have themutual benefit of living among nature and living near an urban area.

Although our interview findings suggest that residents highly value trees in general,questionnaire responses suggest that specifically ash trees may not be as highly

9

valued. When respondents with ash trees on their property were asked how much theyvalue their ash trees on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being not valued at all and 5 being highlyvalued), the response average was 3.7. This suggests people value trees in general;however, they have a moderate value for ash trees. Although people highly valuetrees and the benefits thereof, specific tree types have less value. As St. Louis Parkmoves forth in assessing EAB, it will be important to keep in mind the general valueof trees to residents in order to sustain important community values and outdoor aesthetics.

In general, people are most attached to old growth trees, especially if a tree is tied to aspecific memory, such as a family member (Dwyer et al. 1991). In the case of oldgrowth trees, people may be more inclined to use a pesticide rather than have the treeremoved for both emotional and financial reasons. If trees are required to beremoved, Dwyer et al. (1991) suggest many people are likely to replant trees toexpand the natural setting of their neighborhood. Accordingly, data from the EABresident questionnaire suggests residents are not as likely to replace a removed ashtree if they already have other old growth trees on their property. Specifically, 15% ofthe qualitative responses as to why residents would not replace a removed ash treewere due to having other mature trees on the resident’s property or on theirboulevard.

Toledo, OH, also conducted a survey of their residents regarding EAB. Due to theeffects of EAB, the City of Toledo had scheduled the removal of approximately 5,000trees. One month before their removal, Heimlich et al. (2008) surveyed Toledoresidents as to how residents felt about losing their mature ash trees and theirattitudes toward replacement trees. They found respondents favored replacementtrees that were large, provided shade, and would increase the attractiveness of theirstreet.

In St. Louis Park, resident responses were similar to those of Toledo residents.Nonfruiting trees were popular among respondents as 31% stated they would replacetheir ash tree with such a species. Although responses for specific tree species werenot solicited in the questionnaire, 21% of the respondents who chose a nonfruitingtree as a preferred replacement species expressed a desire to replant with a maple orbirch tree. No other species were specified by respondents as being preferredreplacement trees. Twenty-two percent stated if they were to replace their ash tree,they would prefer to replace it with a shade-providing tree species (Figure 5). If bothshade-providing and nonfruiting trees are the most popular tree species among allresidents, this will have to be balanced with the benefits of diverse species in urbanforests necessary to provide for future ecosystem stability and natural aesthetics. Aslong as St. Louis Park neighborhoods move forth focusing on the ecologicalimportance of trees, species diversity and the general value of trees to residents, lossof ash trees may be mitigated by the strategic investment in other species.

10

Figure 5. Residents’ preferred replacement tree type, St. Louis Park, October 2010. Responses toQuestion 8b of Resident Questionnaire: With what type of tree would you replace [your removed ashtree]? (n=64).

Awareness

In order for the St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Department to properly addressthe issue of EAB, it is important to first assess the level of resident awareness. Byeducating residents about EAB and spreading awareness of the issue throughout thecommunity, residents are more likely to act in a positive way to protect thecommunity in which they live. In Spring 2010, Jorgensen et al. (2010) surveyedresidents in St. Paul and found less than half the population (43%) consideredthemselves to be very informed about EAB.

Conversely, through the St. Louis Park resident questionnaires and neighborhoodleader interviews, we found that the majority of residents were familiar with EAB andthe fact that it is a problem in the Twin Cities. Though residents consider themselvesaware of the issue, we also found residents did not fully understand the implicationsrelated to the threat of EAB for the City of St. Louis Park. When neighborhoodleaders were asked, Regarding trees, emerald ash borer is a non-native invasivebeetle that attacks ash trees. Were you aware of the emerald ash borer problem in theTwin Cities?, we found 15 of the 17 neighborhood leaders interviewed had heard ofEAB. Of those, 13 said they were familiar with the problem in the Twin Cities area.Responses ranged from a simple “No” to one neighborhood leader who consideredhimself “very aware” and felt well educated on the many invasive species that haveaffected St. Louis Park for the past 32 years. This suggests that the majority of

11

neighborhood leaders have a basic knowledge about the threat of EAB that the citywill be able to build upon.

Evidence from the resident questionnaire resonates with that of the neighborhoodleader interviews. According to survey responses, 24% of respondents feel they arevery aware of EAB, 67% feel they are somewhat aware, and 9% are not aware.Although the majority concluded they were aware of EAB, people were uncertainwhen it came to EAB presence in St. Louis Park. When asked if residents thoughtEAB had been found in St. Louis Park, 39% responded “I don’t know.” Only 31% ofrespondents answered this question correctly as “No,” and the remaining 30% ofrespondents answered “Yes,” meaning they thought EAB had been found in St. LouisPark.

This discrepancy in the level of awareness and specifics about EAB spread is mostlikely a result of residents generalizing what they have heard in the media. Since it iswell publicized that EAB has been found in surrounding communities in the greaterMetro area, St. Louis Park residents may conclude it has been found locally as well,especially when considering 36.5% of respondents received EAB information fromlocal news (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Sources from which residents found EAB information, St. Louis Park, October 2010.Responses to Question 3a of Resident Questionnaire: Where have you found or received informationabout emerald ash borer? Check all that apply. (n=85)

12

According to questionnaire results, St. Louis Park residents’ level of awarenesspositively correlates with their perceived threat of EAB (Figure 7). In other words, aspeople become more aware of EAB, they perceive it as a higher threat to thecommunity. An increase in the perceived threat makes EAB a higher priority forresidents, therefore demanding the support of and response from the city. As St.Louis Park residents become more knowledgeable about EAB, it will ultimatelyresult in increased community concern and need for capacity building to handle theissue.

Figure 7. Resident perceived EAB threat by self-described level of awareness, St. Louis Park, October2010. Responses to Question 4 of Resident Questionnaire: On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no threat at alland 5 being a big threat, do you think EAB is a threat to St. Louis Park?, relative to Question 1: Howwould you rate your level of awareness about Emerald Ash Borer? (n=66)

Finally, understanding public awareness and knowledge is important when designingeducation programs. For example, when residents were asked if they knew about thefree tree inspection service offered by the City of St. Louis Park, 77% of respondentswere unaware of this service. This finding corresponds with Question 6a of theresident questionnaire: Do you have any ash trees on your property? Thirty-fourpercent responded that they did not know whether they had an ash tree on theirproperty. Resident awareness and use of the tree inspection program would clearlyassist with ash tree identification and, therefore, increase residents’ capacity to beproperly equipped to address the issue.

