United States Department of Agriculture

Stewardship Mapping and 

Assessment Project: A Framework 

for Understanding CommunityBased Environmental Stewardship

Forest Service Northern Research Station General Technical Report NRS-156 January 2016
Abstract

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP) is designed to answer 

who, where, why, and how environmental stewardship groups are caring for our 

urbanized landscapes. This report is intended to be a guide for those who wish to 

start STEW-MAP in their own city. It contains step-by-step directions for how to plan 

and implement a STEW-MAP project. STEW-MAP is both an empirical study of a city’s 

or region’s civic environmental stewardship resources and a publicly available online 

database to help support environmental stewardship broadly in these cities. The project 

adds a social layer of information to biophysical and urban geographic information 

on green infrastructure in cities. STEW-MAP highlights existing stewardship gaps and 

overlaps in order to strengthen organizational capacities, enhance citizen monitoring, 

promote broader public engagement with on-the-ground environmental work, and build 

effective partnerships among stakeholders involved in urban sustainability.

Quality Assurance

This publication conforms to the Northern Research Station’s Quality Assurance 

Implementation Plan which requires technical and policy review for all scientific 

publications produced or funded by the Station. The process included a blind technical 

review by at least two reviewers, who were selected by the Assistant Director for Research 

and unknown to the author. This review policy promotes the Forest Service guiding 

principles of using the best scientific knowledge, striving for quality and excellence, 

maintaining high ethical and professional standards, and being responsible and 

accountable for what we do.

Cover Photos

Clockwise from top left: community gardeners at plant giveaway in New York City. Top 

right: volunteers wheel woodchips during a Chicago Wilderness Corporate Council Day of 

Service, photo courtesy of Chicago Wilderness. Center right: steward of a 9/11 memorial 

garden in the streetscape. Lower right: front yard gardener in Brooklyn, NY. Lower left: 

volunteers at a MillionTreesNYC planting, photo courtesy of Malcolm Pinckney, NYC 

Parks. Center left: participants learn about urban bird behavior in a Loyola Marymount 

University urban ecology professional development workshop in Los Angeles, photo by 

Michele Romolini. All other photos by U.S. Forest Service.

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information 

and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or 

approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Forest Service of any product or 

service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.
Stewardship Mapping and 

Assessment Project: 

A Framework for Understanding 

Community-Based Environmental 

Stewardship

Northern Research Station General Technical Report NRS-156

The Authors

ERIKA S. SVENDSEN is a research social scientist and team leader with the Northern Research 

Station of the U.S. Forest Service, based in New York, NY.

LINDSAY K. CAMPBELL is a research social scientist with the Northern Research Station of the 

U.S. Forest Service, based in New York, NY.

DANA R. FISHER is a professor of sociology and Director of the Program for Society and the 

Environment at University of Maryland, based in College Park, MD.

JAMES J.T. CONNOLLY is an assistant professor of Public Policy and Political Science at 

Northeastern University, based in Boston, MA.

MICHELLE L. JOHNSON is an interdisciplinary scientist with the Northern Research Station of 

the U.S. Forest Service, based in New York, NY.

NANCY F. SONTI is an ecologist with the Northern Research Station of the U.S. Forest Service, 

based in Baltimore, MD.

DEXTER H. LOCKE is a Ph.D. student in geography at Clark University, based in Worcester, MA.

LYNNE M. WESTPHAL is a research social scientist and Project Leader with the Northern 

Research Station of the U.S. Forest Service, based in Evanston, IL.

CHERIE LEBLANC FISHER is a social scientist with the Northern Research Station of the U.S. 

Forest Service, based in Evanston, IL.

J. MORGAN GROVE is a research social scientist and team leader with the Northern Research 

Station of the U.S. Forest Service, based in Baltimore, MD.

MICHELE ROMOLINI is a postdoctoral fellow and part-time faculty at Loyola Marymount 

University, based in Los Angeles, CA.

DALE J. BLAHNA is a research social scientist and team leader with the Pacific Northwest 

Research Station of the U.S. Forest Service, based in Seattle, WA.

KATHLEEN L. WOLF is a research social scientist with College of the Environment, University of 

Washington and has a joint appointment with the Pacific Northwest Research Station of the 

U.S. Forest Service, based in Seattle, WA.
Published by

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073

January 2016

For additional copies:

U.S. Forest Service

Publications Distribution

359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8640

Fax: (740)368-0152

Email: nrspubs@fs.fed.us

Manuscript received for publication 10 July 2015
CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................1

Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................2

What is Stewardship and Why Is It Important?........................................................................................5

Cities as Social-Ecological Systems.........................................................................................................5

Stewardship Organizations.......................................................................................................................5

Stewardship Turf: Spatial Analysis..........................................................................................................6

Stewardship Networks................................................................................................................................7

Project Planning and Design..........................................................................................................................8

Planning the Project.....................................................................................................................................8

Survey Preparation.......................................................................................................................................9

Data Collection from Stewardship Groups....................................................................................... 15

Data Clean-up and Analysis................................................................................................................... 18

Ongoing Data Management.................................................................................................................. 20

Synthesis: Using STEW-MAP to Answer Your Questions................................................................... 21

How many civic stewardship groups are in my city? .................................................................... 21

What are the organizational characteristics of civic stewardship groups? ........................... 22

What is the primary focus of stewardship groups? ....................................................................... 22

What environmental sites do civic environmental organizations steward?......................... 23

Where does environmental stewardship occur? ............................................................................ 24

How can we characterize the urban environmental stewardship network?........................ 25

Social-Ecological Questions................................................................................................................... 27

Public Applications and Visualization................................................................................................. 28

Lessons Learned .............................................................................................................................................. 28

Have GIS Expertise on Your Team......................................................................................................... 29

Establish the Population that You are Studying so that You Can Determine Response 

Rate ................................................................................................................................................................. 29

Clearly Communicate Your Definition of Stewardship................................................................. 29

Expanding the Tool.................................................................................................................................... 29

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................ 30

Appendix 1: Project Teams and Websites............................................................................................... 36

Appendix 2: Survey Protocols..................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix 3: New York City Survey Invitation Materials..................................................................128

Appendix 4: STEW-MAP Fact Sheet ........................................................................................................130
Page intentionally left blank
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP) is a U.S. Forest 

Service national research program designed to answer the questions: Who are the active 

environmental stewardship groups in my area and where, why, and how are they caring for the 

land?

STEW-MAP studies a city’s or region’s environmental stewardship regime, creating 

publicly available maps and databases to help support community development. 

The project adds a social layer of information to biophysical information on green 

infrastructure in metropolitan areas.

STEW-MAP captures environmental stewardship through a combination of methods that 

includes an organizational survey to identify organizational characteristics, mapping the 

geographic area of influence, and depicting the social networks with other civic, private, 

and governmental organizations.

STEW-MAP defines a “stewardship group” as a civic organization or group that works 

to conserve, manage, monitor, advocate for, and/or educate the public about their local 

environments.

Where has STEW-MAP been implemented?

Initially a New York City project, STEW-MAP has grown into a multi-city research 

program. To date, the project has been replicated in Baltimore, the Chicago region, and 

Seattle. Studies are underway in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Juan, PR. Atlanta, 

Boston, and Washington, D.C., are also interested in conducting STEW-MAP studies. 

The original New York City STEW-MAP was developed by a team of Forest Service 

and university researchers working with dozens of municipal agencies and citywide 

environmental nonprofits who identified a need to create a common database and map.

Why is STEW-MAP important?

Long-term community-based natural resource stewardship can help support and maintain 

our investment in green infrastructure and urban restoration projects. STEW-MAP 

databases and interactive maps enable the public, municipal agencies, and nonprofits to 

visualize where and how hundreds of civic environmental stewardship groups are working 

throughout a city or region. Custom downloads of STEW‐MAP data have been used by 

local government and civic organizations in support of policymaking and natural resource 

management activities. Network analyses of these groups show the connections between 

civic environmental actors and identify important stewardship nodes within the network. 

Analysis of where stewardship is or is not taking place highlights opportunities or issues to 

address in meeting local conservation goals.
2

INTRODUCTION

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP) is a U.S. Forest Service 

national research program designed to answer the questions: Who are the active environmental 

stewardship groups in my area and where, why, and how are they caring for the land?

STEW-MAP uses respondent survey data both to empirically study a city’s or region’s civic 

environmental stewardship regime and to create publicly available online resources (maps 

and databases) to help support community development. The project adds a social layer 

of information to biophysical and urban geographic information on green infrastructure 

in metropolitan areas. STEW-MAP highlights existing stewardship gaps and overlaps 

in order to strengthen organizational capacities, enhance citizen monitoring, promote 

broader public engagement with on-the-ground environmental work, and build effective 

partnerships among stakeholders involved in urban sustainability. As funding support for 

green infrastructure fluctuates, it is important to cultivate long-term, community-based 

natural resource stewardship because it can maintain a consistency 

and coherence to natural resource management. STEW-MAP creates 

a framework to connect potentially fragmented stewardship groups 

and to measure, monitor, and maximize the contribution of our civic 

resources. This has become increasingly important in an urbanizing 

world where many cities have launched sustainability initiatives.

STEW-MAP defines a “stewardship group” as a civic organization 

or group that works to conserve, manage, monitor, advocate for, and/

or educate the public about their local environments. This work includes efforts that involve 

water, forests, land, air, waste, toxics, and energy. Many civic stewardship groups work within, 

alongside, or independent of public agencies and private businesses in managing urban places.

To date, STEW-MAP researchers have collected information from thousands of local 

stewardship groups. These groups include neighborhood block associations, kayak clubs, 

tree planting groups, community gardeners, regional environmental coalitions, nonprofit 

educational institutions, and museums. Initially a New York City project, STEW-MAP 

has grown into a multi-city research program. To date, the project has been replicated by 

U.S. Forest Service researchers in Baltimore, the Chicago region, and Seattle. Studies are 

underway in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Other cities, including San Juan, Puerto Rico; 

Atlanta; Boston; and Washington, D.C., are also interested in conducting STEW-MAP 

studies. The original New York City (NYC) STEW-MAP was developed by a team of Forest 

Service and university researchers working with dozens of municipal agencies and citywide 

environmental nonprofits who identified a need to create a common database and map. 

Other STEW-MAP initiatives have continued this emphasis on partnerships: see appendix 1 

for a list of all partners involved in STEW-MAP to date.

The Stewardship Mapping 

and Assessment Project 

(STEW-MAP) is a 

U.S. Forest Service 

national research program.
3

What Does STEW-MAP Show?

Stewardship maps can tell you about the presence, 

capacity, geographic turf, and social networks of 

environmental stewardship groups in a given city 

or region (Fig 1). For the first time, these social 

infrastructure data are treated as part of green 

infrastructure asset mapping. For example, the 

interactive mapping website developed in NYC 

currently displays data for hundreds of groups 

citywide alongside other open space data layers. 

Chicago’s STEW-MAP data are also available online 

at stewmap.cnt.org, allowing stewardship groups to 

find others working near them and/or working on 

similar issues. Other STEW-MAP projects continue 

to expand the NYC model and have created new 

maps and resources for their cities.

Why is STEW-MAP Important?

STEW-MAP can highlight existing stewardship 

gaps and overlaps (Fig. 2) in order to strengthen 

organizational capacities, enhance citizen monitoring, 

promote broader civic engagement with on-theground environmental projects, and build effective 

partnerships among stakeholders involved in urban 

sustainability. Long-term community-based natural 

resource stewardship can help support and maintain 

investments in green infrastructure and urban 

restoration projects. To maximize these benefits, 

STEW-MAP creates a framework to connect 

potentially fragmented stewardship groups with the 

ultimate goal of optimizing the contribution of our 

civic organizations towards urban natural resources 

stewardship.

STEW-MAP databases and interactive maps enable 

the public, municipal agencies, and nonprofits 

to visualize where and how hundreds of civic 

environmental stewardship groups are working 

throughout a city or region, which informs natural 

resource management, policymaking, and public 

outreach. Custom downloads of STEW‐MAP 

data have been used by local government and civic 

organizations in support of policymaking and natural 

resource management activities. Network analyses 

of these groups for each city or region shows the 

Figure 1.—Map created to visualize social infrastructure by 

showing the location of civic stewardship group offices in New 

York City.

Figure 2.—Map created for natural resource managers of 

stewardship groups proximate to Flushing Meadows Park in 

Queens, NY.
4

connections between civic environmental actors and identifies important stewardship nodes 

within the network. Analysis of where stewardship is or is not taking place in a city or region 

highlights opportunities or issues to address in meeting local conservation goals.

Who can use STEW-MAP?

STEW-MAP is a tool for natural resource managers, funders, policymakers, educators, 

stewardship groups, and the public. For example, managers in NYC have queried STEWMAP to find stewardship groups working near specific forest restoration projects run by 

MillionTreesNYC, a public-private tree-planting initiative. Funders or community organizers can 

also identify areas with the largest presence of stewardship groups, given organization size and 

focus area. Policymakers wishing to disseminate policy information can select the most connected 

groups from the STEW-MAP database using social network analysis. Members of the public 

who want to know who is working in a particular neighborhood or who can provide technical 

resources for a project can search the database, which displays results as a list or on a map.

What makes STEW-MAP unique?

At present, no natural resource agency or organization is collecting and distributing 

comprehensive civic stewardship data at the local level. STEW-MAP aims to fill this gap. 

Four features make STEW-MAP unique. First, STEW-MAP uses a broad definition of 

stewardship—conserving, managing, caring for, monitoring, advocating for, and educating the 

public about local environments—and invites participation from all types of environmental 

stewards, not just those who are formally trained, work with nonprofit groups, or focus on a 

specific type of stewardship activity. Second, STEW-MAP collects very specific geographic 

data about where stewardship groups work (i.e., stewardship polygons, not points) which is 

important for coordinating management of open spaces and 

the delivery of ecosystem services from natural areas. Third, 

STEW-MAP collects social network data from respondents 

in order to characterize the flow of information, funding, 

and collaboration among stewardship groups in a city or 

region. Once network, geospatial, and organizational data 

are established, they can then be studied over time to reveal 

important changes or patterns in your stewardship community. 

Finally, the STEW-MAP survey and related data analysis are scientifically rigorous and are 

guided and informed by an extensive literature review on urban environmental stewardship.

What is in this report?

This report is intended to be a guide for those who wish to start STEW-MAP in their own 

city. First, we present a brief conceptual introduction, grounded in literature about socialecological systems, stewardship, and civic environmentalism. Second, we offer guidance for 

how to apply a stewardship framework in your own area of interest and implement a STEWMAP project. Third, the results section provides research findings and public applications 

from the several cities that have completed STEW-MAP projects to date: New York City, 

Baltimore, Chicago, Seattle, and Philadelphia. The conclusions section describes lessons learned 

by the original STEW-MAP cohort to inform future cities’ efforts. The appendixes list project 

partners (appendix 1) and provide a full set of survey protocols (appendix 2) and outreach 

materials (appendixes 3 and 4).

STEW-MAP is 

unique in that it collects 

and distributes civic 

stewardship data.
5

WHAT IS STEWARDSHIP AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

Cities as Social-Ecological Systems

As of 2010, over three-quarters of the U.S. population and half of the world’s population live in 

cities (UN 2010). Increasing urbanization contributes to significant consumption of resources, 

sprawling land use patterns, loss of native species, and reduced ecosystem services (Folke et 

al. 1997, McKinney 2002). However, dense urban areas can also be a source of 

environmental solutions through dense settlement patterns, information flow, and 

social innovation (Bettencourt and West 2011, Glaeser and Kahn 2008, Grimm et 

al. 2008, Grove 2009, Owen 2009).

Making measurable improvements in the environment and the quality of people’s 

lives requires innovative research to understand the complex interactions among 

components of an urban system. One framework used to facilitate such studies is 

the combination of ecological and social theories and perspectives into the study 

of social-ecological systems. Our thinking about integrated social and ecological 

systems emerged from the field of social ecology and, in particular, the two urban 

long-term ecological research (LTER) sites, one in Baltimore, MD (USA), the 

other in Phoenix, AZ (USA). Historically, theories and models from ecology have treated 

humans as outside of the ecosystem. Newer frameworks of social-ecological systems and 

coupled human and natural systems consider the components as fundamentally intertwined 

(Liu et al. 2007, Pickett et al. 1997, Pickett and Grove 2009). The Human Ecosystem 

Framework examines critical resources that include biophysical, socioeconomic, and cultural 

resources. It also examines the flows between critical resources and the social system, which 

includes institutions, norms, and cycles of change (Machlis et al. 1997). The coupled human 

and natural systems framework draws upon concepts from complexity theory such as emergent 

properties, vulnerability, thresholds, and resilience to examine how human and natural systems 

interact across time and space (Liu et al. 2007). Ostrom and others have expanded upon 

the institutional aspects of social-ecological systems by integrating them with Institutional 

Analysis and Development concepts (Anderies and Ostrom 2004). Emerging from these 

different streams of thought about social and ecological systems is an attention to time, space, 

and scale, specifically, the governance of cities, including how individuals and organizations 

(public, private, and civic) work in networks to create and manage the urban environment 

through acts of environmental stewardship.

Stewardship Organizations

Urban environmental stewards conserve, manage, monitor, and advocate for the local 

environment; they also educate the public about the local environment (Fisher et al. 2007). 

Individuals form groups to care for their local environment for many reasons. STEW-MAP 

is primarily interested in the type of stewardship that is often voluntary and conducted for 

altruistic reasons (Bramston et al. 2011, Geist and Galatowitsch 1999, Head and Muir 2006, 

Stevens 1996, Westphal 1993). These types of groups are critical as parks departments and 

other land management and natural resources agencies are forced to “do more with less” as they 

compete for public funds alongside other essential agencies and worthwhile expenditures. At 

the same time, open space in most cities and urbanized areas is heterogeneous, resulting in a 

high demand for specialized stewardship activities that are tailored to particular neighborhood 

and/or site types including parks, gardens, farms, bioswales, greenways, and green roofs. 

