Characteristics and Perceptions of Cost-share Funding for Emerald Ash Borer Mitigation in Virginia Urban Areas Peter W. Stewart Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Forestry P. Eric Wiseman, Chair John F. Munsell Scott M. Salom May 23, 2019 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: invasive species management, forest health, incentive program Copyright 2019, Peter Stewart Characteristics and Perceptions of Cost-share Funding for Emerald Ash Borer Mitigation in Virginia Urban Areas Peter W. Stewart ABSTRACT (ACADEMIC) Since most invasive forest pests first establish in urban areas, detection and containment of these pests within cities is important to the health of all forests. While the emerald ash borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) has proved difficult to contain, efforts continue to mitigate the impacts of its spread. As part of those efforts, the Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF) initiated its Emerald Ash Borer Treatment Program (EABTP) in 2018, providing financial incentives for insecticidal protection of ash trees. To better understand the role of incentives in promoting urban forest health, I conducted a study of properties, households, and practitioners involved in the program’s first year. To examine where EABTP funding helped pay for tree protection, I conducted tree inventories on 16 urban participant properties. Concurrently with tree inventory work, I conducted web and mail surveys to examine homeowner engagement in preservation of threatened trees. Finally, to investigate the role of forest practitioners involved in program implementation, I conducted web surveys of VDOF foresters and Virginia arborists. Results demonstrated that on urban participant properties—typically large and wooded—white ash (Fraxinus americana) was the dominant species. Results from homeowner surveys demonstrated broad support for personal investment in tree preservation, and the significance of attitudinal predictors towards those intentions. Results from practitioner surveys demonstrated substantial, though not unanimous, support for the program as a benefit both to clients and forests. Implications of these findings are discussed in the context of future urban forest health initiatives. Characteristics and Perceptions of Cost-share Funding for Emerald Ash Borer Mitigation in Virginia Urban Areas Peter W. Stewart ABSTRACT (PUBLIC) Because most non-native forest pests arrive in cities before spreading to rural areas, detecting and containing these pests within urban forests is important to all forested areas. One non-native pest, the emerald ash borer (EAB), has proved difficult to contain, but there are ongoing efforts to limit the damage it causes as it spreads. As part of those efforts, the Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF) began its Emerald Ash Borer Treatment Program (EABTP) in 2018, which offered partial reimbursement for the cost of protecting ash trees with insecticide. To better understand how reimbursement payments might help promote the health of urban trees, I studied the properties, households, and practitioners involved in first year of the program. To examine where EABTP funding helped pay for tree protection, I conducted inventories of all trees on 16 participating properties in urban areas. At the same time, I conducted web and mail surveys to examine how homeowners thought about urban tree preservation. Finally, I conducted web surveys of VDOF foresters and Virginia arborists, to investigate roles of these practitioners in implementing the program. Results indicated that on urban participant properties, which were typically large and wooded, white ash was the dominant species. Results from homeowner surveys demonstrated broad support for personal investment in tree preservation, and the significance of attitudes in predicting that support. Results from practitioner surveys demonstrated substantial, though not unanimous, support for the program as a benefit both to clients and forests. These findings are discussed in the context of future urban forest health programs. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to Dr. Eric Wiseman for guidance and encouragement throughout my entire graduate program. Thanks also to committee members Dr. Scott Salom and Dr. John Munsell for providing important feedback and support throughout the process of study design, survey research, and analysis. A big thanks to Lori Chamberlin, Meredith Bean, and all at Virginia Department of Forestry’s Forest Health and Urban & Community Forestry divisions for collaboration and distribution of survey requests. I’m extremely grateful for the help of John Peterson at Virginia Tech in conducting tree inventories on properties around the state, in mostly frigid conditions. Thanks also to Sarah Gugercin, Tiffany Brown, and David Reep at Virginia Tech for the time and expertise they contributed towards survey layout and mailing. Additionally, I’m grateful for the help of many of my graduate student colleagues with technical aspects of geographic and survey data analysis. I also greatly appreciate the contributions of time and personal input from all homeowners, arborists, and foresters who participated in surveys or property inventories. Finally, I’m grateful for the constant support my wife Laura has provided during this project. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... x LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Research Background ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Research Objectives .............................................................................................. 2 CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 4 2.1 Biological Invasions in North America ................................................................. 4 2.2 Historical Impacts of Invasive Forest Pests and Pathogens .................................. 5 2.3 Arrival, Spread, and Impacts of the Emerald Ash Borer ....................................... 8 2.4 Biology and Control of EAB ............................................................................... 12 2.4.1 Strategies for Municipal EAB Management ............................................... 14 2.4.2 State-level EAB Management Cost-share Programs .................................. 15 2.5 Historical and Current Context of Incentive Programs ....................................... 16 2.6 Analysis of Incentive Programs and Landowner Participation ........................... 18 2.7 Summary of Literature ........................................................................................ 22 CHAPTER 3 – SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN EABTP PARTICIPANT PROPERTIES ............................................................................................ 24 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Methods ............................................................................................................... 25 3.2.1 Definition of Target Population ................................................................... 25 3.2.2 Selection of Sites.......................................................................................... 25 3.2.3 Data Collection: Participant Properties ........................................................ 26 3.2.4 Data Processing: i-Tree Eco......................................................................... 25 3.2.5 Data Compilation: Urban Forest Assessments .......................................... 259 3.2.6 Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 30 3.3 Results ................................................................................................................. 31 3.3.1 Data Validation ............................................................................................ 31 3.3.2 Cluster Analysis of Participant Properties ................................................... 32 3.3.3 Comparison of Species Composition Among Sites ..................................... 35 v 3.3.4 Comparison of Species Composition Between Sites and Surrounding Urban Forests.. ...................................................................................................... 36 3.3.5 Linear Models of Species Composition ....................................................... 39 3.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 41 CHAPTER 4 – HOMEOWNER ENGAGEMENT IN LANDSCAPE TREE PRESERVATION ........................................................................................................ 43 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 43 4.2 Methods ............................................................................................................... 45 4.2.1 Construction of Survey Sampling Frames .................................................. 45 4.2.2 Construction