Furthermore, in open-ended questionnaire comments, approximately 30% ofrespondents felt there was a lack of education about EAB. Others wanted to knowvery specific information related to EAB in St. Louis Park. From both thequestionnaire and interview data, it is clear many residents do not feel fully equippedwith the necessary knowledge to prepare for EAB, even if they are aware of the issue.

Role of the Parks and Recreation Department

The Parks and Recreation Department plays an important role in the defense againstEAB. As the EAB response unfolds, the department can recognize their expertise and

13

the reputation they have earned as trustworthy among St. Louis Park residents. Basedon interview responses, the majority the of neighborhood leaders have confidence inthe department regarding EAB. Specifically, leaders trust the city will facilitate theproper EAB response and will notify residents if there is anything they shouldaddress. When discussing the potential of an EAB infestation, one neighborhoodleader stated, “I just hope we would be informed if [the borer] was getting close, but Ithink Marny (City Liaison) would let us know if that was the case.” Leaders alsoindicated confidence in the Parks and Recreation Department’s ability to promptlyrespond to resident needs and concerns. As one leader emphasized, “[The] social andcommunity services in St. Louis Park are very good. [The Parks and RecreationDepartment’s] service to residents is very good and prompt. [We] had some tree lossand [they were] great about responding and replanting.”

Trust in the city was echoed in the comments section of the resident questionnaire.Numerous respondents complimented the city for its work with trees, as well as itstimely response to the threat of EAB. Specifically, a few people asked the city tocontinue action on specific issues such as soil testing or tree removal. One respondentcomplimented the city and its work with EAB, stating “We have had the city forestersout. Good guys! We have had two boulevard trees put in for free!” It is clear thecity’s work is highly appreciated.

While there is trust in the Parks and Recreation Department, there are also manyquestions for the department. According to questionnaire results, 32% of respondentsindicated they did not know how they would respond to having an ash tree on theirproperty, would take no action, or would wait for signs of stress to appear (Figure 8).Neighborhood leaders indicated they are looking for information from the city toaddress residents’ uncertainty regarding EAB. Specifically, they asked for directionin the steps to take against the threat of EAB within their neighborhoods.Neighborhood leaders are also looking for answers associated with financing EABresponse on private property. This suggests citizens are looking to the Parks andRecreation Department to educate residents and guide decisions.

Role of Neighborhood Leaders

Neighborhood leaders will be a beneficial resource to the Parks and RecreationDepartment’s battle against the EAB threat. The majority of these leaders have livedin their neighborhood for more than 12 years, with an average of 18 years, meaningthe neighborhood leaders have a great understanding of the dynamics of theirneighborhood and of St. Louis Park. The current neighborhood leaders have also beenon their respective neighborhood associations for an average of 6 years. Charismaticleaders who play an active role in the community are more influential in their peers’decisions than an outsider expert (Rogers 2003). Because the neighborhood leadersare active members in their community and well trusted, they play a key part ininformation dispersal from the Parks and Recreation Department. During interviews

14

with neighborhood leaders, approximately one third interpreted their role asinformation disseminators when asked, What role do you think the neighborhoodleaders could play in preparing for EAB among residents? One neighborhood leadersaid, “Disseminator of information from the City,” while another said, “If we weregiven information to distribute, we would definitely do that.”

Figure 8. Resident choices regarding ash trees on private property, St. Louis Park, October 2010. Responses toQuestion 7 of Resident Questionnaire: If you have an ash tree on your property, what action (if any) would youtake? Check all that apply. (n=66)

Leaders also indicted that many residents within their neighborhoods may choose toact on the matter individually, as opposed to as a community. They felt it is importantto reach out to these individuals in order to guide EAB responses across the city.Neighborhood leaders believed they could promote outreach by communicating withthese residents and disseminating city information about EAB.

Preferred Communication Methods

When deciding how to disseminate information regarding EAB to residents, it isimportant for the city to take into account the ways in which residents prefer to receiveinformation, as well as how neighborhood leaders prefer to communicate informationto their residents. Data from the questionnaires show the respondents preferred toreceive EAB information from the city by way of mail, door flyers, and the ParkPerspective, whereas the St. Louis Park website is least preferred (Figure 9).Specifically only 4.5% of respondents stated the St. Louis Park website as thepreferred form of EAB communication. When analyzing questionnaires of residents

15

ages 60 and older, it is evident these residents prefer similar means of receiving EABinformation (Figure 10).

Figure 9. Residents’ preferred EAB communication pathways, St. Louis Park, 2010. Responses to Question 3bof Resident Questionnaire: What do you feel is the most effective way to communicate information aboutemerald ash borer and tree management to residents in your community? Please rank your top 3 choices. (n=66)

Figure 10. Preferred EAB communication pathways of residents age 60+, St. Louis Park, October2010. Responses to Question 3b of Resident Questionnaire: What do you feel is the most effective wayto communicate information about emerald ash borer and tree management to residents in yourcommunity? Please rank your top 3 choices. (n=15)

Of the 17 neighborhood leaders that were interviewed, 10 mentioned communicationwith residents in their neighborhoods as a part of their role. In general, neighborhoodleaders preferred using one and four specific communication methods. The top three

16

pathways for communication between neighborhood leaders and residents werenewsletters, flyers, and email (Table 1). The least common pathways forcommunication between neighborhood leaders and residents were neighborhoodwebsites and online social networks, both of which require the resident to seek outinformation on their own.

Table 1. Reported communication pathways through neighborhood leaders, St. Louis Park, October 2010.

Neighborhood

New

slet

ter

Fly

er/m

aili

ng

Em

ail/

list

serv

Mee

ting

Web

site

Soc

ial E

vent

Onl

ine

Soc

ial

Net

wor

k

Tot

al P

athw

ays

per

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d

Amhurst x x 2Aquila x 1

Birchwood x 1Blackstone x x 2Bronx Park x x 2Brookside x x 2Creekside x x x 3Crestview x 1Eliot View x x x 3Elmwood x x x 3

Lake Forest x x x x 4Minikahda Oaks x x 2Minikahda Vista x x 2

Minnehaha x x 2Oak Hill x x 2Sorenson x 1

Willow Park x x x 3 Total for Pathway Type 11 7 7 5 3 2 1

This information from residents and neighborhood leaders suggests that flyers are themost preferred method for receiving and distributing information regarding EAB. Italso indicates that the most effective way to distribute information is through somephysical form of mail delivered to residents’ doorsteps. Examples, as previouslymentioned, would be mail, flyers and community and neighborhood newspapers. Non-physical forms of information that must be sought out by residents, such as the St.Louis Park website, may be less effective as they are the least preferred.