Urban areas 

can be a source 

of environmental 

solutions through 

dense settlement 

patterns, information 

flow, and social 

innovation.
6

Research on ”civic stewardship” focuses on how locally based groups across the United States 

have responded to public problems by working along with, and outside of, government 

agencies and the private business sector (see particularly Fisher et al. 2012, Fisher et al. 2015, 

John 1994, Sirianni 2006, Sirianni and Friedland 2001, Svendsen and Campbell 2008). Most 

environmental stewardship today consists of this type of collaborative, site-specific work. 

Urban stewards operate in urban parks and forest preserves (Cranz 1982, Cranz and Boland 

2004, Gobster 2007, Gobster 2000, Rosenzweig and Blackmar 1992, Stevens 1996), urban 

gardens (Lawson 2005), urban greenways (Gobster and Westphal 2004, Svendsen 2010), 

and even brownfields (Westphal et al. 2010). Diverse groups have taken action to manage 

ecosystems, protect human and ecosystem health, and educate broader publics (Boyte 2004, 

Boyte 1999, Sirianni and Friedland 2001). Boyte, for example, notes a shift in the 

role of the public as citizens, whereby “people [see] themselves as the co-creators 

of democracy, not simply as customers or clients, voters, protestors, or volunteers” 

(Boyte 2004, p. 5). In particular, citizens have become involved in politics and 

decisionmaking through their actual work.

Environmental stewardship has emerged as a leading tool for communities to 

contribute to the sustainability of their local environments and the resilience of their 

communities (Svendsen et al. 2014). In the report “Everyday Choices: Opportunities 

for Environmental Stewardship,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Innovation Action Council begins: “We believe environmental stewardship offers 

great potential for solving some of our most challenging problems and that it can 

help galvanize collaborations with a broader range of stakeholders” (US EPA 2005: i).

With roots that go back to the founding of the country, civic environmental stewardship today 

occurs at a range of scales and in a variety of forms. Civic stewards include the neighborhood 

block club that clears a vacant lot one garbage bagful at a time in order to create a community 

garden space, the environmental justice group that protests the coal-fired power plant 

polluting in their neighborhood, and large alliances like Chicago Wilderness and other 

members of the Metropolitan Greenspaces Alliance that look at regional-scale environmental 

issues. Civic stewardship groups work both alongside and independent of public agencies and 

private businesses in managing urban landscapes (Connolly et al. 2013). Local environmental 

groups have a diversity of organizational structures (e.g., Andrews and Edwards 2005, Salazar 

1996, see also Brulle 2000). One goal of STEW-MAP is to assess the differences in the 

organizational structure and degree of professionalization of local environmental groups 

within an urban context (see Fisher et al. 2012). 

Stewardship Turf: Spatial Analysis

The spatial patterns of where stewardship organizations work may be a function of 

organizational structure, governance, built environment, and/or ecosystem structure, among 

other factors. Analysis of these spatial patterns can include exploratory, descriptive, and 

statistical measures of the relationship between geographic entities (O’Sullivan and Unwin 

2010). Because many disciplines generate geographic data, spatial analysis has the potential 

to serve as a point of integration—a common language of sorts—across social and ecological 

research (Liu et al. 2007). As an example, STEW-MAP’s methods enable the comparison 

of stewardship groups with vegetation change, finding that increases in urban vegetation are 

correlated with higher numbers of stewardship groups (Locke et al. 2014, Romolini et al. 

2013). It can also be used to assess environmental justice related issues in a city (Westphal 

Environmental 

stewardship is a leading 

tool for communities 

to contribute to the 

sustainability of their 

local environments and 

the resilience of their 

communities.
7

et al. 2014). Incorporating space into analyses enables identification of the areas of active 

stewardship. Those areas can be further classified according to the issues upon which 

organizations focus, such as water access, park maintenance, or garden management.

Stewardship Networks

Identifying the social networks of stewardship groups is fundamental to understanding how 

resources, materials, information, and knowledge flow through a stewardship system. Social 

Network Analysis (SNA) is a quantitative method rooted in graph theory that provides a 

way to visualize and analyze complex networks (Connolly et al. 2015, Wasserman and Faust 

1994). A number of fields have employed SNA in the recent past and have applied it to a 

variety of topics, including organizations (Baldassarri and Diani 2007, Laumann and Knoke 

1987, Leifeld and Haunss 2012), social media (Eagle et al. 2009, Lewis et al. 2012), and 

the political arena (Fisher et al. 2011, 2013; Knoke 1990; Park et al. 2011). In much of this 

work, SNA is used descriptively, as a way of mapping actors, issues, opinions, information, 

and cooperation, as well as the intersection of these. Previous work has focused on who 

participates in given networks, and has served as a powerful tool to orient future research on 

specific areas or actors in the network. Recent innovations in SNA have also made it possible 

to predict participation in the network, including centrality, influence, and cooperation 

(Lusher et al. 2012, Rand et al. 2011). In other words, these projects use SNA to determine 

who the most popular or influential actors or ideas are in a network, and what attributes 

predict their centrality.

Some SNA research is based on highly structured analyses of “complete networks,” wherein 

all participants in a network are enumerated and surveyed, such that every tie between 

every actor is documented, until a complete network matrix is collected. Other SNA 

focuses on unbounded networks where not all potential members are identified and limited 

in advance. SNA can be applied qualitatively, through examination of “ego networks”—

the sets of ties closely linked to a set of respondents (called “egos”), as a way to begin to 

visualize a component of the network that one is studying. The limitation of the latter is that 

researchers cannot use many of the powerful quantitative tools to understand the structure 

and characteristics of the total network, because they do not know the nature of ties from 

un-surveyed members of the network (Hanneman and Riddle 2005). Ego networks do, 

however, elucidate the relations and ties of the respondents in one’s study, demonstrate the 

relative positioning of respondents, and give a sense of the local networks surrounding these 

respondents (Burt 2007, Marsden 1990, Scott 2000, Wellman 1979). Methods for using 

SNA to visualize, describe, and model social networks quantitatively and qualitatively are 

advancing rapidly and represent the most fluid areas of stewardship mapping. One of the key 

benefits to engaging with SNA for the study of stewardship is to gain a sense of those groups 

that are highly connected to other groups (nodes) and those that are working in isolation or 

with very few contacts for information and materials (isolates).

Scholars have used network analysis to examine a broad set of social and natural science 

questions. As Rocheleau and Roth (2007) argue, networks have served as metaphors, models, 

and theoretical tools within this research that has examined topics including the social 

networks of environmental stakeholders (Prell et al. 2009); communication patterns and 

resource exchange (Crona and Bodin 2006); links between social networks and resilience 

to climate change (Newman and Dale 2004); and organizational networks of urban civic 

environmental organizations (Ernstson et al. 2008). This line of inquiry is well established 
8

for studies that examine inter-organizational dynamics. Literature in sociology and political 

science, for example, has looked at organizational alliances (Ansell 2003); ties among 

organizations that share members (Carroll and Ratner 1996, Cornwell and Harrison 2004); 

governance networks (Connolly et al. 2013, 2014); and the presence, structure, and effects 

of “civic networks”—which are defined as “the web of collaborative ties and overlapping 

memberships between participatory organizations, formally independent of the state, acting 

on behalf of collective and public interests” (Baldassari and Diani 2007: 736).

PROJECT PLANNING AND DESIGN

This section presents an introduction to how you might assess stewardship activities in your 

area of interest. At each stage, we present how STEW-MAP was initially implemented 

in NYC and then provide additional examples of how it was tailored to other cities. These 

variations were the result of differences in available data, resources, and research questions 

across cities.

Planning the Project

As with any major research or assessment project, it is important to “pencil out” the goals, 

objectives, necessary resources, expected deliverables, and expected timeline.

Project Lead

STEW-MAP projects have typically been executed by partnerships that include agency 

scientists, nonprofit organizations, university researchers and technical staff, and local 

government staff.

Using the protocols provided in this guide, a locally based project lead could be either a 

researcher or other program staff member. He or she needs to have the capacity or collaborate 

with others who have the capacity to manage a multi-phased project, to build relationships 

with stewardship partners, to organize databases, to administer a survey and associated 

communications, and to oversee the development of products (both research products and 

applications). However, it is crucial that they be locally based in order to conduct face-to-face 

meetings and presentations.

Stewardship Partners

An important precursor to building the population of stewardship groups is outreach to local 

umbrella groups, organizations that may support other civic organizations. These lead public 

and nonprofit agencies may provide your team with lists of their contacts that will ultimately 

become your sampling population. By engaging these partners in the process of designing 

STEW-MAP in their own city, they may become invested in the long-term success of the 

project. In addition, building the scope of the project collaboratively will ensure their voices 

are heard, since they are some of the ultimate “clients” of STEW-MAP.

Costs

The principal costs of a STEW-MAP project include:

• Salary for project personnel to design and implement the survey, including online 

survey development and management
9

• Printing and postage for paper surveys and outreach materials (postcards, posters, etc.) 

if applicable

• Incentives or prizes for participants (or these may be donated in-kind by project 

partners–for example, museum passes)

• Analysis of the survey data, including any software used in the analysis (statistical, 

geographic, and network analysis all require different skill sets and software)

• Staff time to check or enter stewardship polygons and to clean all survey and 

geographic data

• Web design and hosting fees for online applications

Project Timeline

While each iteration of STEW-MAP is different depending on local conditions, a rough 

timeline is as follows:

• Six months to determine the sampling population and database before administering 

the survey

• Six months to collect survey data

• One year to conduct data clean-up, analyze basic descriptive statistics, and develop 

reports and maps for local partners

• One or more years to develop scholarly research papers or agency reports

Survey Preparation

Determining the Population

The project focuses on civic organizations, including both formal nonprofits and informal 

community groups that serve any of the following stewardship functions: conserving, 

managing, monitoring, advocating for the local environment, or educating their friends, 

neighbors, public officials, or the general public about the local environment. Previous studies 

of local environmentalism have found that national directories of non-profit groups represent 

local groups inadequately (Andrews and Edwards 2005, Kempton et al. 2001, see also Brulle 

et al. 2007), so it was necessary to compile a list of local stewardship groups at this stage.

To develop the New York City sample of civic stewardship organizations, all public agencies 

and non-profits operating at the citywide or borough-wide scale on issues related to the 

environment and natural resource management were approached with a request for their lists 

of organizational partners. Using multiple sources to compile the list of organizations reduces 

the likelihood that there are biases in the data based on any particular source (see particularly 

Brulle et al. 2007). A snowball sampling method was also used, whereby each of these largescale data providers was asked to suggest additional potential data providers within the city, 

until saturation was reached (Fisher et al. 2012). This approach was applied to capture the core 

network of stewardship groups that are connected to the citywide environment and natural 

resource management community.

In other cities, sample development was handled slightly differently. In Chicago, 

announcement of the survey and invitation to participate were sent through existing 

networks of environmentally oriented groups and alliances including the Chicago Wilderness 

membership list, regional meetings, and other newsletters. Because of the high level of 
10

networking among local environmentally oriented groups through Chicago Wilderness, 

and because of the very large geographic area we were covering, Chicago did not use the 

snowball approach to developing a master list of known environmental groups. This decision 

had two consequences: (1) Chicago cannot report a known response rate; and (2) because 

of the convenience sample, Chicago is unable to make statistically valid inferences from the 

stewardship information we have collected to date and are confined to mostly descriptive 

statistics and general analysis. Others implementing STEW-MAP projects will need to weigh 

these concerns against the logistic challenges of conducting a census in a large metropolitan 

region (Westphal et al. 2014).

In the Baltimore STEW-MAP project, a snowball sampling method similar to the New 

York City approach was used. In Seattle, a population data set was created until saturation 

was reached, within the extent of the city boundaries and metro King County. Recent EPA 

listings of salmon species as endangered had prompted government support of stewardship 

as one recovery strategy, thus agencies and civic groups initiated a multi-year relationship. 

Requests were made to local agencies for access to contact lists of partnering organizations. A 

similar request was made to several key nonprofits that were known to be highly networked 

in the urban natural resources community. These lists were compiled, then organizations were 

“vetted” by web searches to learn about their suitability for inclusion in the study (based on 

activities location and focus), to confirm contact information, and to glean additional groups 

from project reports and indications of local partnerships.

Finally, in both Seattle and Baltimore, additional steps were taken after data collection to 

develop an “enhanced population” through analyzing the social network data. See: “Data 

Analysis and/Social Network data” and Figure 3.

Constructing the Sampling Frame

Once the individual population databases were gathered in New York City, several criteria 

were applied when constructing the sampling frame:

• Location: groups outside of the five boroughs of New York City were removed, 

although we did include groups located in New York City whose reach was regional, 

national, or international

Initial surveyed 

population Respondents

Nonrespondents 

(from initial 

population)

Nonrespondents 

(unique) 

Network Participants Initial 

surveyed 

population

Unique Nonrespondents 

Enhanced 

Population

Figure 3.—Missing data reconstruction process used to create enhanced population in Baltimore and Seattle. 

Created by Michele Romolini, used with permission.
11

• Organization status: individuals without a group affiliation were removed

• Civil society (or civic) actors: we excluded all public agencies, private businesses, 

and quasi-governmental entities such as local community boards from the survey 

responses

• Complete addresses: groups with incomplete mailing information were removed from 

the sample

Other cities slightly modified these criteria (Table 1). In Baltimore and Seattle, local and 

county agencies were considered stewardship groups. Additionally, the STEW-MAP survey 

in these cities was Web-based, so the essential contact information was a current organization 

email address. In Seattle, the population data collection focused on the predetermined 

sampling area of metro King County (that includes the city’s jurisdiction), an area of 2,307 

square miles (5,975 km2).

In Chicago, the sampling focus was the Chicago Wilderness region. This includes 

northeastern Illinois, northwest Indiana, a small section of southeast Wisconsin, and a sliver 

of southwest Michigan. The focus in Chicago’s STEW-MAP was twofold: to compare civic 

engagement with the other STEW-MAP cities, and to support the implementation of the 

Green Infrastructure Vision and other work of Chicago Wilderness. Therefore, if stewards 

contributed their information but were not a civic group, they were kept in the database but 

marked as non-civic so that any comparisons with other STEW-MAP databases would be 

made with comparable data. In this way, the Chicago STEW-MAP project was able to meet 

multiple objectives.

Database Design

When collecting STEW-MAP data, certain database protocols should be used, including 

unique identifiers and one-to-one relationships between sampled stewardship groups and 

survey responses. Unique identifiers, or unique codes, should be assigned to stewardship 

groups to ensure accurate tracking of groups. Automatically generated identifiers are 

preferable, in order to avoid human error. Identifiers should be information-less; they are used 

to facilitate queries and joins in a relational database. In addition to unique identifiers for each 

organization, a unique “survey response ID” should also be assigned to each survey that comes 

in. Unique identifiers for both organization and surveys will make it easy to identify which 

versions of the survey to keep when organizations contribute more than one response.

Table 1.—Criteria for including organizations and groups in the STEW-MAP population 

data sets, by city

City Extent Organizational sectors Complete 

addresses

New York City of New York 

(5 boroughs)

Only civic actors Yes

Chicago Chicago Wilderness 

Region (4 state area)

Civic actors, private and 

government included 

Email sufficient

Baltimore City of Baltimore Civic actors, private and 

government included

Email sufficient

Seattle Seattle and King County Civic actors, private and 

government included 

Email sufficient
12

In order to merge duplicate listings across different data providers, groups can be matched 

by organization name, contact name, and address. There is some possibility for error in this 

process because informal groups tend to change names frequently. In some cases, groups are 

listed under different names by different data providers. However, every attempt should be 

made to reconcile these duplicates and name changes. For instance, in New York City, starting 

with an initial population of 4,788 groups, data clean-up resulted in a final population of 

2,796 groups.

As survey responses come in, organizations identified as partners in the social network 

questions should also receive unique identifiers and may be added to the full list of 

stewardship groups. However, these additional organizations will not be used when 

calculating response rates, as they would not have received the survey.

IRB and OMB Review

Typically, research that is publicly funded and involves collecting data from individuals or 

social groups is required to be reviewed by institutional review boards (IRBs). In addition 

to IRB review, any research involving data collection from people outside of federal service 

that is done by a federal agency is subject to review by the U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). These reviews address ethical concerns about personal information disclosure, 

potential for harm to respondents, and the confidentiality of any responses provided by 

survey respondents. Most universities and medical research institutions have IRBs, and some 

larger local government or state agencies may conduct reviews. A review typically involves 

presenting a fairly detailed research plan and allowing for time to respond to clarifying 

questions from the reviewers. If a city agency or NGO is conducting the data collection 

and considers itself exempt from this process, it is important to study and understand the 

confidentiality and ethics of conducting such studies by working in conjunction with an 

academic or federal research partner.

The STEW-MAP survey was approved for local projects by the institutional review boards 

at Columbia University (New York City), the University of Vermont (Baltimore), The Field 

Museum (Chicago), the University of Washington (Seattle), and University of Maryland 

(Philadelphia). The follow-up interview protocol for leaders of key organizations has 

previously been used only in New York City and it was approved by Columbia University’s 

IRB.

The main survey has been accepted by OMB and is included in appendix 2.

Confidentiality

The issue of confidentiality needs to be considered and addressed for STEW-MAP 

participants even though the survey does not request personal or sensitive information. 

Thus, the survey includes a question that allows groups to opt in or out of the public online 

stewardship database.