17

Resident Concerns

Through interviews and questionnaires a number of concerns from the communityhave been repeated, generally relating to neighborhood aesthetics, controlling thespread of EAB, and the costs associated to responding to the threat. Neighborhoodleaders expressed concerns over preservation of the neighborhood feel if multiple oldgrowth ash trees were removed, as well as the uncertainty surrounding EAB. Whencomparing EAB to other neighborhood concerns of street lighting and traffic, oneneighborhood leader stated, “These issues can be controlled, whereas emerald ashborer is a silent invader and a natural issue [they] must react to.”Another leader askedrhetorical questions: “It is an unknown threat. How do we deal with it? How do weremove [trees]? Expenses [residents] could incur?” suggesting the numerous EAB-related uncertainties of residents and the importance of a guided EAB response.

A second concern expressed in both the leader interviews and resident questionnairewas the timing between tree marking and removal. One leader specifically mentionedseeing dead trees that had been infected with Dutch elm disease and marked forremoval, but still not removed. Other residents were focused on trees they had seenthroughout the city that needed attention, or even trees they wanted removed fromtheir own yards.

A third main concern was how to address the spread of emerald ash borer. Oneneighborhood leader mentioned, “There is no control over the spread of the disease.Free firewood from infected trees is the major problem.” Fifty-three percent ofresidents also stated that the spread of EAB was a concern (Figure 11).Other concerns residents expressed through the questionnaire included costs related toEAB (55%) and removal/tree loss (48%). Cost emerged as a high priority whenresidents were asked an open-ended question as to why they would not replace theirash tree if it were removed. The majority of people who responded stated that theywould only do so if the price was right. Additional concerns included pesticide use (38%), aesthetics (36%), and property value (23%) relative to EAB (Figure 11).

While some residents are concerned and knowledgeable about the spread of EAB, it isimportant to note 5 percent of respondents do not see it as a threat in comparison toother current and pressing issues. This finding was echoed in the neighborhood leaderinterviews. When leaders were asked to compare the threat of EAB to other challengestheir neighborhood was facing, 4 out of 17 said EAB was less of a priority than othercurrent challenges. Until the effects of EAB are seen and felt by residents first hand,neighborhood leaders expressed other social issues being of more immediate concern,possibly reducing the community’s capacity to respond to EAB.

18

Figure 11. Resident concerns about EAB, St. Louis Park, October 2010. Responses to Question 9 of ResidentQuestionnaire: What are your concerns related to emerald ash borer? Check all that apply. (n=64)

EAB Control and Funding

By 2006, EAB had already killed more than 8 million ash trees in Michigan (Northley2006). At that time, Michigan’s program to combat and contain the spread of EABwas experiencing a serious lack of funding, which decreased the state’s capacity tocommunicate with the public, survey the state and detect the beetle. As a result, theState refocused their efforts toward preventing the spread of the beetle by enforcing afirewood transportation quarantine around 21 counties and 31 other infested areas.Michigan fined those who violated the quarantine anywhere from $100 to $10,000(Northley 2006). These fines were used to help further fund the state’s EAB program.In addition, the state was able to raise additional funding for the program by sellingboth the infested and noninfested ash wood for use as railroad ties, dowels andflooring (Northley 2006).

A recent example of a municipality facing funding issues related to EAB is the City ofSt. Paul, MN. Since EAB was discovered on May 14, 2009, in the St. Anthony Parkneighborhood, the City of St. Paul has turned to the state and federal government, aswell as various grants, to address funding needs (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry Department 2009). For replanting after ash tree removal, St. Paul pursuedsupport from the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund, an allotment of money set asideby the state to aid in the “restoration, protection, and enhancement of wetlands,

19

prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife, and that prevent forestfragmentation, encourage forest consolidation, and expand restored native prairie”(Minnesota’s Constitutionally Dedicated Funds 2010). In addition, St. Paul is currentlyworking directly with the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, which providesannual recommendations to the legislature on how they should allocate the OutdoorHeritage Fund. In the future, the City of St. Paul plans on working with their localfederal delegation to help determine possible sources. To replant boulevard trees, St.Paul decided to work with residents who are willing to pay for replanting themselvesand issue these residents permits to do so (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/ForestryDepartment 2009).

In addition, disposal costs of ash trees were significantly reduced due to St. Paul’slease agreement with Environmental Wood Supply. Through this service, wood isprocessed into wood chips, and then taken to the District Energy plant in downtownSt. Paul where the chips are burned for energy. This service is free of charge to thecity (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry Department 2009).

The St. Paul EAB Management Program estimated the average cost to remove one ashtree to be $700 (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry Department 2009). The St.Louis Park resident questionnaire shows that the average respondent expects to payapproximately $500-$1000 to remove an ash tree; however, the mode for respondentswas less than $500, meaning that respondents more frequently expected to pay lessthan $500 to remove an ash tree. This information may help estimate the percentage ofash tree removal costs the city could undertake as part of a cost-share program thatserves to aid residents’ in meeting their expected removal costs and achieve citywidegoals for EAB control.

Recommendations

The following recommendations were developed to enhance the community’s capacityto respond to EAB within St. Louis Park. In order to effectively engage thecommunity in responding to the citywide threat, we have designed recommendationsbased on optimizing communication between the city and residents as well asincreasing awareness among residents. The Parks and Recreation Department canutilize these recommendations as they continue inclusive preparedness plans thatefficiently and effectively respond to such threats as EAB.

Recommendation 1: Increase the clarity and accessibility of emerald ashborer information by branding a uniform message from the city

Even though many St. Louis Park residents already have some information aboutEAB, not all of the information is accurate due to the misinterpretation of informationfrom multiple outside sources, such as local news. Approximately, 36.5% of

20

questionnaire respondents indicated that they received information regarding EAB vialocal news. Since EAB is found in other parts of the metro, residents may be makingthe false assumption that EAB is currently found in St. Louis Park as well. Ninety-onepercent of survey respondents said they were somewhat aware of EAB, but 30%incorrectly believed that EAB had been found in St. Louis Park and 39% did notknow. In order to correct misinformation, provide a clear message, and increaseaccessibility to EAB information, we recommend that St. Louis Park considerdesignating a primary EAB contact and utilizing the most effective forms ofcommunication.