In Chicago, some stewardship groups were unexpectedly wary about having their contact 

information and other survey responses displayed on the project’s Website and maps. To keep 

this concern from discouraging participation in the survey, the Chicago project team added 

this additional explanation: “In other cities, this database allows stewards who share interests 

to find each other and collaborate if they wish.” Consequently, 74 groups (about 20 percent) 

opted out of having their information displayed. On its Website and maps, the project team 
13

also limited each group’s information to their name, basic contact information, territory or 

territories, and what they work on (a list of topics). This opt-out option helped increase survey 

participation but it also limited the usefulness of the project’s maps and Website since 74 

groups’ information was excluded.

Survey Implementation

Survey protocols and methods used for collecting stewardship data varied as STEW-MAP 

was tested and evolved in new settings.

In New York City, the STEW-MAP survey was administered in both Web and mail formats, 

with a standardized recruitment text (see appendixes 3 and 4), over an initial period of about 

6 months. Where possible, email was the preferred method of contact. If an organization 

did not have an email address or the email address was determined to be invalid (i.e., 

“bounceback” messages were received), organizations were then contacted via the U.S. Postal 

Service. In New York City, all organizations received reminders: up to three reminders at 

intervals of 2 weeks via email, and one postcard reminder after 1 month by mail (see appendix 

3). All organizations with a valid phone number in the database received follow-up phone 

call reminders over the course of the 6 month survey window. In addition, a description of the 

study was included in local newsletters and listservs, including GrowNYC’s (then Council on 

the Environment of New York City) newsletter and the New Yorkers for Parks “e-blast.” New 

York City did not provide direct incentives for participation, beyond visibility on a public map.

In Chicago, the STEW-MAP survey was completed largely online (http://stewmap.cnt.

org). No surveys were mailed to stewardship organizations, but occasionally hard copies were 

provided at meetings to be completed and handed back at the meeting. Similar to New York, 

the survey was pretested and refined to ensure that it was easy to use. Primary adjustments 

to the Chicago survey involved the online mapping tool. Stewardship groups were asked to 

describe in words where they steward (like in the NYC survey) but there was also an online 

mapping tool. This proved to be complicated for some to use, and several adjustments were 

made, including adding a prominent option where stewards could select “draw my map for 

me.”

The Chicago survey was launched at the Chicago Wilderness Congress, a biannual gathering 

of conservation groups from the broad Chicago metro region. The survey was announced 

through Chicago Wilderness e-newsletters, through Center for Neighborhood Technology 

e-blasts and e-newsletters, and through both face to face and electronic distribution to a wide 

array of environmentally oriented groups (e.g., The Field Museum’s New Allies for Nature 

and Culture, the Energy Action Network, Audubon). Initial response rates were low, and so 

to boost the response rate, modest incentives with a deadline for entering data to the site were 

added. All contributing stewards who completed useable surveys by the deadline were eligible 

for drawings for a $150 gift card to Home Depot; three separate $50 gift cards or a $50 

donation to the respondent’s organization; or 10 awards of family four-packs of passes to The 

Field Museum. Other key organizations across the region were asked to email their contacts 

on behalf of STEW-MAP to encourage their participation.

The Seattle and Baltimore STEW-MAP teams made contact with organizations to invite 

them to complete the online survey. The protocol for the survey process included: an initial 

email to introduce the study and to request updated contact information; an email with the 

survey link and instructions; and two to three reminder emails for 3 months during which the 
14

survey remained open. An additional targeted follow-up was conducted six months after the 

survey closed to ensure responses from several key informants.

Options for a STEW-MAP survey include a single data collection period, or a rolling, 

ongoing data collection. Additional data collection requires continued data entry and support. 

If a finite collection period is selected, it is also possible to repeat the STEW-MAP survey 

for a given city at regular intervals, every 5 or 10 years for example, in order to capture new 

stewardship groups or those who were missed in the first survey.

Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias

Because the STEW-MAP respondent population are nongovernment organizations (NGOs) 

and community-based organizations (CBOs), a response group known to have some of the 

lowest response rates (Hager et al. 2003), those conducting STEW-MAP surveys should 

aim for the highest possible response rate but expect a response rate below 50 percent. While 

a number of groups will be interested in promoting themselves along with others in the 

community to bring awareness to their efforts via STEW-MAP, it may not be sufficient to 

ensure a high response rate. Response rates in STEW-MAP to date have ranged from just 

under 20 percent to nearly 50 percent. Therefore, we need to consider techniques to enhance 

response rates and assess any response bias in STEW-MAP data.

In-person administration of surveys has been shown to increase response rates, but is a costly 

and time consuming approach that is unlikely to be feasible for most STEW-MAP projects 

(Allred and Ross-Davis 2011). Offering an incentive is a tested technique that can increase 

response rates (Bosnjak and Tuten 2003, Singer and Ye 2013). An incentive could be a transit 

card, a gift card for stewardship supplies, or voucher for a visit to a city botanic garden, zoo, or 

museum. Incentives can be administered as a drawing amongst respondents to both increase 

responses and reduce costs for implementation of the STEW-MAP survey.

Response rates may also be boosted by offering a shortened version of the survey to those who 

have not yet responded when the initial survey period is drawing to a close. This version of the 

survey can include only the “core” questions about the organization’s structure and stewardship 

work without the social network questions or mapping section. People who complete the 

10-minute version will be counted as respondents.

While STEW-MAP data will not necessarily be generalized to the general population or 

to all stewardship groups in a city or region, nonresponse bias must still be evaluated if the 

STEW-MAP project is to be scientifically rigorous (Groves 2006). STEW-MAP investigates 

groups and organizations, not individuals or households, and it produces geographic data. 

Therefore, investigations into potential response bias need to take these factors into account. 

Possible approaches to investigating for bias include:

• Assessing the geographic distribution of stewardship territories reported. This 

includes investigating areas with little reported stewardship via Web searches, through 

knowledge of local STEW-MAP partners, and via GIS review (e.g., finding evidence 

of community gardens in Google Earth).

• Comparing survey response rates to census data by category of groups, including 

whether stewardship is the primary or secondary focus of the group, type of 

stewardship activities, race/ethnic and/or economic background of the stewards, and 

scale of stewardship activities (neighborhood to regional).
15

• Comparing first wave respondents to later respondents on types of stewardship they 

do, site types that they work on, primary focus, number of staff, percent time on 

stewardship, etc. While this is a weak test of nonresponse bias, it may point out issues 

to investigate further through other means.

• Administering a nonrespondent survey after the initial survey period ends. This can 

be a very short version of the survey that includes only a few key questions about 

types of stewardship the groups work on and the group’s legal or organizational 

status (e.g. 501(c)(3) organization versus informal community group. Responses from 

the nonrespondent survey need to be compared to responses from all respondents 

returning the full version of the survey to check for significant differences. In many 

instances, nonrespondents do not even wish to participate in an abbreviated survey, 

making this a sometimes difficult method to check for nonresponse bias.

Any evidence of nonresponse bias should be discussed in reports or publications 

that use the data, and kept in mind when interpreting results and making 

recommendations based on the data.

Data Collection from Stewardship Groups

STEW-MAP collects three main types of data about stewardship networks in a city or 

region: 

• Descriptive information about stewardship groups, their organizational structure, and 

activities

• Geographic data about stewarded sites and territories

• Social network data about how groups or organizations are tied to others either by 

sector or through funding, information exchanges, and partnerships

These different types of data are each analyzed differently, using distinct software and 

approaches, requiring the research team to have varied skill sets and familiarity with multiple 

social science disciplines. Additional information about the data collection, structure, and key 

decisions follows.

Descriptive Information about Stewardship Groups’ Structures and Activities

The bulk of the survey questions collect information about what the stewardship groups 

work on and their internal structure (Table 2). Responses to these questions yield descriptive 

information about the scope and variability of mission of the groups doing stewardship 

across a city or region, and they may be compared with data from other STEW-MAP project 

regions. These questions are generally easy for the respondents to answer and are valuable in 

analysis as they can be queried, cross tabulated, and aggregated to answer a range of specific 

questions about responding organizations.

Geographic Data on Stewardship Turf

Stewardship happens at multiple spatial scales across a city or region. Some stewardship 

activities, such as monitoring or restoration, will be site-specific although the sites may range 

in size from a building rooftop to a many-thousand-acre nature preserve. Other activities, 

including education or advocacy, may be carried out in a broader area—for example, across a 

particular neighborhood or citywide.
16

In the geographic section of the survey, STEW-MAP invites participants to describe in 

words the sites they work on (turf ). In New York City, Baltimore, and Seattle, turf maps were 

prepared by the research team, as they interpreted written descriptions into GIS features. 

In the Chicago region, a mapping tool was embedded within the online survey to invite 

respondents to draw their stewardship turfs. Optimally each responding organization should 

be able to check the accuracy of the polygon(s) drawn for its organization.

In all of the STEW-MAP projects to date, whether administered online or on paper, lookup tables of geographies (such as names of public parks, neighborhoods, cities, boroughs, or 

counties) were provided in order to standardize responses and potentially save respondents 

some time if they work across many sites or jurisdictions (appendix 2). In Baltimore and 

Seattle, respondents were provided with a list of neighborhoods and asked to select the ones 

where they work. Links were provided to an online map of the boundaries representing those 

areas with the names clearly labeled. Having neighborhood-level data can also assist as a 

location check when creating polygons.

Actual mapping of the stewardship turf presents a number of challenges both for the 

respondents and for the research team. If no mapping tool is provided to respondents, the 

research team will need to use the text descriptions provided on the survey. Respondents may 

use locally known site names that are unfamiliar to the research team and are not readily 

researched online. When a mapping tool is provided for respondents to use, it needs to be 

carefully designed since respondents will have varying levels of familiarity and comfort with 

mapping tools. It also needs to have clear instructions and easily understandable base maps 

or aerial photos that provide landmarks like streets and buildings to help users identify where 

they are on the map. Project participants may require assistance to map their own sites and 

territories accurately. In many cases, even a well-designed mapping tool is too technical, 

and the research team should expect to do a lot of the mapping themselves on behalf of 

Table 2.—Information collected by all STEW-MAP surveys

Variable collected

Contact information (name, mailing, Website, phone number)

General stewardship activities (conserve, care, restore, monitor, advocate, educate)

Legal designation

Organization activities

Primary organizational focus (arts, environment, public health, seniors, youth, etc.)

Types of environmental stewardship (water, land, building)

Mission statement

Text on why organization thinks stewardship is important

Description of stewardship turf/geography

Property ownership

Year founded

Staff capacity

Volunteer hours

Estimated annual budget

Services provided

Collaborating groups (programs, advice, funding)

Open-ended comments
17

respondents and to clean up polygons drawn by respondents. However, larger professionalized 

organizations may have GIS data of their sites or properties. Providing the option of 

supplying existing GIS data should be included in any STEW-MAP survey.

In summary, across the cities, STEW-MAP teams have also used the following techniques to 

collect and display stewardship boundary or turf data: 

•	 Ask for written descriptions of turf used by project staff to draw polygons. This is 

time intensive.

•	 Ask respondents to choose a particular geography from a set list (check boxes). This 

takes the least amount of time but limits the project’s ability to display small sites and 

previously unknown spatial turfs. 

•	 Allow users to upload GIS files. This depends upon respondents’ familiarity with GIS 

and assumes the GIS files are accurate.

•	 Builds an online mapping tool that is accessible and easy to use. This is the ideal 

solution and one that might become an option for all in future applications of 

STEW-MAP. 

Social Network Data

Another dimension of STEW-MAP analysis is to discover how stewardship groups are 

connected to each other in a city or region. These social network questions have been asked 

in two different ways in order to explore different sub-questions: (1) asking which groups 

partner with other groups by sector (e.g., nonprofit organizations, government agencies, 

businesses) in order to explore network and hybrid governance; and (2) asking which groups 

partner with other groups on projects and programs and how funding and information flow 

across the network.

The New York City survey approached the social network questions by focusing on the types 

of organizations by sector with which each responding group worked. The questions asked 

respondents to list up to three “business groups,” up to three “civic or community groups,” 

up to three “government agencies,” and up to three “school groups” for a total of 12 response 

slots across the four categories, without characterizing what was given or exchanged in these 

relationships. The Philadelphia study later expanded on this approach by allowing respondents 

to identify an unlimited number of network partners in each sector. Allowing respondents to 

identify unlimited partners is the preferred method in social network analysis for generating 

the most robust networks.

The first STEW-MAP survey was pretested in one New York City neighborhood. 

After receiving a response rate of only 5 percent in this pretest, the survey was 

refined, shortened, and redesigned, and follow-up outreach phone calls were 

added to the procedures. The final survey was composed of 20 questions, most of 

which were in a close-ended format. This initial instrument was slightly adapted 

for use in other cities. The standardized version of the survey was created for the 

OMB review process; that version is now approved for public use throughout the 

United States by federal researchers and their collaborators.
18

By contrast, the Baltimore, Chicago, and Seattle surveys had five networking questions 

asking which other organizations the responding organization: received information, advice, 

or expertise from; provided information, advice, or expertise to; received funding from; and 

provided funding to. A fifth question asked for the names of partnerships or coalitions that 

the group or organization belonged to. This allows for separate network analyses of funding 

and information and also provides information about the direction in which these resources 

flow. Ten response slots were provided for each question so each organization could name 

up to a total of 50 responses across the five categories. In practice, responding groups often 

named the same organizations multiple times across the five questions.

 The OMB version of the survey combines both of these approaches to ask a series of 

questions about network partners and flows through the network. After discussion and mutual 

learning across the investigators from the different cities, this OMB version was created as 

a way to explore both sets of research questions and is currently being implemented in the 

San Juan, Puerto Rico, STEW-MAP study. See appendix 2 for all survey protocols to see the 

different ways that network questions were asked by sector (New York City and Philadelphia) 

and by flows through the network (Baltimore, Seattle, and Chicago).

In a closed network where all of the possible groups or organizations are known, an 

alternative way of soliciting responses is to list all of the possible organizations and ask 

respondents with which ones their group or organization works. However, this is not 

practical for STEW-MAP, as the list of known organizations may number in the hundreds 

or thousands. One elegant solution for electronic surveys is to say that respondents can list as 

many organizations as they wish for each category, but provide only one empty response field 

at a time, adding additional fields one at a time as each is filled in by the respondent. Limiting 

responses by giving a numbered table is seen as limiting the network and is discouraged. It is 

critical to structure network questions to allow respondents to identify unlimited partners (as 

in the Philadelphia case) and word questions consistently to allow for comparative analysis.

Data Clean-up and Analysis

Dealing with Duplicates and Incomplete Surveys

Clean-up can include duplicate replies, incomplete responses, and repackaging data into 

formats compatible with GIS and social network software. Once data are received and 

entered, there is likely to be a substantial amount of clean-up required. If duplicate replies are 

received from one organization, the most complete version is used. If both are complete, the 

survey that comes in earliest is used.

Open-ended Questions

Any open-ended questions used in the survey require clean-up and may require qualitative 

coding. These responses can be analyzed and coded thematically via an open, emergent coding 

approach or via deductive coding, where a set of codes are created a priori (See, for example, 

Bradshaw and Stratford 2005, Dunn 2005). For example, an open-ended question asks groups 

to provide their mission statement, which can be analyzed to examine the primary focus, as 

well as the ways in which environmental stewardship is nested in other types of community 

concerns (such as seniors, youth, and neighborhood safety). New methods are emerging for 

analyzing qualitative data with computer algorithms, such as with computer assisted coding 

systems; these methods could be applied to such open-ended data.
19

Geographic Data on Stewardship Turf 

Cleaning up geographic data applies to surveys with online mapping tools, such as Chicago 

STEW-MAP. Chicago STEW-MAP’s online mapping tool embedded in the survey had 

mixed results. While the tool was well designed, it was difficult for many stewards to use. 

Therefore, Chicago STEW-MAP staff spent considerable time cleaning up the GIS data and 

verifying geographies with stewards. In Chicago, the team contacted those who requested that 

their map be drawn for them; the map drawn by the research team was sent to the respondent 

for verification and correction as needed. This step was also taken when it looked like stewards 

had attempted to use the online mapping tool but had difficulties (i.e., the resulting polygon 

was a very strange shape).

Geographic data from the survey provide visual representations of stewardship sites and 

territories, such as maps with stewarded polygons shaded. The surveys in Baltimore and Seattle 

provided easily visualized counts of groups per neighborhood. These data can be integrated 

with other spatially explicit data like demographic data and environmental conditions using 

a GIS. Both coarse- and fine-grained analysis of the geographic data can show stewardship 

hotspots or areas where many stewardship groups are working near each other, overlaps of 

sites or territories where multiple groups are working, and gaps where no stewarded sites or 

territories were identified. However, analysis of the geographic data can be technically complex 

and presents a number of challenges. For example, the kind of gap analysis just mentioned 

needs to be undertaken with caution since lack of stewardship in one area may only indicate 

that no stewardship groups working in that area participated in the survey.

Map data can be used for analytic queries by a science team; they can also be used for an 

online public display about organizations. A technical challenge is to provide the geographic 

data online in a way that someone from the general public can query and understand it, given 

the abundance of organizations and overlapping nature of urban environmental stewardship. 

Those familiar with digital mapping and GIS may be able to create their own custom maps 

using an online tool, but many lay people do not have these skills. Static maps can be prepared 

and added to a display web site as a map gallery, and they may complement more sophisticated 

online maps. Each STEW-MAP project team needs to weigh the complexity of providing a 

publicly accessible interactive mapping tool against the expected utility of that tool in their 

city or region.

Social Network Data

Preparation of organization network data after survey responses are received often requires 

extensive clean-up. Responses to the New York City survey underwent substantial quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) from their raw state in order to prepare the data for 

analysis:

• Standardization: Names of organizations were standardized with a common spelling. 

Any organizational partners (“alters”) identified beyond the top three in each sector 

were excluded.

• Error Checking: Any answers that were mischaracterized (e.g., calling “the Parks 

Department” a civic group) were recoded to the appropriate sector. Any responses 

that could not be identified to a specific organization (e.g., “churches,” “community 

boards”) were recoded as “GENERAL” and were excluded.

• Formatting: Data were entered into a Microsoft® Excel database that was then 

imported into the software UCINET (Borgatti et al. 2002).
20

Missing data, where a survey respondent does not provide a response, can be problematic 

in social network analysis, as this type of analysis is very sensitive to such missing data 

(Kossinets 2006). For Baltimore and Seattle data, missing data points in social networks were 

imputed using a reconstruction approach. Reconstruction involves replacing a missing tie 

using the value reported by the responding actor in the dyad (Stork and Richards 1992); that 

is, if respondent A reports providing information (outgoing tie) to nonrespondent B, then B 

is populated with an incoming tie from A. Imputation procedures have been used in social 

science survey research to replace the missing values of a nonrespondent with the values of a 

donor actor from the same data set (see Andridge and Little 2010 for a review), and can be 

applied in social network studies to populate the ties of nonresponding actors (Burt 1987).

Since the network questions were open-ended in Baltimore and Seattle, a nonresponding 

organization could be from the original surveyed population or a “unique” organization 

not previously identified. Internet research was conducted to include only those unique 

organizations working within the city boundaries of Baltimore or Seattle. The unique 

organizations were added to the original population to create an enhanced total population. 

This process provided a more complete view of the stewardship population in each city. Of 

the enhanced population, the respondents plus those nominated were considered to comprise 

the active stewardship network in each city, and thus network analysis was conducted on these 

networks (see Fig. 1).

At the time of this writing, Chicago STEW-MAP social network data had been cleaned, but 

analysis is still underway. As with other cities, the Chicago SNA data needed to be cleaned 

to standardize organization names. The Chicago data cleaning process included many lumpor-split decisions as well. In total, there were 1,830 unique responses to the SNA questions 

including spelling variations and typographical errors; when cleaned up and consolidated, 

there were 942 unique organizations and categories such as “local schools.”

Ongoing Data Management

It is important to consider eventual data use, display, and management early in the STEWMAP project design process. The combination of data formats and collaborative access can 

make data management complex. Looking across the collaborators and eventual data users, it 

is important to consider how the survey data and geospatial analysis products will be stored 

and managed.

There are several major data products and processes from a STEW-MAP project:

• Organization list: The complete database of organizations that is the basis for 

sampling, project outreach, and additional follow-up research.

• Survey data: The data set resulting from group and organization responses, having 

high potential for near- and long-term analytics.

• Geospatial analysis: The process of converting (by way of specialized software and 

personnel skills) the reported organization territories to a data set that includes both 

geospatial and attribute information.

• Public display: The public presentation of results.

Considerations include the processing, server, and display needs when comparing groups’ 

activity maps, as well as social network displays. Surrounding all of these data sets and 
21

products are some key questions, including where data will be hosted. Preparation of 

metadata, or the careful notation of the source and structure of any data file, is a valuable best 

practice. Decisions should also be made about data storage, backup, and security (as some 

survey information may be deemed confidential per IRB review). Due to the rich content of 

a STEW-MAP project, there are inevitable follow-up requests for use of a data set. What 

might be appropriate data sharing policies so that there is an adequate log of data use and 

acknowledgment in publication? Developing a protocol for data sharing is an important step 

in this process.

The New York City team partnered with two groups to conduct spatial analysis and build 

public applications. The University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab helped build the 

geodatabase and assisted in creating the polygon turfs. The CUNY Mapping Service displays 

the STEW-MAP layer on the public GIS site, www.oasisnyc.net, providing ongoing hosting 

of the data. Technicians on staff with the Forest Service provided the QA/QC and assist with 

inquiries and requests to query the geodatabase to share with managers.

For Baltimore, data has been stored on Forest Service staff computers and has not yet 

been prepared for public display. In Chicago, where stewardship groups create their own 

stewardship turfs online, data is included in the associated online map after a review by a 

project staff person. Spatial data is managed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology 

and by The Field Museum, while Forest Service staff handle survey results and social network 

analyses. The Seattle team partnered with the University of Washington’s Remote Sensing 

and Geospatial Analysis Lab for data management. While multiple scientists and students 

have been working on the project, primary storage of data sets and the files for public display 

are on the university’s servers. In addition, products, such as conference presentations and 

publications, are shared by non-Forest Service entities using a secure, cloud-based server that 

enable individuals from multiple institutional settings to access materials.

SYNTHESIS: USING STEW-MAP TO ANSWER YOUR 

QUESTIONS

STEW-MAP survey data can be analyzed in a number of ways, driven by research questions, 

policy needs, and funding opportunities. Here we present just some of the questions that have 

been asked of STEW-MAP data.

How many civic stewardship groups are in my city?

The number of stewardship groups identified depends on the approach to determining the 

population. Repeating STEW-MAP longitudinally will strengthen understanding of whether 

and how civic stewardship groups persist over time. Overall, 506 groups participated in the 

stewardship survey of New York City, representing a response rate of 18.3 percent. This 

response rate is within the common range for mail-in and Internet surveys of organizations 

(for a full discussion, see Hager et al. 2003). Smaller cities should expect fewer groups—

STEW-MAP Baltimore results contain 163 groups (26.9 percent response rate) and STEWMAP Seattle contains 144 groups (25.4 percent response rate). STEW-MAP Chicago 

contains 369 groups (including a 49 percent response rate among Chicago Wilderness’ 255 

member organizations). Lacking data on nonrespondents, however, we are unable to examine 

potential response bias in our data set. In New York City, we examined the data for spatial 
22

distribution by borough. The response rate was relatively consistent across the five boroughs of 

New York City, showing no particular borough bias.

What are the organizational characteristics of civic stewardship 

groups?

For New York City, a professionalism index was created using the survey responses 

to questions about each group’s paid staff and annual budget (see Staggenborg 1988). 

Contingency tables were used to compare the professionalization score to a number of 

organizational characteristics, including 501(c)(3) status and year founded. Slightly more 

than half of all the participating civic stewardship groups reported having 501(c)(3) tax 

status and most of those organizations scored medium to high on the professionalization 

index. Additionally, most of the older groups founded prior to 1970 scored high on the 

index, while an overwhelming majority of groups founded since 1990 scored low on the 

professionalization index (Fisher et al. 2012). In Baltimore and Seattle, approximately 80 

percent of responding groups were nonprofit institutions. In Chicago, 48 percent of all 

responding groups had formal 501(c)(3) status and over 60 percent of the 266 participating 

civic groups scored low on the professionalization index as defined by the NYC team.

What is the primary focus of stewardship groups?

The New York City study found that civic stewardship groups span a range of focus areas. 

While solely environmentally focused groups were the most common, we also found that 

education, community improvement, and youth groups were common (Fig. 4). Additional 

information about the way in which environmental issues and community concerns are 

intertwined can be gleaned from coding mission statements to better understand how 

stewardship helps to satisfy a group’s core mission.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Environment

Education

Community improvement

Youth

Arts, culture

Recreation and sports

Seniors

Development

Public health

Housing

Human services

Animal related

Employment/Job related

Research in science, technoogy, and social science

Transporation related

Crime, criminal justice

Legal services, civil rights

Religion related

International foreign affairs, and national security

Private grantmaking foundation

% respondents

Figure 4.—Primary focus of stewardship groups’ work in New York City.
23

Conducting in-depth interviews with select organizations can also reveal how a group’s focus 

area may have shifted over time in response to socio-demographic shifts, urban development, 

and politics. Knowing more about the motivations for stewardship by nontraditional 

environmental organizations is critical to our understanding of stewardship as a larger socialecological system.

What environmental sites do civic environmental organizations 

steward?

Stewardship groups work across a range of physical site types, which can vary from city 

to city. In New York City, the most common sites for stewardship were parks, community 

gardens, and street trees (Fig. 5). The majority of groups that reported working on green 

buildings scored medium or high on the professionalization index, while groups that worked 

on community gardens scored low on the professionalization index (Fisher et al. 2012). In 

Baltimore, commonly stewarded areas were community gardens, vacant lots, parks, public 

rights-of-way (ROW), planters, school yards, stormwater features, public gardens, and 

watersheds. In the Chicago Wilderness region, the most commonly stewarded site types 

were prairie, forest/woodland, community garden, wetland, and park. In Seattle, the most 

commonly stewarded site types were parks, watersheds, streams, wetlands, public rights-ofway, greenways, and shoreline. Across these cities we find a similar mix of site types but with 

interesting distinctions related to geography (e.g., prairies in Chicago region). Also, in some 

cases, sites are attractive to community groups because stewards have been actively recruited 

by land managers (e.g., street trees and parks) and/or the sites are accessible and in the public 

domain, but there is no active stewardship happening by the city or the state (e.g., vacant lots).

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Dog run

Rooftop

Urban farm

Courtyard

Playfield

Botanical garden

Greenway

Green building

Vacant

School yard

Front/back yard

Flowerbox

Stream

Watershed

Apartment grounds

Public ROW

Natural

Waterfront

Street tree

Community garden

Park

% respondents

Figure 5.—Site type on which stewardship groups work in New York City.
24

Where does environmental stewardship occur?

Because the STEW-MAP survey asks respondents to characterize the area where they work, 

the data can be used to visualize stewardship coverage across a city or metropolitan area, such 

as where there are neighborhood gaps in stewardship and where groups overlap. In New York 

City, the team mapped stewardship group addresses (Fig. 6).These data can be compared to 

the distribution of green space in New York City (Fig. 7).

We can also explore which neighborhoods have many stewardship groups and which have 

relatively few. We can refine the hot and cold spot analysis by including the intensity of 

stewardship efforts. This can give a more nuanced understanding of the nature of stewardship 

across a region or city. Researchers in New York City found a density of groups in locations 

with the least amount of green space, suggesting that the demand for these spaces to be 

restored is high. Figure 8 shows the same set of stewardship groups, but displays their selfreported geographic turf, aggregated to the neighborhood tabulation area (NTA). This figure 

shows of the number of stewardship groups by neighborhood across New York City, areas 

with higher numbers of stewardship organizations in darker green and neighborhoods with 

smaller numbers in light green.

STEW-MAP data can also be used in conjunction with U.S. Census data to analyze 

stewardship’s socio-demographic patterns. The Chicago team analyzed stewardship data to see 

if the patterns of stewardship supported or challenged the often-held belief that stewardship 

activities are primarily done by white and middle class people. Initial analysis indicated that 

stewardship in Chicago may not be a predominantly white, middle class activity. Most areas 

Figure 6.—Map of civic stewardship groups in New York City. Figure 7.—Map of New York City’s parks and community gardens.
25

of the city, including areas that were majority black, Hispanic, or white, had at least one 

stewardship organization claiming it as their stewardship territory, and a look at one low 

income, diverse neighborhood showed most stewardship was from within the community 

(Westphal et al. 2014).

How can we characterize the urban environmental stewardship 

network?

Organizational network analyses have been completed for New York City, Baltimore, and 

Seattle (Connolly et al. 2013, 2014; Romolini 2013). These analyses explore who is connected 

to whom in a city’s stewardship network. In terms of network analysis, this means identifying 

who is central to the network and who is peripheral. UCINET software was used to explore 

stewardship network centrality and density.

In New York City, prominent actors with a high number of ties and important network 

positions were identified. Thus, all organizations that were more than two standard deviations 

away from the mean in terms of both in-degree ties and betweenness were identified as 

“bridge organizations,” or brokers. These organizations have a number of other organizations 

connecting with them by exchanging knowledge, materials, labor, and financial resources. 

As network theory predicts, these organizations are playing a crucial role in sharing 

information and resources in order to coordinate action across the network. These groups 

help bridge across sectors (public/private) and scales (citywide/neighborhood) in the complex 

management of urban environments (Connolly et al. 2013).

Figure 8.—Intensity of stewardship turfs in New York City.

Number of Stewardship 

Organizations
26

New York City’s civic-to-civic network is much more decentralized and polycentric than 

the civic-to-public network, demonstrating different functions within the social-ecological 

system for these networks, and highlighting the importance of the most connected “bridge 

organizations” (Fig. 9). Examination of the civic-to-civic network identified that groups are 

clustered according to the types of sites that they steward in the urban environment. The civic 

stewardship network also includes clusters of groups with broad civic missions that extend 

beyond environmental stewardship. Figure 10 shows the civic-to-government network, which 

is 28.4 percent centralized compared to the 3.28 percent centralization in the civic-to-civic 

network. The difference between these measures demonstrates that civic stewardship groups 

coordinate activities amongst themselves across diffuse small-scale clusters seen in the civicto-civic network, and then tend to focus those activities at the citywide level via connections 

with government agencies.

Figure 9.—New York City civic-to-civic network.

The stewardship network is also organized according to ecological function and geography. 

The stewardship network evolved over three different periods, 1970 to 1990, 1990 to 

2000, and 2000 to present, leading to the development of a hybrid governance structure of 

government along with civic and business sectors managing ecosystem services in the city. 

These data show that the social and spatial structure of these networks matter for urban 

environmental stewardship outcomes (Connolly et al. 2014).

Baltimore and Seattle were analyzed using the same methods; each city’s information network 

was examined for measures of centralization and centrality. Baltimore’s network exhibited 18 

percent centralization, which was five times the centralization found in Seattle. Interestingly, 

in Baltimore, analysis of the types of centrality revealed that organizations that held the 

most ties (degree centrality) were not the same as those most often found in bridging roles 

(betweenness centrality). These two network measures are considered to be proxies for activity 

and influence; therefore, the most active members of Baltimore’s network were not always the 
27

most influential. This is an important point as we think about who makes decisions in any 

given community and how groups that are making contributions with labor and time are (or 

are not) part of that process of deliberative democracy.

Figure 10.—New York City civic-to-public network.

Social-Ecological Questions

Other questions examined with STEW-MAP are socio-ecological in nature. In New York 

City, the density of stewardship groups has been compared to vegetation change (derived 

from Landsat satellite data) and urban development (change in building footprint) from 2000 

to 2010. Most neighborhoods lost vegetation during the study period. Neighborhoods that 

gained vegetation tended to have, on average, more stewardship groups. We contextualize 

the ways in which stewardship groups led to the observed decadal- and neighborhood-scale 

changes in urban vegetation cover (Locke et al. 2014).

In Chicago, this detailed assessment of who is stewarding where is being compared to the 

Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision in order to see where there might be 

synergies to build upon in conserving land and water of significant conservation issues as well 

as where there may be stewardship “deserts.” Further research would be needed to understand 

the reasons behind the absence of stewardship, starting with verifying that stewardship was, 

indeed, absent from the area and not just from the database.

In Baltimore and Seattle, social network and spatial regression analyses were conducted 

to explore relationships among variations in land cover and network measures at the 

neighborhood level. Both the number of organizations and the number of ties between 

them correlated significantly and negatively with the percentage of tree canopy in Baltimore 

neighborhoods. There was no correlation between the number of organizations or their 

network characteristics and the abundance of tree canopy in Seattle (Romolini et al. 2013).
28

Public Applications and Visualization

Equally important to the scientific findings provided by a STEW-MAP study are the 

applications and visualizations of urban environmental stewardship that can be made publicly 

available. Data providers and other core partners in a STEW-MAP project may be presented 

with initial findings from the study and can provide valuable feedback since they are often 

the land managers, educators, and advocates of the urban environment who will find the data 

useful in their everyday operations.

Once a STEW-MAP database is finalized, queries may be conducted as requested by natural 

resource agencies and nonprofits. For example, it is possible to conduct a spatial query for all 

groups in a certain neighborhood, in a county, or within a certain radius of a park. Queries 

may also be run for groups of a certain type—for example, all groups who work on street 

trees. If the database is made publicly available, it is possible to build search functions so 

that anyone can search for a group by name, organization type, or geographic location (for 

example, see http://www.oasisnyc.net/stewardship/stewardshipsearch.aspx or http://stewmap.

cnt.org). Finally, individual agencies as well as researchers can integrate the STEW-MAP 

data with other spatial data sets, including maps of parks, trees, or other green infrastructure 

in order to answer questions about the role of stewardship in the urban landscape.

LESSONS LEARNED

It is important to cultivate long-term, community-based natural resource stewardship for 

a wide variety of reasons including to foster innovation, to strengthen democratic practices 

through civic engagement, and to nurture a life-long respect and understanding of nature 

from busy city streets to suburban woodlots to our national forests and grasslands. STEWMAP creates a framework to connect and strengthen the capacity of stewardship groups and 

to measure, monitor, and maximize the contribution of our civic resources.

STEW-MAP in Action: 

Baltimore Federal Urban Waters Partnership

Following a presentation on STEW-MAP, federal and local participants in Baltimore’s 

Federal Urban Waters Partnership became interested in utilizing STEW-MAP data to 

facilitate their work.

Network management and monitoring were highlighted as important activities of 

the Baltimore Federal Urban Waters Partnership, and STEW-MAP data will become an 

integral part of this effort.

A recent Federal Urban Waters Partnership meeting served as the forum for a focus 

group on how STEW-MAP could best serve Baltimore stewardship organizations. 

The most common responses:

• Increase opportunities & capacities for collaboration

• Improve flows of and access to information and expertise

• Identify areas where work is not occurring

Federal Urban Waters Partnership subcommittees on mapping and networks will 

work together to develop tools powered by STEW-MAP data.
29

With the proper planning and data management framework, STEW-MAP can produce 

valuable data about the landscape of environmental stewardship within any given locality 

or across a particular theme. Implementation of the project can also strengthen connections 

between core research partners and local civic or government data providers. In implementing 

STEW-MAP several times, we have learned some lessons key to success.

Have GIS Expertise on Your Team

The mapping component of STEW-MAP has the potential to provide some of the most 

interesting and useful visual representations of the data, but collecting and displaying accurate 

geographic information on stewarded sites and turfs is a challenge. Early involvement of a 

project partner with strong GIS, database development, and geographic data visualization skills 

is critical.