Designating and publicizing a primary contact would increase the clarity andaccessibility of EAB information. Interviews illustrated neighborhood leaders’dependence on the city for direction in responding to EAB. The primary contact cancommunicate directly with neighborhood leaders and capitalize on the neighborhoods’capacity to respond. The primary contact would be responsible for answeringresidents’ questions regarding EAB. With one primary contact, there is less ambiguityas to whom residents and neighborhood leaders should contact with questions andconcerns about EAB.

The primary contact would also be responsible for informing the Parks and RecreationDepartment about EAB information needs and compiling it to be distributed. Throughreceiving residents’ questions, the primary contact can evaluate communication needsas well as be more aware of the concerns and questions the information should toaddress. A clear, uniform message regarding prevention and the response to EAB canbe organized by the primary contact. The uniform message can serve as a guide forhomeowners’ planning, enhancing the community’s capacity to respond to EAB onprivate property.

The primary contact can fully utilize the clear, uniform message created by proactivelyproviding information to be distributed instead of relying on residents andneighborhood leaders to call with questions and concerns. In these efforts, the citymust remember that residents prefer different forms of communication. Mail, doorflyers, and the Park Perspective were reported to be the most effective forms ofcommunication according to findings from the resident questionnaire (Figure 9). TheParks and Recreation Department could benefit from capitalizing on these methods inorder to communicate with residents. Information compiled by the primary contact canbe easily formatted for multiple communication methods.

The information could also be organized and posted on the St. Louis Park website.However, it is important to note that less than 20% of questionnaire respondentsincluded the website in the top three most effective communication methods. As aresult, the website should not be the only means of disseminating information. If thewebsite is chosen as a means of providing EAB information, we suggest theaccessibility of the information be improved. Finding information about EAB on thewebsite is currently a challenge. Information on EAB can only be accessed indirectly

21

through a link to the Department of Agriculture website home page. From there, onemust navigate through the Department of Agriculture site. Instead of linking to anotherwebsite to find information, the City of St. Louis Park may wish to include theinformation compiled by the primary contact on the city website. By doing so, EABinformation can be accessed more quickly and with greater ease.

As issues and concerns regarding EAB grow, the primary contact may not be able tomeet the increasing demand for information, especially if EAB reaches St. Louis Park.The challenge of growing EAB issues and concerns can be assuaged by the formationof an EAB team. With the help of 3 to 5 passionate volunteers informed about EABissues and concerns, the Parks and Recreation Department can maintain theirreputation as an effective and responsive city department. EAB team members can betrained by the EAB primary contact to ensure that the message remains clear anduniform.

The effectiveness of communication is greatly enhanced by the clarity andaccessibility of the information provided. With clear and accessible information,residents’ EAB awareness will increase, as will the community capacity to respond tothis threat. Neighborhood leaders have considerable trust in the city. Throughcommunication efforts that improve community capacity, the City of St. Louis Parkcan reinforce this trust.

Recommendation 2: Publicize the Parks and Recreation Department’sresponse to the threat of emerald ash borer on public property as amodel for private landowners

EAB threatens both public and private property. Experts are charged with theresponsibility to respond to this threat on public property; however, it is up to theproperty owner to take action or request assistance on his/her private property. Bypublicizing the city’s response to EAB on public property, the Parks and RecreationDepartment can promote uniform action in responding to EAB and motivateindividuals to act on their own properties.

Uniform action is beneficial in residents to successfully respond to EAB. TheDepartment would be illustrating safe and effective actions while promoting theresponsible allocation of resources, specifically costs. Neighborhood leadersarticulated that they are looking to the city for direction in responding to the threat ofEAB. Leaders suggested “seeing” the Department’s proactive response to EAB wouldmake it easier to monitor one’s own property. This may be largely due to theuncertainty surrounding EAB and effective responses to this threat. Providing aprototype would also help motivate residents to take responsibility for their ownproperties due to the pressure of seeing the organized response of the city.To helpproperty owners decide if they need to act, it would also be advantageous for the Parksand Recreation Department to increase awareness of their free tree inspection service.

22

Thirty-four percent of questionnaire respondents did not know whether they had anash tree on their property. The tree inspection service could therefore become aneducation tool as well as a way in which to promote EAB preparation measures onprivate property. Publicizing the city’s example of inventorying and assessing theurban tree population could motivate residents to inventory and assess their ownproperty. Many residents do not have the expertise to identify an ash tree and/or assessthe health of a tree, thus proving the importance of city support through the inspectionservice.

City resources are finite, making timely responses to such threats as EAB a challenge.However, it is important to be prompt and follow through in order to maintain trustand credibility among residents. We recommend that the Parks and RecreationDepartment work closely with city officials to develop sufficient resources in order toremove trees immediately following marking and/or postpone marking more treesuntil resources are available. In doing so, the department will not appear as thoughthey are unable to address the demand for service.

It may also be a challenge to demonstrate to residents the importance of individualaction. It is crucial that residents do not see action related to EAB as “the city’s job.”By increasing awareness through persistent communication and outreach, thischallenge can be mitigated as residents begin to understand the implications inactionwould have for their own properties.

Leading residents in the face of such a challenge as EAB is essential for providing thesafe, vital and welcoming community St. Louis Park strives to be. By working toarticulate the city’s action on public property and familiarize residents with the treeinspection service, the Parks and Recreation Department could accomplish these goalsfor St. Louis Park and ultimately increase the community’s capacity to respond toEAB.

Recommendation 3: Enhance community awareness by utilizingneighborhood leaders

Education is a key component when addressing environmental concerns; equallyimportant is the source of the education. Adults are more receptive to informationfrom a respected leader within their community (Rogers 2003). This indicates thatalthough the Parks and Recreation Department may be the EAB experts, education anddirection will have a greater impact when the neighborhood leaders are alsoadvocating for appropriate actions. On average, St. Louis Park’s neighborhood leadershave lived in their neighborhoods approximately 18 years and have been aneighborhood leader an average of 12 years, giving them an abundance of experienceand understanding of neighborhood concerns.

23

Neighborhood leaders provide an easy and effective way to communicate with thepublic. As mentioned earlier, neighborhood leaders trust the Parks and RecreationDepartment and are willing to disseminate information given to them about EAB. Thecity can continue to foster the relationship because working with the neighborhoodleaders as information disseminators can be effective. In addition, neighborhoodassociations already print newsletters and send emails, meaning the city would nothave to bear additional costs to disseminate educational materials to residents.