Establish the Population that You are Studying so that You Can 

Determine Response Rate

In the Chicago region, prior to beginning the survey, the researchers chose not to create a 

population dataset of stewardship groups and organizations. This presented some challenges 

during data analysis and made it impossible to know how many groups across the region 

had not participated. For future projects, we strongly recommend establishing a population 

dataset ahead of time in order to strengthen the scientific rigor of the data analysis and track 

participation (see the Determining the Population subsection, page 9). After the population 

data set is determined to be complete (via saturation), additional groups may still be identified 

(and invited to participate) as the data collection progresses.

Clearly Communicate Your Definition of Stewardship

STEW-MAP’s broad definition of stewardship actively tries to include a range of work done 

on behalf of local environments, some of which may not be considered stewardship under more 

narrow definitions. For example, community gardening, vacant lot or beach clean-ups, and 

activism or advocacy focused on toxics, trash, or brownfields may be considered non-traditional 

stewardship activities but they are counted as stewardship in STEW-MAP. The STEW-MAP 

definition is intended to include stewardship done on a very small scale that, when aggregated 

with other small-scale stewardship, can have noticeable impacts on a neighborhood or a city.

It is important to communicate the project’s definition of stewardship to intended survey 

participants, decision makers, and other project stakeholders so that they understand what the 

project is assessing. In the Chicago Wilderness-region, the term “steward” is specifically used 

for people who have completed special training to serve as forest preserve site stewards. In 

carrying out the project, project leaders needed to be sure to explain that they were trying to 

collect data on more than just forest preserve-focused sites and activities.

Expanding the Tool

Representing the world of environmental stewardship using STEW-MAP requires the 

collection, management, and visualization of large amounts of data. In this era of rapidly 

changing technologies and open-source solutions, there are more options than ever before in 

how to build numeric and geospatial databases. Multiple cities have now completed projects, 

with the iterations producing a clearer picture of project needs.
30

The Forest Service is now designing a multi-city platform for displaying and storing STEWMAP data as an interactive, Web-based spatial database that will include links to additional 

data sources from STEW-MAP and related research partnerships.

For the latest information on STEW-MAP and who to contact for questions and assistance, 

visit: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/monitoring/stew-map/. This site will continue to be 

updated over time as visitors can access online data sets, protocols, GIS maps, and network 

models, as well as findings from STEW-MAP and STEW-MAP-related projects from 

around the world.

LITERATURE CITED

Allred, S.; Ross-Davis, A. 2011. The drop-off and pick-up method: an approach to reduce nonresponse bias in natural resources surveys. Small Scale Forestry. 10( 3): 305-318.

Anderies, J.; Janssen, M.; Ostrom, E. 2004. A framework to analyze the robustness of socialecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society. 9(1): 18.

Andrews, K.; Edwards, B. 2005. The organizational structure of local environmentalism.

Mobilization: An International Journal. 10 (2): 213-234.

Andridge, R.R.; Little, R.J. 2010. A review of hot deck imputation for survey non‐response.

International Statistical Review. 78(1): 40-64.

Ansell, C. 2003. Community embeddedness and collaborative governance in the San Francisco 

bay area movement. In: Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective 

action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 123-144.

Baldassarri, D.; Diani, M. 2007. The integrative power of civic networks. American Journal of 

Sociology. 113(3): 735-780.

Bettencourt, L.M.A.; West, G.B. 2011. Bigger cities do more with less. Scientific American. 

September: 52-53.

Borgatti, S.P.; Everett, M.G.; Freeman, L.C. 2002. UCINET for Windows: software for social 

network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Bosnjak, M.; Tuten, T.L. 2003. Prepaid and promised incentives in web surveys—An 

experiment. Social Science Computer Review. 21(2): 208-217.

Boyte, H.C. 1999. Off the playground of civil society. The Good Society. 9: 1-7.

Boyte, H.C. 2004. Everyday politics: reconnecting citizens and public life. Philadelphia, PA: 

University of Pennsylvania Press. 251 p.

Bramston, P.; Pretty, G.; Zammit, C. 2011. Assessing environmental stewardship motivation.

Environment and Behavior. 43(6): 776-788.

Brulle, R.J. 2000. Agency, democracy, and nature: the U.S. environmental movement from a 

critical theory perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 349 p.

Burch, W.R., Jr.; Grove, J.M. 1993. People, trees and participation on the urban frontier.

Unasylva. 44 (173): 19-27.
31

Burt, R. 2007. Secondhand brokerage: evidence on the importance of local structure for 

managers, bankers, and analysts. Academy of Management Journal. 50(1): 119-148.

Carroll, W.K.; Ratner, R.S. 1996. Master framing and cross-movement networking in 

contemporary social movements. Sociological Quarterly. 37: 601-25.

Connolly, J.J.; Svendsen, E.S.; Fisher, D.R.; Campbell, L.K. 2013. Organizing urban ecosystem 

services through environmental stewardship governance in New York City. Landscape and 

Urban Planning. 109 (1): 76-84.

Connolly, J.J.; Svendsen, E.S.; Fisher, D.R.; Campbell, L.K. 2014. Networked governance and 

the management of ecosystem services: the case of urban environmental stewardship in New 

York City. Ecosystem Services. 10: 187-194.

Connolly, J. J.T.; Svendsen, E. S.; Fisher, D. R.; Campbell, L.K. 2015. Mixed methods analysis of 

urban environmental stewardship networks. In: Ruth, Matthias, ed. Handbook of research 

methods and applications in environmental studies. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar 

Publishing: 102-121. Chapter 5.

Cornwell, B.; Harrison, J.A. 2004. Union members and voluntary association. American 

Sociological Review. 69: 862-881.

Cranz, G. 1982. The politics of park design: a history of urban parks in America. Cambridge, 

MA: MIT Press. 339 p.

Cranz, G.; Boland, M. 2004. Defining the sustainable park: a fifth model for urban parks.

Landscape Journal. 23(2): 102-120.

Crona, B.; Bodin, O. 2006. What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among 

resource users as a prerequisite for comanagement. Ecology and Society. 11(2): Art. 7. http://

www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art7. (accessed May 1, 2015).

Eagle, N.; Pentland, A.; Lazer, D. 2009. Inferring friendship network structure by using mobile 

phone data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 109(36): 15274-15278.

Ernston, H.; Sorlin, S.; Elmqvist, T. 2008. Social movements and ecosystem services—the role 

of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm.

Ecology and Society. 13(2): Art 39. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art39. 

(accessed May 1, 2015).

Fisher, D.R.; Campbell, L.K.; Svendsen, E.S. 2007. Towards a framework for mapping urban 

environmental stewardship. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Society 

and Resource Management ( ISSRM); 2007 June 17-21; Park City, UT. Huntsville, TX: 

International Association for Society and Natural Resources. [presentation].

Fisher, D.R.; Campbell, L.K.; Svendsen, E.S. 2012. The organisational structure of urban 

environmental stewardship. Environmental Politics. 21(1): 26-48.

Fisher, D.R.; Svendsen, E.S.; Connolly, J. J.T. 2015. Urban environmental stewardship and 

civic engagement: how planting trees strengthens the roots of democracy. New York, NY: 

Routledge Press. 148 p.
32

Fisher, D.R.; Leifield, P.; Iwaki, Y. 2013. Mapping the ideological networks of American 

climate politics. Climatic Change. 116: 523-545.

Fisher, D.R.; Waggle, J.; Leifeld, P. 2013. Where does political polarization come from? locating 

polarization within the US Climate change debate. American Behavioral Scientist. 57: 70-92.

Folke, C.; Jannson, A.; Larsson, J.; Costanza, R. 1997. Ecosystem appropriation by cities. Ambio. 

26(3): 167-172.

Geist, C.; Galatowitsch, S.M. 1999. Reciprocal model for meeting ecological and human needs 

in restoration projects. Conservation Biology. 13(5): 970-979.

Glaeser, E.; Kahn, M. 2008. The greenness of cities: Carbon dioxide emissions and urban 

development. NBER Working Pap. 14238. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic 

Research. 45 p. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centersprograms/centers/taubman/policybriefs/greencities_final.pdf. (accessed Nov. 28, 2012).

Gobster, P. 2000. Restoring nature, human actions, interactions, and reactions. In: Gobster, P.; 

Hull, B. Restoring nature: perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Washington, 

DC: Island Press: 1-20.

Gobster, P. 2007. Models for urban forest restoration: human and environmental values. In: 

Stanturf, J., ed. Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference on Forest Landscape Restoration.2007 

May 14-19; Seoul, Korea. Seoul: International Union of Forestry Research Organizations and 

Korea Forest Research Institute: 10-13.

Gobster, P.H.; Westphal, L.M. 2004. The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for 

recreation and related experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning. 68:147-165.

Grimm, N.B.; Faeith, S.H.; Golubiewski, N.E.; Redman, C.L.; Wu, J.; Bai, X.; Briggs, J.M. 2008. 

Global change and the ecology of cities. Science. 319(5864): 756-760.

Grove, J. M. 2009. Cities: Managing densely settled social-ecological systems. In: Chapin, F.S., 

et al., eds. Principles of ecosystem stewardship. New York: Springer: 281-204.

Grove, J.M.; Burch, W.R.J. 1997. A social ecology approach and application of urban ecosystem 

and landscape analyses: a case study of Baltimore, Maryland. Urban Ecosystems. 1: 259-75.

Grove, J.M.; Burch, W.R.; Pickett, S.T.A. 2005. Social mosaics and urban forestry in Baltimore, 

Maryland. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R., eds. Communities and forests: where people meet the 

land. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 248-273.

Groves, R.M. 2006. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public 

Opinion Quarterly. 70(5): 646-675.

Hager, M.A.; Wilson, S.; Pollak, T.H.; Rooney, P.M. 2003. Response rates for mail surveys 

of nonprofit organizations: A review and empirical test. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector 

Quarterly. 32(2): 252-267.

Hanneman, R.A.; Riddle, M. 2005. Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: 

University of California, Riverside. [online textbook] [http://faculty.ucr.edu~hanneman/. 

(accessed June 6, 2013).
33

Head, L.; Muir, P. 2006. Suburban life and the boundaries of nature: resilience and rupture in 

Australian backyard gardens. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 31(4): 505-

524.

John, D. 1994. Civic environmentalism: alternatives to regulation in states and communities.

Washington, DC: CQ Press. 347 p.

Kempton, W.; Holland, D.C.; Bunting-Howarth, K.; Hannan, E.; Payne, C. 2001. Local 

environmental groups: a systematic enumeration in two geographical areas. Rural Sociology. 

66(4): 557-578.

Knoke, D. 1990. Political networks: the structural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 308 p.

Kossinets, G. 2006. Effects of missing data in social networks. Social Networks. 28(3): 247-268.

Laumann, E.O.; Knoke, D. 1987. The organizational state: social choice in national policy 

domains. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 539 p.

Lawson, L.J. 2005. City bountiful: a century of community gardening in America. Berkeley, 

CA: University of California Press. 345 p.

Leifeld, Philip; Haunss, Sebastian. 2012. Political discourse networks and the conflict over 

software patents in Europe. The European Journal of Political Research. 51(3): 382-409.

Lewis, K.; Gonzalez, M.; Kaufman, J. 2012. Social selection and peer influence in an online 

social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 109(1): 68-72.

Liu, J.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Folke, C.; Alberti, M.; Redman, C.L.; Schneider, S.H.; Ostrom, 

E.; Pell, A.N.; Lubchenco, J.; Taylor, W.W.; Ouyang, Z.; Deadman, P.; Kratz, T.; Provencher, 

W. 2007. Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio. 36(8): 639-649.

Locke, D.H.; King, K.L.; Svendsen, E.S.; Campbell, L.K.; Small, C.; Sonti, N.F.; Fisher, D.R.; 

Lu, J.W.T. 2014. Urban environmental stewardship and changes in vegetative cover and 

building footprint in New York City neighborhoods (2000-2010). Journal of Environmental 

Studies and Science. 4:250-262.

Lusher, D.; Koskinen, J.; Robins, G. 2012. Exponential random graph models for social 

networks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 360 p.

Machlis, G.E.; Force, J.E.; Burch, W.R., Jr. 1997. The human ecosystem. 1. The human 

ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Society and Natural 

Resources. 10(4): 347-367.

Marsden, P. 1990. Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology. 16: 435-463.

McKinney, M.L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience. 52(10): 883-

890.

Newman, L; Dale, A. 2004. Network structure, diversity, and proactive resilience building: 

A response to Tompkins and Adger. Ecology and Society. 10(1): Resp. 2. http://www.

ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/resp2. (accessed May 1, 2015).
34

O’Sullivan, D.; Unwin, D. 2010. Geographic information analysis. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John 

Wiley and Sons. 432 p.

Owen, D. 2009. Green metropolis: why living smaller, living closer, and driving less are the 

keys to sustainability. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. 368 p.

Park, H.W.; Barnett, G.A.; Chung, C.J. 2011. Structural changes in the 2003-2009 global 

hyperlink network. Global Networks. 11(4): 522-542.

Pickett, S.T.A.; Burch, W.R., Jr.; Dalton, S.; Foresman, T.W.; Rowntree, R. 1997. A conceptual 

framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosystems. 1(4): 185-

199.

Pickett, S.T.A.; Grove, J.M. 2009. Urban ecosystems: What would Tansley do? Urban 

Ecosystems. 12: 1-8.

Prell, C.; Hubacek, K.; Reed, M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in 

natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources. 22: 501-518.

Rand, David G.; Arbesman, Samuel; Christakis, Nicholas A. 2011. Dynamic social networks 

promote cooperation in experiments with humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Science. 108(48): 19193-19198.

Rocheleau, D.; Roth, R. 2007. Rooted networks, relational webs and powers of connection: 

Rethinking human and political ecologies. Geoforum. 38(3): 433-437.

Romolini, M. 2013. Governance of 21st century sustainable cities: examining stewardship 

networks in Baltimore & Seattle. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Rubenstein School 

of Environment and Natural Resources. Ph.D. dissertation.

Romolini, M.; Grove, J.M.; Locke, D.H. 2013. Assessing and comparing relationships between 

urban environmental stewardship networks and land cover in Baltimore and Seattle.

Landscape and Urban Planning. 120: 190-207.

Rosenzweig, R.; Blackmar, E. 1992. The park and the people: a social history of Central Park.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 640 p.

Salazar, D.J. 1996. The mainstream-grassroots divide in the environmental movement: 

environmental groups in Washington State. Social Science Quarterly. 77(3): 626-643.

Scott, J. 2000. Social network analysis: A handbook. 2nd ed. London, England, UK; and Beverly 

Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 208 p.

Singer. E.; Ye, C. 2013. The use and effects of incentives in surveys. Annals of the American 

Academy of Political and Social Science. 645(2): 112-141.

Sirianni, C. 2006. Can a federal regulator become a civic enabler? Watersheds at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. National Civic Review. 95(3): 17-34.

Sirianni, C.; Friedland, L. 2001. Civic innovation in America. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 383 p.
35

Staggenborg, S. 1988. The consequences of professionalization and formalization in the prochoice movement. American Sociological Review. 53(4): 585-606.

Stevens, W.K. 1996. Miracle under the oaks: the revival of nature in America. New York: Pocket 

Books. 352 p.

Stork, D.; Richards, W.D. 1992. Nonrespondents in communication network studies. Group 

Organizational Management. 17: 193-209.

Svendsen, E.S. 2010. Civic environmental stewardship as a form of governance in New York 

City. New York, NY: Columbia University, Department of Urban Planning. Ph.D. dissertation.

Svendsen, E.S.; Baine, G.; Northridge, M.; Campbell, L.K.; Metcalfe, S. 2014. Recognizing 

resilience. American Journal of Public Health. 104(4): 1-3.

Svendsen, E.S.; Campbell, L.K. 2008. Urban ecological stewardship: understanding the 

structure, function, and network of community-based urban land management. Cities and 

the Environment. 1 (1): 1-31.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Everyday choices: opportunities for 

environmental stewardship. Washington, DC: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 

Innovation Action Council. 19 p. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/A48A2016D19

8ED2B8525718B00523145/$File/eec_sustainability_briefing_doc_06_13_15_06_everyday_

choices.pdf (Accessed May 1, 2015).

Wasserman, S.; Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge, 

UK: Cambridge University Press. 827 p.

Wellman, B. 1979. The community question: the intimate networks of East Yorkers. American 

Journal of Sociology. 85(5): 1201-1231.

Westphal, L.M. 1993. Why trees? Urban forestry volunteers values and motivations. In: 

Gobster, P., ed. Managing urban and high-use recreation settings. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-163. St. 

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station: 

19-23.

Westphal, L.M.; Gobster, P.H.; Gross, M. 2010. Models for renaturing brownfield areas. In: 

Hall, M., ed. Restoration and history: the search for a usable environmental past. New York, 

NY: Routledge: 208-217.

Westphal, L.M.; Davis, A.Y.; Copp, C.; Ross, L.M.; Bouman, M.J.; Fisher, C.L.; Johnston, M.K.; 

Lambruschi, M.; Hasle, E. 2014. Characteristics of stewardship in the Chicago Wilderness 

Region. Cities and the Environment (CATE). 7(1): Art 3. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/

cate/vol7/iss1/3 (accessed May 1, 2015).
36

APPENDIX 1: PROJECT TEAMS AND WEBSITES

Below is a complete list of research teams at the U.S. Forest Service and project partners, by city.

USDA Forest Service

Website: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/monitoring/stew-map/

This site will continue to be updated over time as visitors can access online data sets, 

protocols, GIS maps, and network models, as well as findings from STEW-MAP and 

STEW-MAP-related projects from around the world.

USDA Forest Service research team:

Dale J. Blahna, Seattle

Lindsay K. Campbell, New York City

Cherie LeBlanc Fisher, Chicago

J. Morgan Grove, Baltimore

Michelle L. Johnson, New York City

Dexter H. Locke, Clark University

Sarah Low, Philadelphia

Jarlath O’Neil-Dunne, University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab

Sonya Sachdeva, Chicago

Erika S. Svendsen, New York City and Philadelphia

Lynne M. Westphal, Chicago

Kathleen L. Wolf, Seattle

New York City

Websites:

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/nyc/focus/stewardship_mapping/

http://www.oasisnyc.net/stewardship/stewardshipsearch.aspx

Research Collaborators: 

Dana R. Fisher, Program for Society and the Environment at the University of Maryland

James J.T. Connolly, Northeastern University

Technical Support:

Jarlath O’Neil-Dunne, University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab

Steve Romalewski, Center for Urban Research at the CUNY Graduate Center

Christy Spielman, Center for Urban Research at the CUNY Graduate Center
37

Local Partners:

American Littoral Society, Northeast Chapter

Brooklyn Botanic Garden

Citizens Committee for New York City

Grow NYC

Horticultural Society of New York

Hudson River Foundation – NYC Environmental Fund

Million Trees NYC

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation GreenThumb Program

New York City Housing Authority

New York City Soil and Water Conservation District

New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program

New York Restoration Project

Open Accessible Space Information System (OASIS)

Partnerships for Parks

Trees New York

Trust for Public Land

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2

Wave Hill

Baltimore

Website: http://www.beslter.org/frame4-page_3d_28.html

Collaborators:

Michele Romolini, Loyola Marymount University Center for Urban Resilience

Parks and People Foundation

Tree Baltimore

Citizens Planning and Housing Association

Baltimore Office of Sustainability

Blue Water Baltimore

Baltimore Ecosystem Study

Baltimore Green Space
38

Chicago

Website: http://stewmap.cnt.org/

Collaborators:

Center for Neighborhood Technology

The Field Museum

Chicago Wilderness

Seattle

Website: http://depts.washington.edu/stewmap/

Collaborators:

Michele Romolini, Loyola Marymount University Center for Urban Resilience

Tim Nyerges, Oliver Bazinet, and Caitlin Singer, University of Washington College of the 

Environment

Weston Brinkley, Forterra / Street Sounds Ecology

City of Seattle Parks and Recreation

EarthCorps

Philadelphia

Website: 

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/philadelphia/

http://www.drfisher.umd.edu/

Collaborators:

Dana R. Fisher, Program for Society and the Environment at the University of Maryland

City of Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of Sustainability

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society

Philadelphia Parks and Recreation

Philly STAKE
OMB Survey 39

APPENDIX 2: SURVEY PROTOCOLS

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved survey protocol

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240 

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 1 of 12

Welcome to the STEW-MAP survey!

Burden Statement 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION and PRIVACY ACT STATEMENTS: According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 

control number. Response to this request is voluntary. No action may be taken against for refusing to supply the information 

requested. The permanent data will be anonymous. 

BURDEN ESTIMATE STATEMENT: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to be 30 minutes per completed response. 

Direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to: Survey contact Name, full address and 

email address. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual 

orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project or STEW-MAP is collecting information about civic 

groups and organizations that do environmental stewardship work in your region. 

STEW-MAP uses the following definition of stewardship: 

Stewardship is conserving, managing, caring for, monitoring, advocating for, and

educating the public about local environments. This may include planting trees, 

restoring a prairie, advocating for open space preservation, gardening in a 

schoolyard, cleaning up a vacant lot, or many other kinds of activities. 

By completing this survey, you will be helping potential volunteers, public agencies, funders, and 

other stewards find your group and learn about what it does. You will also be able to learn about 

other stewardship groups in your region. 

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your personal contact information will not be made public 

or used for any other purposes than by the research team to contact you if there are any questions 

about information you provide on the survey. 

If you wish to have your organization’s basic contact information and the place(s) you work displayed 

on the stewardship map for the region, you will have an opportunity to let us know in section two of 

this survey. All of the information you provide will help us to visually display the network of 

stewardship activities in your region. 

Please use the following URL to start the survey. 
40 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240 

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 2 of 12

SURVEY URL Here 

However, if you would prefer paper version or to complete the survey over the telephone, please 

contact XXX. 

STEW-MAP projects have already been done in Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, 

and Seattle. Please visit www.stewmap.net to learn more. 

Thank you for your time and participation! 
OMB Survey 41

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 3 of 12

STEW-MAP Survey

Your personal information will remain anonymous and we will not share the identifying information

below with anyone outside of the research team. We may contact you if we have questions about

information you provide on this survey.

Your Name: 

Your Phone Number: ( _) - 

Your E-mail: 

If you are affiliated with more than one group or organization (from now on, we’ll just say “group” to 

keep things simple), please fill out the survey for each one. If you are not able to answer all of the

questions, please reach out to someone else in your group and ask them to fill out the survey.

GroupName: (required) 

Website (if available): 

Mailing Address: 

(with city/state/zip) 

Group E-mail: 

Group Phone Number: ( ) - 

Does your group wish to be on the online stewardship map?

The information associated with your group on the map will be limited to group name, website, mailing

address, group email, and group phone number – plus your stewardship territory, which will be

addressed later in the survey.

Yes No 

Section 1: Contact information

Section 2: Contact Information for your group or organization
42 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 4 of 12

Does your group do any of the following? Please select all that apply.

□ Conserve or preserve the local environment?

□ Take care of a place in the local environment (for example, a community garden, a block of

street trees, an empty lot, a riverbank, a schoolyard, a forest preserve)?

□ Restore or transform local habitat (e.g., daylighting a stream, brownfield to prairie

restorations)? 

□ Monitor the quality of the local environment? This can include monitoring air or water quality,

dumping, or species monitoring.

□ Advocate for the local environment? 

□ Educate the public about the local environment?

[In the electronic version of the survey, if none of the above are selected, a pop-up appears that says

“Thank you for your interest in filling out this survey. Your group's work does not meet our

definition of environmental stewardship so we have no further questions. If you feel you have

gotten this in error, please go back to the survey and continue.”]

What is your group's legal designation?

Please choose the most appropriate response.

□ 501(c)(3) (or has applied)

□ 501 (c)(4) (or has applied) 

□ Community group without 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status (for example, a community garden 

group or block club)

□ Local government agency 

□ State government agency

□ Federal government agency 

□ Public administration district 

□ Private firm, for-profit business

□ Other – please specify: 

Section 3: General stewardship activities

Section 4: Basic information about your group
OMB Survey 43

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 5 of 12

What does your group work on?

Please choose all that apply.

□ Public health (including mental health, crisis intervention, health care) 

□ Education 

□ Transportation 

□ Housing and shelter

□ Community improvement and capacity building

□ Environment (including gardening, climate change, forestry, ecologicalrestoration, water

and air protection, and land management) 

□ Toxics/pollution related 

□ Animal related 

□ Human services (including day care, family services)

□ Youth

□ Economic development

□ Employment, job related

□ Legal services, civil rights

□ Arts, culture, creative practices 

□ Recreation and sports (including birding and fishing)

□ Crime, criminal justice

□ International, foreign affairs, and national security 

□ Research in science and/or technology

□ Faith-based activities

□ Power/electricity generation

□ Energy Efficiency 

□ Private grant making foundation

□ Seniors 

□ Food 

□ Other – please specify: 
44 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 6 of 12

If you had to choose just one activity, what would you say is your group's primary focus?

Please choose one.

□ Public health (including mental health, crisis intervention, health care) 

□ Education 

□ Transportation 

□ Housing and shelter

□ Community improvement and capacity building

□ Environment (including gardening, forestry, ecological restoration, water and air 

protection, and land management)

□ Toxics/pollution related 

□ Animal related 

□ Human services (including day care, family services)

□ Youth

□ Economic development

□ Employment, job related

□ Legal services, civil rights

□ Arts, culture, creative practices 

□ Recreation and sports (including birding and fishing)

□ Crime, criminal justice

□ International, foreign affairs, and national security 

□ Research in science and/or technology

□ Faith-based activities

□ Power/electricity generation

□ Energy Efficiency 

□ Private grant making foundation

□ Seniors 

□ Food 

□ Other – please specify: 
OMB Survey 45

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 7 of 12

Considering all of the programs, activities, and services your group works on, what percentage of your

group's effort has been for environmental stewardship during the past year?

Please select one.

☐0-19%

☐20-39%

☐40-59%

☐60-79%

☐80-100%

What type(s) ofsetting has your group physically done stewardship work in within the past year?

Please choose all that apply.

Water & Water-Related

□ Watershed / Sewershed

□ Stream / River / Canal

□ Waterfront / Beach / Shoreline

□ Wetland

□ Other

Land

Natural / Restoration Area 

□ Prairie 

□ Forest/Woodland 

□ Park 

□ Community Garden

□ Urban farm

□ Playing field / Ball field / playground?

□ Dog run or dog park 

□ Botanical Garden/Arboretum 

□ Trails / Bike paths / Greenway / Rail-trail 

□ Public Right of Way (Street ends, roadside, traffic island, greenstreet)

□ Street Tree 

Building

Section 5: Your group's stewardship activities
46 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 8 of 12

□ Residential building grounds (apartment courtyard, back yard, etc.) 

□ Vacant land/Vacant lot

□ School yard or grounds; outdoor classroom 

□ Grounds of public building other than school (e.g. city hall, library, hospital)

□ Courtyard / Atrium / Plaza

□ Flower box / Planter 

□ Rain gardens, rain barrels, permeable pavement, bioswales

□ Green buildings

□ Rooftop

□ Brownfield property

□ Recreation center

□ Other – please specify: 

Please tell usin your own words why your group thinks stewardship work is important.

Please describe in detail the boundaries of where your group has physically done stewardship work

within the past year. You can list multiple locations. 

Examples: "On Main Street, between Maple and Crestview" —"the empty lot at 456 Broad Street " –

"Jenkins Park" – "Northeast corner of the Lincoln Savanna" —"The Mary R. Stewart Nature Preserve" —

“City of Elm Grove” – "ZIP code XXXXX" —"The West Side neighborhood in Madison" —"Washington 

County" —"the Green River Watershed" —"Statewide in Indiana"

Does your group have a Geographic Information System (GIS) file showing the boundaries of where

you have done stewardship work within the past year that you would like to provide? Your GIS file will

be used to accurately show your stewardship sites or territory on the online stewardship map. If you

check ‘yes,’ the research team will contact you to get the file. 

Section 6: Where your group does stewardship
OMB Survey 47

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 9 of 12

□ Yes ☐ No

Who ownsthe property or properties on which your group has physically done stewardship work

within the past year?

Please choose all that apply.

□ Federal government

□ State government

□ County government

□ City/Local government

□ Other government (e.g. Port Authority)

□ Individual

□ Corporation (including joint ventures, real estate investment groups)

□ Nonprofit

□ Don't know

□ Other – please specify: 

Who isthe owner of the primary property or properties on which your group has done stewardship

work within the past year?

Please choose one.

□ Federal government

□ State government

□ County government

□ City/Local government

□ Other government (e.g. Port Authority)

□ Individual

□ Corporation (including joint ventures, real estate investment groups)

□ Nonprofit

□ Don't know 

Other – please specify: 

Section 7: The structure of your group
48 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 10 of 12

What year was your group founded? 

Note: for national or regional groups/organizations please tell us the approximate year your chapter was

founded.

Approximately how many of the following does your group have?

Note: for national groups/organizations please provide regional information.

Full-time Staff: 

Part-time Staff: 

Members: 

Regular Volunteers: 

Note: regular volunteers are those who routinely volunteer in your group's activities. This is different

from volunteers who may come out for a single work day.

For those volunteers who come out occasionally, please estimate the total number of hours they

contribute per month.

Hours: 

What is your group's estimated annual budget for the current year?

$ ☐ Prefer notto answer

What is your primary funding source?

Please select one.

□ Government agencies 

□ Foundations

□ Endowment 

□ Individual memberships

□ Fees/program income

□ Corporate giving/sponsorship

Other: 

What types ofservices does your group provide?

Please select all that apply.

□ Educational curricula 

□ Legal resources

□ Buildings/facilities 

□ Plant materials/equipment

□ Technical assistance 

Section 8: Organizational Services
OMB Survey 49

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 11 of 12

□ Labor(volunteers/students/interns)

□ Grants 

□ Community organizing

□ Computing / internet 

□ Public relations/outreach 

□ Data

□ Other: 

How does your group share information with the public?

Please select all that apply.

□ N/A, we don’t share information

□ National media 

□ Local media

□ Direct mailing / newsletters

□ Door-to-door outreach 

□ Flyers / signs

□ Website 

□ Listserv 

□ Blog

□ National conferences/meetings

□ Regional conferences/meetings

□ City conferences/meetings 

□ Neighborhood-basedconferences/meetings

□ Radio 

□ TV

Other: 

Please tell us about your group's relationship to other groups/organizations. Please list one group per

box, additional boxes will appear if you need them.

Please list groups/organizations with which you regularly collaborate on stewardship or

environment-focused projects or programs. These may be community-based groups, nonprofits,

private companies, faith-based organizations, etc. You can list as many as you wish. 

[On the electronic version of the survey, additional entry slots will continue to appear as the existing 

Section 9: Stewardship Networking
50 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 12 of 12

ones fill up until the respondent has listed as many organizations as they wish.]

Please list groups that you go to for advice, data, or expertise related to stewardship or

environmental issues. You can list as many as you wish.

[On the electronic version of the survey, additional entry slots will continue to appear as the existing 

ones fill up until the respondent has listed as many organizations as they wish.]

Please list groups/organizations/agencies you have gotten funding from in the last two years. You

can list as many as you wish.

[On the electronic version of the survey, additional entry slots will continue to appear as the existing 

ones fill up until the respondent has listed as many organizations as they wish.]

Isthere anything else you would like to tell us about your group or thissurvey?

This concludes the STEW-MAP survey.

Thank you for your participation.

Section 10: Final Section
OMB Survey 51

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240 

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 1 of 9

Welcome to the STEW-MAP survey!

Burden Statement 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION and PRIVACY ACT STATEMENTS: According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 

control number. Response to this request is voluntary. No action may be taken against for refusing to supply the information 

requested. The permanent data will be anonymous. 

BURDEN ESTIMATE STATEMENT: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to be 10 minutes per completed response. 

Direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to: Survey contact Name , full address and 

email address. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual 

orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project or STEW-MAP is collecting information about civic 

groups and organizations that do environmental stewardship work in your region. 

STEW-MAP uses the following definition of stewardship: 

Stewardship is the conserving, managing, caring for, monitoring, advocating for, and

educating the public about local environments. This may include planting trees, 

restoring a prairie, advocating for open space preservation, gardening in a 

schoolyard, cleaning up a vacant lot, or many other kinds of activities. 

By completing this survey, you will be helping potential volunteers, public agencies, funders, and 

other stewards find your group and learn about what it does. You will also be able to learn about 

other stewardship groups in your region. 

Your participation is completely voluntary. Your personal contact information will not be made public 

or used for any other purposes than by the research team to contact you if there are any questions 

about information you provide on the survey. 

Please use the following URL to start the survey. 

SURVEY URL Here 

If you would prefer paper version or to complete the survey over the telephone, please contact XXX. 

STEW-MAP projects have already been done in Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, and 

10-minute version of OMB-approved protocol
52 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240 

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 2 of 9

Seattle. Please visit www.stewmap.net to learn more. 

Thank you for your time and participation! 
OMB Survey 53

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 3 of 9

STEW-MAP Survey

Your personal information will remain anonymous and we will not share the identifying information

below with anyone outside of the research team. We may contact you if we have questions about

information you provide on this survey.

Your Name: 

Your Phone Number: ( _) - 

Your E-mail: 

If you are affiliated with more than one group or organization (from now on we’ll just say “group” to 

keep things simple), please fill out the survey for each group. If you are not able to answer all of the

questions, please reach out to someone else in your group and ask them to fill out the survey.

GroupName: (required) 

Website (if available): 

Mailing Address: 

(with city/state/zip) 

Does your group wish to be on the online stewardship map?

The information associated with your group on the map will be limited to group name, website, mailing

address, group email, and group phone number – plus your stewardship territory, which will be

addressed later in the survey.

Yes No 

Section 1: Contact information

Section 2: Basic Information about your group or organization
54 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 4 of 9

Does your group do any of the following? Please select all that apply.

□ Conserve or preserve the local environment?

□ Take care of a place in the local environment (for example, a community garden, a block of

street trees, an empty lot, a riverbank, a schoolyard, a forest preserve)?

□ Restore or transform local habitat (e.g., daylighting a stream, brownfield to prairie

restorations)? 

□ Monitor the quality of the local environment? This can include monitoring air or water quality,

dumping, or species monitoring.

□ Advocate for the local environment? 

□ Educate the public about the local environment?

[In the electronic version of the survey, if none of the above are selected, a pop-up appears that says

“Thank you for your interest in filling out this survey. Your group's work does not meet our

definition of environmental stewardship so we have no further questions. If you feel you have

gotten this in error, please go back to the survey and continue.”]

What is your group's legal designation?

Please choose the most appropriate response.

□ 501(c)(3) (or has applied)

□ 501 (c)(4) (or has applied) 

□ Community group without 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status (for example, a community garden 

group or block club)

□ Local government agency 

□ State government agency

□ Federal government agency 

□ Public administration district 

□ Private firm, for-profit business

□ Other – please specify: 

Section 3: General Stewardship Activities

Section 4: Basic information about your group
OMB Survey 55

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 5 of 9

If you had to choose just one activity, what would you say is your group's primary focus?

Please choose one.