As stated in Recommendation 1, it would be beneficial for one EAB message to begiven to leaders to use in neighborhood newsletters and emails. In the informationprovided, it is important to focus on positive outcomes so as not to panic residents ormake combating the threat seem like an impossible task. Because leaders expressedinterest and concern over EAB spread, removal and preservation, we suggest the Parksand Recreation Department begin providing neighborhood leaders with informationon:

• How EAB spreads• Ways to avoid spread• Tips on how to safely purchase/acquire firewood• Steps the city is taking to reduce the risk of infestation• Signs of EAB• Services the Parks and Recreation Department offers (such as a first detector

program)• Preservation options and estimates, should the city choose to endorse these: If the

city does not choose to endorse chemical use on ash trees as a method of defense,it is recommended they educate residents as to the reasons.

After this initial information, it will be important to listen and adjust thecommunication program based on questions and concerns the city receives aboutEAB. If even one person asks a question, it is likely there are many other residentswho have the same question, but do not know who to ask or do not have the time toask.

Some challenges the Parks and Recreation Department may face in implementing thisrecommendation include leadership position changes as well as illustrating the EABthreat as a priority over other neighborhood concerns. Leadership changes over time,but maintaining a relationship built on strong communication with current leaders willmake future leadership transitions smoother. It is advisable for the city to ask thecurrent neighborhood leader to explain the importance of prioritizing EAB efforts toany new neighborhood leader. Strong relationships between the city and neighborhoodleaders will also increase communication about neighborhood and city priorities. Ifneighborhood leaders understand why action against EAB is a priority, they will bemore likely to adopt the effort as a main concern for the neighborhood. This will alsoallow the city to understand the neighborhood’s priorities and possibly address themmore completely.

24

Recommendation 4: Promote and maintain high tree diversity througheducation and planning

Tree diversification is important to maintain a viable urban forest in and around the St.Louis Park. Urban forests not only provide ecological stability, they also create livablespaces for people in urban centers. As a long-term response to EAB, St. Louis Parkcan reinforce community education on the importance of species diversificationaccompanied by a community plan to foster diverse tree planting.

Residents need to be informed or reminded that species diversification is importantbecause it enables ecosystems to be resilient to pests, changes in climate and otherthreats. Without diversification, urban forests are threatened when invasive species,such as the EAB, arrive and have the ability to kill a high percentage of the city’strees. Residents need to begin with an understanding of monocultures and theirsusceptibility to pests due to the lack of species diversity. When a pest thrives off thatspecies, it has the ability to spread quickly, especially through urban areas. In theseareas, trees are typically closer in proximity and monocultures are more prevalent dueto past management decisions and similar species preferences among residents. Pestoutbreaks are not only devastating for the natural aesthetics and possibly the well-being of a community, but they can also be expensive to address all at once. For thisreason, it is important for residents to be informed about diverse ages, sizes and typesof trees necessary when thinking about the future composition of an urban forest.

Evidence from case studies, neighborhood leader interviews and residentialquestionnaires support this recommendation. Dwyer et al. (1991) highlight theimportance of old growth trees in urban communities, stating that trees are valuedmainly for emotional ties rather than rational reasons, and are therefore necessary for acommunity’s well-being. Other studies demonstrate that residents appreciate urbanforests as a buffer within the urban community. Most neighborhood leaders in St.Louis Park stressed the importance of trees in their immediate community, somespecifically stating the emotional ties they have with older trees. Although St. LouisPark residents highly value trees in general, questionnaire respondents did not place anexceptionally high value on individual ash trees. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being of lowvalue and 5 being of high value), residents who had an ash tree on their propertyassigned it a mean value of 3.7. This suggests that specific tree species do not play asmuch of a role in valuation as other tree amenities, such as shade, aesthetics andemotional values.

Education about diversification can be conducted in concert with EAB education. Forexample, all EAB educational materials, both those to residents and neighborhoodleaders, could also employ tree diversity education. In addition to providinginformation on the importance and benefits of tree diversity, these materials can offerlists of trees and their attributes in order to familiarize residents with various treeoptions. In addition, St. Louis Park’s plan for tree diversity on public lands to reduce

25

potential damage of EAB in the future can be publicized to private land owners. Oneway to ensure a sustainable and diverse tree stand is through the application of the“30, 20, 10” rule, a general guideline for tree planning and replanting projects (see 3/8:Residential Tree Inventory and Assessment report for further information).

From questionnaire comments, it is evident a large portion of residents in St. LouisPark would prefer to replace their ash tree, if removed, with maple. This is likely dueto residents’ preference for shade trees. It is also clear many residents are familiar withthe possible overabundance of maple trees in St. Louis Park and are urging the city toreevaluate its planting patterns. These conflicting values will be a challenge whenplanning for future tree diversity in St. Louis Park. Many people are emotionallyattached to large, shade-providing trees making it difficult to promote new species thatresidents have not previously seen in the area.

Providing tree diversity education in concert with EAB education may not be difficult.Though there are conflicting thoughts about using maples trees to replace ash trees inSt. Louis Park, it is clear that people value these trees for shade. Because maple is oneof the most well-known and common shade trees today, it is easy for residents to jumpto quick conclusions about wanting one on their property. If residents knew thefeatures of other shade providing trees that could be purchased at similar or lesser cost,gradually they may become interested in other species. St. Louis Park has theopportunity to lead by example through planting diverse shade-providing trees onpublic land, instead of maples. These examples would be helpful in supportingresident choices. Overall, it is important for the City of St. Louis Park to encouragecontinued communication about the importance of tree diversity. This exchange ofinformation can have an important influence on resident decisions and aid in thesustainability of its urban forest, ultimately improving community capacity.

Recommendation 5: Secure funding and reduce costs to support timelyimplementation of the City’s Emerald Ash Borer Management Policy &Plan

As the threat of EAB intensifies, the need for funding will become a determiningfactor in the city’s capacity to respond effectively to an infestation. The city’s abilityto continue selectively removing ash trees on public property as well as to replant newspecies is dependent on the level of funding the city dedicates to the effort. Wesuggest seeking funding for this program become a top priority, as it also supports theresponse to EAB on private property. In fact, 48% of questionnaire respondents citedremoval/tree loss as one of their main concerns.