□ Public health (including mental health, crisis intervention, health care) 

□ Education 

□ Transportation 

□ Housing and shelter

□ Community improvement and capacity building

□ Environment (including gardening, forestry, ecological restoration, water and air 

protection, and land management)

□ Toxics/pollution related 

□ Animal related 

□ Human services (including day care, family services)

□ Youth

□ Economic development

□ Employment, job related

□ Legal services, civil rights

□ Arts, culture, creative practices 

□ Recreation and sports (including birding and fishing)

□ Crime, criminal justice

□ International, foreign affairs, and national security 

□ Research in science and/or technology

□ Faith-based activities

□ Power/electricity generation

□ Energy Efficiency 

□ Private grant making foundation

□ Seniors 

□ Food 

□ Other – please specify: 
56 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 6 of 9

Considering all of the programs, activities, and services your group works on, what percentage of your

group's effort has been for environmental stewardship during the past year?

Please select one.

☐0-19%

☐20-39%

☐40-59%

☐60-79%

☐80-100%

What type(s) ofsetting has your group physically done stewardship work on within the past year?

Please choose all that apply.

Water & Water-Related

□ Watershed / Sewershed

□ Stream / River / Canal

□ Waterfront / Beach / Shoreline

□ Wetland

□ Other

Land

Natural / Restoration Area 

□ Prairie 

□ Forest/Woodland 

□ Park 

□ Community Garden

□ Urban farm

□ Playing field / Ball field / playground?

□ Dog run or dog park 

□ Botanical Garden/Arboretum 

□ Trails / Bike paths / Greenway / Rail-trail 

□ Public Right of Way (Street ends, roadside, traffic island, greenstreet)

□ Street Tree 

Building

Section 5: Your group's stewardship activities
OMB Survey 57

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 7 of 9

□ Residential building grounds (apartment courtyard, back yard, etc.) 

□ Vacant land/Vacant lot

□ School yard or grounds; outdoor classroom 

□ Grounds of public building other than school (e.g. city hall, library, hospital)

□ Courtyard / Atrium / Plaza

□ Flower box / Planter 

□ Rain gardens, rain barrels, permeable pavement, bioswales 

□ Green buildings

□ Rooftop

□ Brownfield property

□ Recreation center

□ Other – please specify: 

Please describe in detail the boundaries of where your group has physically done stewardship work

within the past year. You can list multiple locations. 

Examples: "On Main Street, between Maple and Crestview" —"the empty lot at 456 Broad Street " –

"Jenkins Park" – "Northeast corner of the Lincoln Savanna" —"The Mary R. Stewart Nature Preserve" —

“City of Elm Grove” – "ZIP code XXXXX" —"The West Side neighborhood in Madison" —"Washington 

County" —"the Green River Watershed" —"Statewide in Indiana"

Does your group have a Geographic Information System (GIS) file showing the boundaries of where

you have done stewardship work within the past year that you would like to provide? Your GIS file will

be used to accurately show your stewardship sites or territory on the online stewardship map. If you

check ‘yes,’ the research team will contact you to get the file. 

□ Yes ☐ No

What year was your group founded? 

Note: for national or regional groups/organizations please tell us the approximate year your chapter was

Section 6: Where your group/organization does stewardship

Section 7: The structure of your group/organization
58 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 8 of 9

founded.

Approximately how many of the following does your group have?

Note: for national groups/organizations please provide regional information.

Full-time Staff: 

Part-time Staff: 

What is your group's estimated annual budget for the current year?

$ ☐ Prefer notto answer

What is your primary funding source?

Please select one.

□ Government agencies 

□ Foundations

□ Endowment 

□ Individual memberships

□ Fees/program income

□ Corporate giving/sponsorship

Other: 

What types ofservices does your group provide?

Please select all that apply.

□ Educational curricula 

□ Legal resources

□ Buildings/facilities 

□ Plant materials/equipment

□ Technical assistance 

□ Labor(volunteers/students/interns)

□ Grants 

□ Community organizing

□ Computing / internet 

□ Public relations/outreach 

□ Data

□ Other: 

Section 8: Organizational Services
OMB Survey 59

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 9 of 9

Isthere anything else you would like to tell us about your group or thissurvey?

This concludes the STEW-MAP survey.

Thank you for your participation.

Section 9: Final Section
60 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240 

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 1 of 4

Welcome to the STEW-MAP survey!

Burden Statement 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION and PRIVACY ACT STATEMENTS: According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 

control number. Response to this request is voluntary. No action may be taken against for refusing to supply the information 

requested. The permanent data will be anonymous. 

BURDEN ESTIMATE STATEMENT: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to be 1 minute per completed response. 

Direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to: Survey contact Name, full address and 

email address. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual 

orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project or STEW-MAP is collecting information about civic 

groups and organizations that do environmental stewardship work in your region. 

By completing this survey, you will be helping potential volunteers, public agencies, funders, and 

other stewards find your group and learn about what it does. You will also be able to learn about 

other stewardship groups in your region. Your participation is completely voluntary. 

Please use the following URL to start the survey. 

SURVEY URL Here 

STEW-MAP projects have already been done in Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, 

and Seattle. Please visit www.stewmap.net to learn more. 

Thank you for your time and participation! 

2-minute version of OMB-approved protocol
OMB Survey 61

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 2 of 4

STEW-MAP Survey

GroupName: (required) 

Zip code of mailing address: 

Does your group do any of the following? Please select all that apply.

□ Conserve or preserve the local environment?

□ Take care of a place in the local environment (for example, a community garden, a block of

street trees, an empty lot, a riverbank, a schoolyard, a forest preserve)?

□ Restore or transform local habitat (e.g., daylighting a stream, brownfield to prairie

restorations)? 

□ Monitor the quality of the local environment? This can include monitoring air or water quality,

dumping, or species monitoring.

□ Advocate for the local environment? 

□ Educate the public about the local environment?

[In the electronic version of the survey, if none of the above are selected, a pop-up appears that says

“Thank you for your interest in filling out this survey. Your group's work does not meet our

definition of environmental stewardship so we have no further questions. If you feel you have

gotten this in error, please go back to the survey and continue.”]

What is your group's legal designation?

Please choose the most appropriate response.

□ 501(c)(3) (or has applied)

□ 501 (c)(4) (or has applied) 

Section 1: Basic Information about your group or organization

Section 2: General Stewardship Activities

Section 3: Basic information about your group/organization
62 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 3 of 4

□ Community group without 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status (for example, a community garden 

group or block club)

□ Local government agency 

□ State government agency

□ Federal government agency 

□ Public administration district 

□ Private firm, for-profit business

□ Other – please specify: 

If you had to choose just one activity, what would you say is your group's primary focus?

Please choose one.

□ Public health (including mental health, crisis intervention, health care) 

□ Education 

□ Transportation 

□ Housing and shelter

□ Community improvement and capacity building

□ Environment (including gardening, forestry, ecological restoration, water and air protection,

and land management)

□ Toxics/pollution related 

□ Animal related 

□ Human services (including day care, family services)

□ Youth

□ Economic development

□ Employment, job related

□ Legal services, civil rights

□ Arts, culture, creative practices 

□ Recreation and sports (including birding and fishing)

□ Crime, criminal justice

□ International, foreign affairs, and national security 

□ Research in science and/or technology

□ Faith-based activities
OMB Survey 63

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240

EXP. 08/31/2018 

Page 4 of 4

□ Power/electricity generation

□ Energy Efficiency 

□ Private grant making foundation

□ Seniors 

□ Food 

□ Other – please specify: 

What year was your group founded? 

Note: for national or regional groups/organizations please tell us the approximate year your chapter was

founded.

This concludes the STEW-MAP survey.

Thank you for your participation.
64 OMB Survey

 

The following are examples of outreach correspondences to use with the STEW-MAP project. 

Outreach needs to be customized based on how the person’s contact information is obtained. 

In some cases, partner organizations would actually send the letter or email on behalf of the 

STEW-MAP research team. This is done so that the letter is received from an organization with 

which the recipient already has a relationship. It also allows some customization based on 

characteristics of the recipients (for example, an organization that supports local community 

gardening efforts might customize the text for gardeners). In all cases, these customizations 

would be only minor wording changes. 

Introductory Postcard or Email 

Dear Eco-Steward: 

If you are a gardener, park advocate, beach cleaner, environmentalist, eco-educator, or community 

organizer – we need your help to put your group on the map! 

We are in the process of developing the first-ever comprehensive map of civic stewardship groups 

working throughout the city. The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP) will create 

a publicly available database and map of stewardship groups. Right now we are starting with you. 

Don’t let your hard work go unrecognized.

Over the next year, researchers from the US Forest Service and [other main project partners] will work 

to collect information about where and how environmental stewards are working throughout the city. 

Please look forward to receiving a survey from us within the next two weeks. The survey will arrive 

through your email, however if you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the survey, please contact 

us at: [CONTACT INFORMATION]. 

We are excited to invite you to participate in this important and ground-breaking project. Once you 

receive the survey we are asking that you take the time to complete and return it as soon as you 

possibly can. 

Para una versión en español, favor de email: [email address]

Sincerely, 

The STEW-MAP team 

OMB Control Number: 0596-0240

OMB-approved correspondence for STEW-MAP
OMB Survey 65

OMB Control Number: 0596-0240

Email or Letter with Survey Link

Dear [Partnership or Coalition] Member(s) 

About two weeks ago you received a [postcard or email] asking you to participate in the Stewardship 

Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP). Today we are sending you the URL so that you can 

complete the survey as soon as possible. 

Survey URL here 

If your group does any work on behalf of the environment (community gardening, ecological 

restoration, monitoring, advocacy, environmental education, or other activities), we want to hear from 

you! The information in this survey will be used by our STEW-MAP team to develop a publicly available, 

online database of stewardship organizations working on environmental projects throughout the city. 

This will be the first of its kind in this city – and we are starting with you. 

Once open, the survey will take about 30 minutes to complete. This is completely voluntary and you are 

not required to respond to a collection of information from a federal agency unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. The Control Number for this collection is: 0596-0240. All 

responses are completely anonymous and we will never publicly connect your organization with any 

responses. If you are not able to finish the survey at one time, you can start now and complete as much 

as you can. You can save your work and return later. We would like to have your survey completed 

within the next two weeks.

If you have any questions about this survey or would like more information, please contact a member of 

the STEW-MAP team at (email address here). 

Sincerely, 

STEW-MAP Team

OMB Control Number: 0596-0240
66 OMB Survey

Follow-up email for someone who hasn’t completed the survey after 2 weeks:

Dear Eco-Steward, 

This is such a busy time of year for everyone who cares about the environment. We understand how 

valuable your time is and hope that you can find about 30 minutes to complete the STEW-MAP survey 

for your group. 

We need information from groups like yours so that we can get a well-rounded picture of who is doing 

environmental stewardship work in our city. The survey can be found at: 

[Survey URL]

If you are not able to finish the survey at one time, you can start now and complete as much as you can. 

You can save your work and return later. 

Thank you in advance for contributing to the STEW-MAP project by completing the survey. Please 

contact us if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

[STEW-MAP team]

[contact information]
OMB Survey 67

Optional follow-up, thank you message for someone who filled out the survey but said no to being on 

the online map 

Hello [Partnership or Coalition] Member(s) 

On behalf of the Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project, I would like to thank you for completing 

the Stew-MAP survey for your organization. At one point in the survey, you indicated that you did not 

wish to be included on the stewardship map. If you have reconsidered and would like to add your 

organization to the map, please log back into your survey and you will be able to view or update your 

previous responses. If you would like to log back in, please use the following steps: 

 1. Use the following link to access the survey [URL Here] 

2. In the box, at the bottom of the welcome page enter your email address exactly as you 

provided it on the survey (the email used to send you this note) 

3. Click the “Continue” button

 4. On the next screen, click on the link for your organization 

5. Use the navigation buttons at the bottom of each page until you reach the following question 

“Does your group/organization wish to be on the online stewardship map?" 

Click "Yes” and your group will be added to the online map. 

Please do not hesitate to be in touch if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Signature 

Email address 

OMB Control Number: 0596-0240
68 OMB Survey

Optional follow-up, thank you message for someone who started to fill out the survey but did not 

complete it

Hello, XXX. Thank you for starting the Stew-MAP survey for [group name]. You can see yourself on the 

online stewardship map at [URL]. We know that your time is valuable and hope that you can find the 

time to complete the survey in the next few weeks. We need information from groups like yours so that 

we can get a well-rounded picture of who is doing environmental stewardship work in our city. 

Please follow these steps to log back into the survey to answer skipped questions or update your 

previous responses: 

 1. Go to the bottom of the welcome page [URL] 

 2. In the box, enter your email address exactly as you provided it on the survey (the email used 

to send you this note) 

3. Click the “Continue” button

 4. Click on the link for your organization on the next screen 

 5. Page through the survey using the navigation buttons at the bottom of each page. 

Please do not hesitate to be in touch if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Signature 

Email address 
OMB Survey 69

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240 

Exp. 08/31/2018 

Page 1 of 2

OMB-approved Census Interview Guide 

Target Respondents: large stewardship organizations, environmental coalition or 

umbrella groups, and local government agencies. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB 

control number for this information collection is 0596-0240. This information will be used to conduct an assessment of 

environmental stewardship activities in this community. The time required to complete this information collection is 

estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time forlocatingand sharing pertinent contact lists with us. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center 

at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

Script:

Hello, I am contacting you on behalf of the STEW-MAP project which is assessing 

environmental stewardship work in this region. 

[At this point, we will convey the gist of the PRA Statement and USDA Discrimination 

Statement above. We will offer a written version of both if requested.] 

We are compiling a contact list of stewardship groups and organizations. We will only 

use this information to contact stewardship groups to participate in the STEW-MAP 

survey. Any format that is easiest for you will work for us (for example, fax, hard copy, 

digital file). 

Would you please share your list of local stewardship group contacts for us to use as part 

of the STEW-MAP project? 

Thank you for helping us with this project. 

[Most people contacted for this information will already know about STEW-MAP from 

past conversations and/or may be partners on the project. However, if the person should 

ask for more information about STEW-MAP before answering the question about sharing 

their contact lists, we will use the following script:] 
70 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240 

Exp. 08/31/2018 

Page 2 of 2

STEW-MAP Background 

As you know, civic environmental stewards across the United States are involved in 

activities like planting trees, organizing community gardens, offering classes, leading 

conservation efforts, monitoring plants and animals, and cleaning up nearby parks or 

natural areas. In urban areas, effective management of parks, public forests, natural areas, 

parkways, and other public open spaces increasingly relies on the work of civic 

environmental stewardship groups and coalitions. 

At present, no natural resource agency or organization is collecting and sharing 

comprehensive environmental stewardship data at the local level. STEW-MAP (the 

Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project) aims to fill this gap. There are three 

phases to STEW-MAP: 

 Phase One is a census of stewardship groups in the target city or region –

essentially putting together a master list of known stewardship groups. That is 

what we are asking for from you. 

 Phase Two is a survey which will be distributed to all of the organizations 

identified in Phase One to collect information about what they work on, how their 

group is structured, where they work, and what other groups they collaborate 

with. 

 Phase Three is follow-up interviews with key longstanding organizations 

identified during Phase Two to collect more detailed information about their 

stewardship histories and experiences. 

The information collected via STEW-MAP will help natural resource decision makers, 

land managers, and stewards themselves understand the extent and distribution of local 

civic environmental stewardship across a city or metropolitan region. This information 

can be used to guide local resource allocation decisions and policies regarding care of 

forests and other natural resources. 
OMB Survey 71

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240 

Exp. 08-31-2018

OMB-approved Follow-up Interview Protocol 

Target Respondents: leaders at key environmental hub organizations as identified in the 

social network section of the STEW-MAP survey. Specific organizations will be selected 

based on being named the most frequently by other groups in responses to the social

network questions. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB 

control number for this information collection is 0596-0240. The time required to complete this information collection 

is estimated to average 1 hour, which includes participating in a one-on-one interview about your organization’s 

history of environmental stewardship work. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center 

at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

Script: 

We are asking 10 people from this city to participate in interviews about local environmental 

stewardship work. You were chosen because other environmental stewards consider your

organization to be a leader in the local environmental stewardship community. By participating in

this interview, you will be involved in a research study about the ways that your organization is 

working to conserve, manage, monitor, advocate for and educate the public about the local 

environment. During the interview, we will ask you about your organization and how it has

historically worked to steward the environment. Your participation is voluntary. If you feel 

uncomfortable at any time, feel free to stop the interview. 

[At this point, we will convey the gist of the PRA Statement and USDA Discrimination Statement 

above. We will offer a written version of both if requested.] 

Although the interview will ask for your name and contact information, all personal identifying 

information will be substituted with randomly generated identification codes once the study is

completed. The code sheet that will link your name and contact information to your interview 

will be kept in a locked file cabinet. If you have comments regarding the conduct of this research 

or questions about your rights as a research participant, you should contact _____________ [fill 

in specific information for each STEW-MAP project]. 

If at any time you have questions or comments regarding the interview or the overall project, 

please feel free to contact the project researchers, _______________ [fill in specific information 

for each STEW-MAP project]. 

Page 1 of 2
72 OMB Survey

USDA Forest Service OMB 0596-0240 

Exp. 08-31-2018 

Page 2 of 2

For all of the following questions, please consider the programs of your organization that deal 

directly with environmental stewardship. 

Please state your name, your position and how long you have been working/volunteering with 

[use organization name].

1. What year was your organization founded? Can you tell me the story of its founding? 

(Who, where, how?) Have there been any major milestones in your organization’s 

history? Has the work of your organization changed since the time of its founding? If so, 

in what way? 

2. Can you describe the area where your group physically worked when your organization 

was founded? If it has changed at all over time, can you describe the ways it has changed 

(and why)? 