There are a variety of potential funding sources the city could pursue. First, the citycould work with neighboring communities to salvage and sell the wood from removedash trees. Using the State of Michigan as an example, they could sell their ash wood tomanufacturers of railroad ties, dowels and wood flooring. Since the beetle lives

26

directly under the bark and not within the trunk of the ash tree, even infected treeswould be salvageable for this purpose (Northley 2006). Ash trees small in diametercould be given free of charge to be incinerated at a nearby energy facility with thecapacity to burn wood, saving the city money in disposal costs. This method ofdisposal has been a success for the City of St. Paul, which gives its wood to DistrictEnergy in downtown St. Paul (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry Department2009).

Replanting saplings in place of removed trees will be a major expense. Costs includeworkers’ salaries, trucks, service requirements and saplings themselves. St. Paul isworking with their local federal delegation to help determine possible funding sources.In addition, they have decided to issue permits to residents who are willing to pay forreplanting out of their own pocket (St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry Department2009). This would save the city money related to replanting. We recommend St. LouisPark consider working with other municipalities and their local federal delegation todetermine long-term sources for additional funding. If the city is able to graduallysecure enough funding for removal and replanting of public trees as well as informand perhaps partially support residents with the cost of private removal, they will beable to maintain the treed community that St. Louis Park residents greatly value.

Conclusion

The City of St. Louis Park envisions itself providing services to the community inorder to ensure its safety, vitality and welcoming quality (City of St. Louis Park,Minnesota 2010). The city’s vision is reinforced when responding to a threat such asEAB. Because EAB has reached other metropolitan suburbs, St. Louis Park is takingthe initiative to evaluate its threat and propose a plan to address the issue.

It is important to note the strong sense of trust neighborhood leaders and residentshave in the City of St. Louis Park. This trust attests to the credibility and reliability ofSt. Louis Park’s local government in addressing citywide challenges, such as the threatof EAB. The City of St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engagedcommunity. Similarly, interview and questionnaire responses demonstrated thatresidents are ready to take action against the EAB threat, even if it may be on anindividual basis. It is clear community members are willing to listen to the city as wellas each other when it comes to addressing the threat of an infestation. Residents wantto be informed about the topic and the first steps in the EAB planning process.

Environmental stewardship is supported by St. Louis Park residents and is therefore atthe forefront in the city. The community has experienced the challenges associatedwith invasive species in the past and has articulated their motivation to takepreventative action against similar issues in the future. From this study, it is evident

27

people care about their surrounding environment even when they are not fullyinformed about what is happening. Overall, members of the community haveemphasized the value they have for trees as a part of the environmental and aestheticquality of the community.

By advancing the public’s awareness of EAB and the threat it poses, St. Louis Parkwill be prepared to address the problem before it becomes considerable and costly.Education will play a substantial role in increasing the public’s knowledge of EAB, itsspread and the importance of tree diversification, ultimately building the community’scapacity to address the issue. By utilizing neighborhood leaders, the City of St. LouisPark can increase the clarity and accessibility of EAB preventative techniques andcommunity preparedness strategies, ensuring the long-term health of their urbanforest.

References

Chaskin, R. 2001. Building community capacity: A definitional framework and casestudies from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review 36:291-323. Accessed October 2010. doi: 10.1177/10780870122184876.

City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2010. Accessed October 2010.www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/index.asp.

City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota. 2010. Accessed October 2010.www.stlouispark.org.

City of St. Louis Park Emerald Ash Borer Management Policy & Plan. 2010. St. LouisPark Parks and Recreation Department, January.

Dwyer, J., H. Schroeder, and P. Gobster. 1991. The significance of urban rrees andforests: Toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture17:276-284.

Frieder, A., K. Wilson, A. Gulsvig, W. Hertel, and S. Potter. 2010. Residential treeinventory and assessment. ESPM 4041W Problem Solving for EnvironmentalChange, Report 3/8. University of Minnesota.

Hansen-Møller, J., and L. Oustrup. 2004. Emotional, physical/functional and symbolicaspects of an urban forest in Denmark to nearby residents." Scandinavian Journalof Forest Research 19:56-64.

Heimlich, J., T. D. Sydnor, M. Bumgardner, and P. O’Brien. 2008. Attitudes ofresidents toward street trees on four streets in Toledo, Ohio, U.S. before removalof ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) from Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis).Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(1):47–53.

Jorgensen, Z., R. Coyle, K. Mueller, and N. Cunningham. 2010. Residential Survey ofEmerald Ash Borer in St. Paul Minnesota. St. Paul Parks and Recreation/ForestryDepartment.

Minnesota’s Constitutionally Dedicated Funds. 2010. Outdoor Heritage Fund.Accessed November 2010. www.cdf.leg.mn/outdoor-heritage-fund.

28

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Minnesota Department of Agriculture StateFormal Quarantine Report no. RF-1036, RF-1076. (Minnesota: MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture, 2009). Accessed October 26, 2010.www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab/eabquarantine.aspx.

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 2010. Accessed October 2010.www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=1059.

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Forestry Division. 2009. Emerald Ash BorerUpdateMinneapolis Park and Recreation Board, June. Accessed October 2010.www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=1059.

Nazzaro, R. Invasive Forest Pests: Lessons Learned from Three Recent InfestationsMay Aid in Managing Future Efforts. (Washington D.C.: GovernmentAccountability Office, 2006).

Northley, H. 2006. Beetle battle: As funding slips, the Emerald Ash Borer gainsground in Michigan. ej Magazine, Spring. Accessed November 2010.www.ejmagazine.com/2006a/beetle.html.

Preskill, H. and D. Russ-Eft. 2009. Evaluation in Organizations: A SystematicApproach to Enhancing Learning, Performance, and Change. New York: BasicBooks.

Rogers, E. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press.Schwab, J. C. 2009. Branching out. Planning 75(3):10-15.St. Paul Parks and Recreation/Forestry Department. 2009. Emerald Ash Borer

Management Program the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota. June 12. AccessedNovember, 2010.www.highlanddistrictcouncil.org/.../Emerald%20Ash%20Borer/EAB%20Response%20Management%20Plan%206-15.pdf.

Thomas, D. 2010. Staying ahead of the ash borer. Southwest Journal, March.Accessed October 2010.www.swjournal.com/index.php?tag=18&story=15156&page=152&category=63.

USDA Forest Service, Michigan State University, Purdue University and Ohio StateUniversity. 2010. “Emerald Ash Borer.” Accessed October 2010.www.emeraldashborer.info/faq.cfm.

29

  

Appendices

Appendix A: Questionnaire for Homeowners

Appendix B: Letter to Homeowners

Appendix C: St. Louis Park’s Emerald Ash Borer Brochure

Appendix D: Phone Prompt/Interview Questions for Neighborhood Leaders

Appendix E: Summary of Questionnaire Responses: Response Rate and Percent per

Question

  

Appendix A : Questionnaire for Homeowners

Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) St. Louis Park Residential Questionnaire EAB Awareness and Communication The following questions will guide us in understanding community awareness of emerald ash borer, as well as help us evaluate communication in your community about emerald ash borer. 1) How would you rate your level of awareness about emerald ash borer (EAB)? Please check one.

o Very aware o Somewhat aware o I am not aware of emerald ash borer

2) Do you think EAB has been found in St. Louis Park?

o Yes o No o I don’t know

3a) Where have you found or received information about EAB? Please check all that apply

o National EAB website o University of Minnesota Extension o Minnesota Department of Agriculture o Minnesota Department of Natural Resources o City of St. Louis Park website o City of St. Louis Park contacted me o City of St. Louis Park: Park and Recreation demonstrations o Park Perspective (St. Louis Park newsletter) o Sun Sailor (St. Louis Park newspaper) o Other ______________________________ o I have not looked for or received information on EAB

b) The following are methods of communicating information about EAB and tree management to residents in your community. Please rank your top three choices from the following list with 1 being most effective and 3 being least effective. __ St. Louis Park website __ Park Perspective (SLP newsletter) __ Sun Sailor (SLP newspaper) __ Door flyers __ Mail __ Included with utility bill __ Other _____________________________

4) On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no threat at all and 5 being a major threat, do you think EAB is a threat

to St. Louis Park? Please circle one number or “I don’t know”

No threat 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ----5 Major threat o I don’t know

5) Do you know that the City of St. Louis Park provides a FREE inspection service for trees on your property and that they will also provide maintenance recommendations?

  

o Yes, I do know of this service o No, I did not know of this service

Tree Care: Practices and Values The following questions will help us understand what guides your tree management practices. 6a) Do you have any ash trees on your property?

o Yes o No o I don’t know

b) If yes, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not valued at all and 5 being highly valued, how much do you value your ash tree? Please circle one number Not valued at all 1 ---- 2 ---- 3 ---- 4 ----5 Highly valued 7) If you have an ash tree on your property, what action (if any) would you take? Please check one

o Have the tree inspected for EAB o Have the tree treated with a preventative pesticide o Have the tree removed, and not replace it o Replace the tree with a different type of tree o Wait until signs of stress appear o Take no action o I don’t know

8a) If an infected ash tree was found on your property and was removed, would you be willing to replace it?

o Yes o No

b) If yes, with what type of tree would you replace it? Check one that you would consider.

o Flowering (Example: Serviceberry, Japanese lilac) o Fruiting (Example: Crabapple, Hawthorne, Ginkgo) o Non-fruit dropping (Example: White Oak, Basswood, Maple, Birch) o Shade (Example: Oak, Elm, Catalpa) o Evergreen (Example: Pine, Spruce, Fir) o I don’t know

c) If no, why do you prefer not to replace it? _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9) What are your concerns related to EAB? Please check all that apply

o Tree removal/loss of tree canopy o Cost o Use of pesticides o Spread of EAB/infection of other trees o Property values o Aesthetics of the neighborhood

  

o Other ___________________________ o I have no concerns related to EAB o I don’t know

10) Are you aware that the transportation of firewood contributes to the spread of EAB?

o Yes o No

11) If an infected ash tree was found on your property, how much money would you expect to spend to have it removed?

o Less than $500 o $500-$1000 o $1001-$1500 o More than $1500

A Bit about You These questions will help in analyzing EAB preparedness needs by generating some general demographics. These answers will not be traced to you. 12) How many people live in your household? ________ 13) What are the ages of the adults living in the household?

Age of Adult 1______ Age of Adult 2______ Age of Adult 3______ Age of Adult 4______ 14) Please provide any other comments or concerns involving EAB that have not been addressed in the questionnaire: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If you would like to receive the results from this project, please include your email address: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

FOR MORE INFORMATION We would be happy to communicate with you if you have any questions or comments about this study. You can reach us by email at kcn@umn.edu or by phone at 612-624-1277. If you have any questions about participants’

rights, please call the University of Minnesota IRB office at 612-626-5654.

  

Appendix B: Letter to Homeowners

October 29, 2010

Dear Homeowner, You have been selected to participate in a research study carried out by students from the University of Minnesota about emerald ash borer (EAB), a growing concern for managing our ash trees. Over the course of the next two months, we will be assisting the City of St. Louis Park as they move forward on plans to address the potential threat of EAB within the city. We will be creating a report for the City of St. Louis Park to give them insights about residents’ thoughts regarding trees and how best to deal with the potential threat of EAB within the community. In the enclosed questionnaire, we ask you a variety of questions that will help provide a better understanding of community awareness as well as current tree care practices and values in relation to EAB. There are no right or wrong answers to any of these questions. The questionnaire should take approximately 5 to 10 minutes to complete. In order to complete the questionnaire we require that you be at least 18 years old and a primary decision maker in the household. Please be assured that all questionnaire information will be kept confidential. Only summary data will be presented in our report. Your participation in this study is voluntary and you do not need to answer all of the questions, however, any and all information that you provide will be extremely helpful to our study.

You represent a small number of randomly selected St. Louis Park residents who are being asked to complete this questionnaire and we would greatly appreciate your participation. In exchange for your participation, you can opt to receive a summary of the results by including your email address in the final question of the questionnaire. If you have any questions about this study, please contact Kristen Nelson (Associate Professor, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota) by phone at 612-624-1277 or by e-mail at nelso468@umn.edu. If you would like to talk to someone other than the researchers with any additional questions or concerns regarding the questionnaire, you can contact the Research Subjects’ Advocate Line, at D528 Mayo, 420 Delaware St. Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455; (612) 625-1650.

If you would like more information on EAB, please visit: http://www.emeraldashborer.info. Once you have completed the questionnaire to the best of your ability, please use the enclosed envelope to return the completed questionnaire by Friday, November 12, 2010.

Thank you for sharing your ideas with us. Sincerely, Jenna MacKenzie, Group Leader Kristen C. Nelson, PhD Associate Professor Department of Forest Resources

 

Appendix C: St. Louis Park’s Emerald Ash Borer Brochure

2  

 

Appendix D: Phone Prompt/Interview Questions for Neighborhood Leaders

Who: Student from the University of Minnesota working on a senior class project creating

recommendations for Parks and Recreation Department of St. Louis Park What: Project focuses on community capacity through resident awareness/preparedness for emerald ash

borer (EAB) and tree management How benefits: Info used for Park and Recreation Department planning. It will assist in learning resident

perspectives and concerns as they relate to EAB preparedness. Why you: Because you are a neighborhood president, you have an important perspective on neighborhood

preparedness. Would you be available for a short phone interview?

Neighborhood Name Date Start Time End Time Caller Tell me a little about the history of your neighborhood.

How long have you lived in this neighborhood? How long have you been neighborhood (title)? What aspects of the neighborhood are residents

proud of?

Thinking about the look of the neighborhood and what residents value, how important do you think trees are for this neighborhood?

Regarding trees, emerald ash borer is a non-native invasive beetle that attacks ash trees. Were you aware of the emerald ash borer problem in the Twin Cities?

Have people in your neighborhood expressed concerns to you about emerald ash borer?

Yes – what are their concerns? No – why do you think they have not expressed concerns?

Awareness – What do you think would be the most effective method to increase awareness regarding emerald ash borer to the residents in your neighborhood?

Lack of priority Don’t care Not a threat Do NOT have ash Not the right person to contact

What are current challenges your neighborhood is facing?

 

How would you compare/rank the threat of emerald ash borer to these challenges?

What actions do you think neighborhood residents would take in response to emerald ash borer infestation?

What do think is the best response resident’s could have in dealing with Emerald Ash Borer on their property?

Don’t Know – Examples given (if needed):

Do you have any concerns for your neighborhood regarding emerald ash borer?

Yes – what are they? No

What role do you think the neighborhood (titles) could play in preparing for EAB among residents?

What is the main pathway you use for communication with the residents of your neighborhood?

Is there anything else you believe we should be considering as we think about EAB and SLP residents’ capacity to respond?

Thank you very much…..this will be very helpful in making suggestions about how St. Louis Park can strengthen community capacity for EAB preparedness.

 

Appendix E: Summary of Questionnaire Responses: Response Rate and Percent per

Question

EAB Awareness and Communication 1.) How would you rate your level of awareness about the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

Very aware 6 9 9 Somewhat aware 44 67 67 I am not aware of the Emerald Ash Borer 16 24 24 Total: 66 2.) Do you think EAB has been found in Saint Louis Park?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

Yes 20 30 30 No 20 30 30 I don’t know 26 40 40 Total: 66 3a.) Where have you found or received information about EAB?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

National EAB Website 2 3 3 University of Minnesota Extension 7 11 11 Minnesota Department of Agriculture 2 3 3 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 6 10 10 City of St. Louis Park 6 10 10 City of St. Louis Park Contacted Me 2 3 3 City of St. Louis Park: Park and Recreation

demonstrations 0 0 0

Park Perspective (SLP newsletter) 14 22 22 Sun Sailor (SLP newspaper) 13 21 21 Other (Local News) Other (Current Survey) Other

23 8 2

32 3

13

32 3

13

Total: 66 3b.) What do you feel is the most effective way to communicate information about EAB and tree management to residents in your community? Most

Effective Method Answers

% of Respondents

(Most Effective)

Top 3 Answers

% of

Respondents (Top 3)

St. Louis Park Website 3 5 12 18 Park Perspective (SLP newsletter) 12 18 32 48 Sun Sailor (SLP newspaper) 5 8 30 45 Door Flyers 12 18 38 58 Mail 15 23 44 67 Included with Utility Bill 11 17 28 42 Other 7 11 7 11 Total: 66 4.) On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being no threat at all and 5 being a big threat, do you think EAB is a threat to St. Louis Park?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

1 1 2 2

 

2 7 11 11 3 20 31 30 4 13 20 20 5 Don’t Know

4 20

6 31

6 30

Total: 65 5.) Do you know that the City of St. Louis Park provides a FREE inspection service for trees on your property and that they will also provide maintenance recommendations?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

Yes, I do know of this service 51 77 77 No, I did not know of this service 15 23 23 Total: 66

Tree Care: Practices and Values 6a.) Do you have any ash trees on your property?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

Yes 13 20 20 No 31 47 47 I don’t know 22 33 33 Total: 66 6b.) If yes, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not valued at all and 5 being highly valued, how much do you value your Ash tree?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

1 1 9 2 2 2 18 3 3 1 9 2 4 3 27 5 5 4 37 6 Total: 11 7.) If you have an ash tree on your property, what action (if any) would you take?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

Have the tree inspected for EAB 18 41 27 Have the tree treated with a preventative

pesticide 6 14 9

Have the tree removed, and not replace it Replace the tree with a different type of tree

2 4

5 9

3 6

Wait until signs of stress appear 6 14 9 Take no action 2 5 3 I don’t know 6 14 9 Total: 44 8a.) If an infected ash tree was found on your property and was removed, would you be willing to replace it?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

Yes 51 86 77 No 8 14 12 Total: 59 8b.) If yes, with what type of tree would you replace it?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

Flowering (Serviceberry, Japanese lilac) 8 13 12

Fruiting (Crabapple, Hawthorne, Ginkgo)

3 5 5

 

Non-fruit dropping (White Oak, Basswood, Maple, Birch)

19 30 29

Shade (Oak, Elm, Catalpa) 14 22 21

Coniferous (Pine, Spruce, Fir) 4 6 6 I don’t know 14 22 21 Total: 64 8c.) If no, why do you prefer not to replace it? * Responses not included in Table 9.) What are your concerns related to EAB?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

Tree removal/loss of tree canopy 31 18 48 Cost 35 20 55 Use of pesticides 24 14 38 Spread of EAB/infection of other trees 34 19 53 Property values 15 8 23 Aesthetics of the neighborhood 23 13 36 Other 3 2 5 I have no concerns related to EAB 3 2 5 I don’t know 8 4 13 Total: 176 10.) Are you aware that the transportation of firewood contributes to the spread of EAB?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

Yes 56 86 85 No 9 14 14 Total: 65 11.) If an infected ash tree was found on your property, how much money would you expect to spend to have it removed?

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

Less than $500 30 52 45 $500-$1000 15 26 23 $1001-$1500 8 14 12 More than $1500 5 8 8 Total: 58

A Bit about You 12.) How many people live in your household

Answers % of

Answers % of

Respondents

1 17 28 26 2 25 42 38 3 8 13 12 4 7 12 11 5 or more 3 5 5 Total: 60 13.) What are the ages of the adults living in the household? * Responses not included in Table 14.) Please provide any other comments or concerns involving EAB that have not been addressed in the questionnaire: * Responses not included in Table