3. Does your organization have individual members? If so, please explain what members 

do (if there are many types of “membership” please explain how members are distributed 

across these different types). Has membership in your organization changed since the 

organization was founded? If so, how? 

4. Are there particular government policies or programs that have historically shaped your 

organization’s work to a large extent (e.g. dedicated funding, administrative practices or 

partnerships, laws that affect your work)? Can you provide examples? 

5. Do you work with specific civic organizations, community organizations and non-profits 

around the city? Who and how? (Follow up regarding resources and formal 

agreements.) Have your connections to these groups changed over time? If so, how? 

6. Do you work with specific government agencies in the city? Who and how? (Follow up 

regarding resources and formal agreements.) Have your connections to these groups 

changed over time? If so, how? 

7. Do you work with specific business groups and/or businesses around the city? Who and 

how? (Follow up regarding resources and formal agreements.) Have your connections to 

these groups changed over time? If so, how? 

8. Have you had any challenges – or experienced constraints to your stewardship efforts – in 

working with particular organizations, individuals, or entities over the years? If so, please 

tell me more about this. Has your relationship to these groups or individuals changed 

over time? If so, how? 

9. Is there anyone else that you think I should speak with about environmental efforts in this 

city [or area or region] over the last 25 years? 

10. Would you be willing to be contacted again for follow-up questions? If so, please 

confirm your email address. 
New York City Survey 73

Appendix 2: continued

Survey protocol for New York City

stew-map:

The Citywide 

Stewardship Census
74 New York City Survey

stew-map: The Citywide Stewardship Census

The intent of this study is to understand environmental 

stewardship in New York City. We define stewardship 

as the act of conserving, managing, monitoring, 

advocating for, and educating the public about their 

local environments.

In this assessment we ask questions about your 

organization, who you work with, where you work, 

what you do, and how you do it. It should take about 

15-20 minutes to complete.

Based on the information we collect, we will develop 

maps to show how people work together to 

improve the urban environment of New York City. 

Thank you for participating in this effort.

organization name: 

web site (if available): 

mailing address: 

address:

city state zip 

key contact name: 

organization email: 

organization phone: 

does your organization wish to be listed in a public, online 

stewardship database?

* yes * no

This identifying information 

is confidential. We will not 

share your name, personal 

email, personal phone 

number, or other identifying 

information with anyone.

respondent name:

 

respondent email:

 

respondent phone:

 

organizational contact information
New York City Survey 75

stew-map: The Citywide Stewardship Census

section i

Tell us about your 

group’s environmental 

stewardship activities

section ii

Tell us about us about what 

your organization does

1. does your group aim to conserve the local environment?

* yes * no

2. does your group manage some area of the local environment?

* yes * no

3. does your group monitor the quality of the local environment?

* yes * no

4. does your group advocate for the local environment?

* yes * no

5. does your group aim to educate the public about the local 

environment?

* yes * no

6. what is your group’s primary focus? (Please select all that apply)

* public health (Including Mental Health, Crisis Intervention, Health Care)

* education

* housing and shelter

* community improvement and capacity building

* environment (Including Gardening, Forestry, Water And Air Protection)

* animal related

* human services (Including Day Care, Family Services)

* employment, job related

* legal services, civil rights

* arts, culture

* recreation and sports (Including Birding And Angling)

* crime, criminal justice

* international, foreign affairs, and national security

* research in science, technology, and social sciences

* religion related

* private grantmaking foundation

* seniors

* youth

* transportation related

* development (Including Business, Community, Real Estate)

* other: 

7. what is your group’s mission statement? (200 words or less please.)

8. what year was your organization founded?

 
76 New York City Survey

stew-map: The Citywide Stewardship Census

9. at which types of sites does your group physically work? 

(Please circle all that apply)

10. my organization: (Please check and fill in all that apply.) 

* is a 501(c)(3)

* has applied for 501(c)(3) status

* receives funding through the following 

 501(c)(3) organization: 

* is a branch of a larger 501(c)(3)

* is a community group without 501(c)(3) status 

* is a school-affiliated community group 

* is a religious congregation (church, synagogue, mosque, etc), 

 but not a 501(c)(3)

* is not tax exempt (private firm, etc)

* is a government agency

* is a 501(c)(4)

* is a public – private partnership

* other: 

Since the purpose of this study is to learn more about nonprofit organizations and 

community groups, if you chose “is not tax exempt” or “is a government agency”, 

you do not need to complete the entire form. Please return the form in the enclosed 

envelope. Thank you. 

11. how many of the following does your organization have? 

(Please circle the appropriate range in each category) 

water

watershed/sewershed

stream/river/canal

waterfront/beach/ 

shoreline

land

“natural”/ 

restoration area

park

community garden

vacant land

playing field/ballfield

dog run

street tree

botanical garden

greenway/rail-trail

flower box/planter

public right of way 

(e.g. street ends, roadside, 

traffic island, greenstreet)

urban farm

building 

green building

rooftop

courtyard/atrium/

plaza

front yard / back yard

school yard

apartment grounds

paid staff

0 – 1

2 – 3

4 – 5

6 – 10

11+

volunteers

0 – 1

2 – 3

4 – 5

6 – 10

11+

members

0 – 1

2 – 3

4 – 5

6 – 10

11+
New York City Survey 77

stew-map: The Citywide Stewardship Census

section iii

Tell us where your 

group conducts its 

stewardship activities

Please answer all that apply in 12A through 12E

12. where does your group physically work? 

12a. international: (Please specify where)

12b. national/statewide

* all states

* new york

* new jersey

* connecticut

* other: (Please list)

12c. counties / boroughs

nyc

* bronx county, ny * queens County, ny

* kings county (brooklyn), ny * richmond county (staten island), ny

* new york county (manhattan), ny

 long island

* nassau county * suffolk county

 westchester + surrounding counties

* ornage county * rockland county

* putnam county * westchester county

 new jersey

* bergen county * monmouth county

* essex county * passaic county

* hudson county * union county

* middlesex county

* other: 

12d. nyc community boards: (Please list borough and number)

12e. nyc neighborhoods: (Please specify)

13. please describe in detail the boundaries of where your group currently works. 

be as specific as possible and you can list multiple locations. 

For example: 

“On Wyckoff St. between Court St. and Smith St”; “Lower Manhattan south of Canal St.”; “the Arthur Kill between Staten Island and New Jersey”; 

“All of the shoreline in the Hudson River Estuary”; “all of ZIP code 10007”; “The Croton Watershed”; “The Guangdong Province of China”
78 New York City Survey

stew-map: The Citywide Stewardship Census

section iv

Tell us about your organization’s relationship to other groups

14. who owns the property on which your organization 

 typically works? (Please choose all that apply.)

* federal government

* state government

* local government

* other government (e.g. ny-nj port authority): 

* individual

* corporation (including joint ventures, reits)

* nonprofit

15. please list up to three groups/organizations in each of the following categories with 

which you collaborate.

business groups

civic groups /community groups/nonprofits

government agencies

school groups
New York City Survey 79

stew-map: The Citywide Stewardship Census

section v

Tell us a bit more about 

what your group does

16. what type of services does your group currently provide? 

(Select all that apply)

* educational curricula

* legal resources 

* buildings/facilities

* plant materials/equipment 

* technical assistance 

* labor: (volunteers/students/interns)

* grants 

* community organizing 

* computing / internet

* public relations/outreach 

* data 

* other 

17. how does your group share information with the public? 

(Select all that apply)

* n/a, we don’t share information

* national media

* local media

* direct mailing / newsletters 

* door-to-door outreach

* flyers / signs

* website

* listserv

* blog

* national conferences/meetings 

* regional conferences/meetings 

* city conferences/meetings 

* neighborhood-based conferences/meetings 

* radio

* tv

18. what is your organization’s annual budget? (Select one range)

* $0 – $1,000

* $1,000 – $10,000 

* $10,000 – $50,000

* $50,000 – $100,000 

* $100,000 – $200,000 

* $200,000 – $500,000

* $500,000 – $1 million

* $1 – $2 million

* $2 – $5 million

* $5 million +

19. what is your primary funding source? (Select one)

* government agencies 

* foundations 

* endowment

* individual memberships

* fees/program income

* corporate giving/sponsorship 

* other 
80 New York City Survey

stew-map: The Citywide Stewardship Census

This concludes the STEW-MAP assessment. 

Thank you for your participation. 

Please mail back the assessment in the 

enclosed envelope.

* please check here if you or another person from your organization 

is willing to participate in a follow-up interview or focus group 

related to the stew-map project.

* please check here if you would like to receive a copy of the report.

feel free to contact stew-map with any questions or comments at

stewmap@columbia.edu
Chicago Survey 81

Appendix 2: continued

Survey protocol for Chicago

Chicago Stew-MAP Survey 

Section 1: Contact information

Your personal information is confidential. We will not share your name, personal email, personal phone 

number, or other identifying information with anyone outside of the research team. We may contact 

you if we have questions about information you provide on this survey. 

Your Name: _____________________________________________ 

Your Phone Number: (_____) ______ - ________

Your E-mail: ______________________________________________ 

Section 2: Basic Information about your group/organization

If you are affiliated with more than one group or organization, please fill out the survey separately for 

each group. 

Group/Organization Name: ______________________________________________ 

Website (if available): ___________________________________________________ 

Mailing Address: _________________________________________________ 

(with city/state/zip) ______________________________________

Group/Organization E-mail: _____________________________________________ 

Group/Organization Phone Number: (_____) ______-_________ 

Does your group/organization wish to be on the online stewardship map? 

Yes _____ No _____ 

Note: The information associated with your group on the map will be limited to group/organization 

name, website, mailing address, group/organization email, group/organization phone number, what you 

primarily work on – plus your geographic territory, which will be addressed later in this survey. 
82 Chicago Survey

Section 3: Your group/organization's environmental stewardship activities 

Does your group/organization do any of the following?

Conserve the local environment? ☐ Yes ☐ No

Take care of a place in the local environment (for example, a community garden, a block of 

street trees, an empty lot, a riverbank, a schoolyard, a forest preserve)? ☐ Yes ☐ No

Restore or transform local habitat (e.g., daylighting a stream, brownfield to prairie 

restorations)? ☐ Yes ☐ No

Monitor the quality of the local environment? This can include monitoring air or water quality, 

dumping, or species monitoring? ☐ Yes ☐ No

Advocate for the local environment? ☐ Yes ☐ No

Educate the public about the local environment? ☐ Yes ☐ No

Section 4: Basic information about your group/organization 

What is your group/organization's legal designation?

Please choose the most appropriate response.

☐ 501(c)(3) (or has applied) 

☐ 501 (c)(4) (or has applied) 

☐ Community group/organization without 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status (e.g., a block club)

☐ Local government agency 

☐ State government agency 

☐ Federal government agency 

☐ Public administration district (such as a school, Port Authority, university campus, hospital) 

☐ Private firm, for-profit business 

☐ Other – please specify: _______________________________________________ 
Chicago Survey 83

What does your group/organization work on?

Please choose all that apply. 

☐ Public health (including mental health, food, crisis intervention, health care) 

☐ Education 

☐ Transportation 

☐ Housing and shelter 

☐ Community improvement and capacity building 

☐ Environment (including gardening, forestry, ecological restoration, water and air protection) 

☐ Toxics/pollution related

☐ Animal related 

☐ Human services (including day care, family services) 

☐ Youth development 

☐ Economic development

☐ Employment, job related

☐ Legal services, civil rights 

☐ Arts, culture, creative practices 

☐ Recreation and sports (including birding and fishing) 

☐ Crime, criminal justice 

☐ International, foreign affairs, and national security 

☐ Research in science and/or technology 

☐ Faith-based activities 

☐ Power/electricity generation 

☐ Energy Efficiency 

☐ Other – please specify: _______________________________________________
84 Chicago Survey

If you had to choose just one activity, what would you say is your group's primary focus? 

Please choose one.

☐ Public health (including mental health, food, crisis intervention, health care) 

☐ Education 

☐ Transportation 

☐ Housing and shelter 

☐ Community improvement and capacity building 

☐ Environment (including gardening, forestry, ecological restoration, water and air protection) 

☐ Toxics/pollution related

☐ Animal related 

☐ Human services (including day care, family services) 

☐ Youth development 

☐ Economic development

☐ Employment, job related

☐ Legal services, civil rights 

☐ Arts, culture, creative practices 

☐ Recreation and sports (including birding and fishing) 

☐ Crime, criminal justice 

☐ International, foreign affairs, and national security 

☐ Research in science and/or technology 

☐ Faith-based activities 

☐ Power/electricity generation 

☐ Energy Efficiency 

☐ Other 

Section 5: Your group/organization's stewardship activities

Considering all of the programs, activities, and services your group/organization works on, 

what percentage of your group/organization's effort has been for stewardship during the 

past year? Please select one.

☐ 0-19% ☐ 20-39% ☐ 40-59% ☐ 60-79% ☐ 80-100%
Chicago Survey 85

What type(s) of setting has your group/organization done stewardship work in within the 

past year?

Please choose all that apply. 

Water & Water-Related

☐ Watershed / Sewershed 

☐ Stream / River / Canal 

☐ Waterfront / Beach / Shoreline 

☐ Wetland 

Open Spaces & Natural Areas

☐ Prairie 

☐ Forest/Woodland/Savanna 

☐ Park 

☐ Community Garden 

☐ Urban farm 

☐ Playing field / Ball field 

☐ Dog run or dog park 

☐ Public garden (e.g. botanical garden, arboretum) 

☐ Trails / Bike paths / Greenway / Rail-trail 

Nature in Built Places

☐ Residential building grounds (apartment courtyard, back yard, etc.) 

☐ Vacant land/Vacant lot

☐ School yard or grounds; outdoor classroom

☐ Grounds of public building other than school (e.g. city hall, library, hospital) 

☐ Courtyard / Atrium / Plaza 

☐ Street Trees/ Boulevard/ Traffic Island/ Greenstreet/ Parkway (Public right of way) 

☐ Flower box / Planter 

☐ Rain gardens, rain barrels, permeable pavement, bioswales 

☐ Green buildings 

☐ Green roofs 

☐ Brownfield property 

☐ Other – please specify: _______________________________________________________ 
86 Chicago Survey

Please tell us why your group/organization does stewardship work.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Section 6: Where you group or organization conducts stewardship activities.

Please describe in detail the boundaries of where your group/organization has physically 

done stewardship work within the past year. You can list multiple locations. If you do not 

physically work on a particular site, you can list your service area.

Examples —“We have a community garden In Chicago, on Halsted between 130th and 131st" —

"restoration workdays in Coral Woods" —"Environmental monitoring on the Southwest corner of the 

Middle Fork Savanna" —"Outdoor education classes at the Ivanhoe Dune & Swale Nature Preserve" —

"Our energy conservation program service area is all of ZIP code 46368"—“We consider our territory all 

of the Fox River Watershed in Wisconsin" —"Environmental advocacy statewide in Indiana”

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________ 

Does your group/organization have a Geographic Information System (GIS) file showing the 

boundaries of where you do stewardship work that you would be willing to share with us? 

We would only use your file to show your stewardship territory on the stewardship map.

☐ Yes ☐ No

Who owns the property or properties on which your group/organization has physically done 

stewardship work within the past year? Please choose all that apply.

☐ Federal government 

☐ State government 

☐ County government (e.g. Forest Preserve District) 

☐ City/Local government 

☐ Other government (e.g. Port Authority) 

☐ Individual 

☐ Corporation (including joint ventures, real estate investment groups) 

☐ Nonprofit

☐ Don't know

☐ Other – please specify: ______________________________________ 
Chicago Survey 87

Who is the owner of the primary property or properties on which your group/organization 

has done stewardship work within the past year? Please choose one.

☐ Federal government 

☐ State government 

☐ County government (e.g. Forest Preserve District) 

☐ City/Local government 

☐ Other government (e.g. Port Authority) 

☐ Individual 

☐ Corporation (including joint ventures, real estate investment groups) 

☐ Nonprofit

☐ Don't know

☐ Other 

Section 7: The structure of your group/organization. 

Approximately what year was your group/organization founded? ____________ 

Note: For national or regional groups/organizations, please tell us the year your chapter was founded. 

Approximately how many of the following does your group/organization have:

Note: For national groups/organizations, please provide regional information. 

Full-time Staff: ______ 

Part-time Staff: ______ 

Members: ______ 

Regular Volunteers: ______ 

Note: regular volunteers are those who routinely volunteer in your group/organization's activities. This 

is different from volunteers who may come out for a single work day. 

For those volunteers who come out occasionally, can you estimate the total number of hours 

they contribute? 

Hours: ______ (per week/per month/per year – please select one time period) 

What is your group/organization's estimated annual budget for the current year?

$________________ ☐ Prefer not to answer 
88 Chicago Survey

Section 8: Group/Organizational Relationships 

Please tell us about your group/organization's relationship to other groups/organizations. For all 

questions in this section, we are interested in hearing about all possible collaborations – federal, state, 

and local governments; private companies; other nonprofits, schools, or community groups; etc. 

Please list up to ten group/organizations from which you seek information, advice, or 

expertise related to environmental stewardship:

1. _____________________________________

2. _____________________________________ 

3. _____________________________________

4. _____________________________________

5. _____________________________________

6. _____________________________________

7. _____________________________________

8. _____________________________________ 

9. _____________________________________

10. ____________________________________ 

Please list up to ten groups/organizations to which you provide information, advice, or 

expertise related to environmental stewardship:

1. _____________________________________ 

2. _____________________________________

3. _____________________________________

4. _____________________________________

5. _____________________________________

6. _____________________________________

7. _____________________________________ 

8. _____________________________________

9. _____________________________________

10. ____________________________________ 

Please list up to ten groups/organizations from which you receive funding related to 

environmental stewardship:

1. _____________________________________

2. _____________________________________

3. _____________________________________

4. _____________________________________

5. _____________________________________

6. _____________________________________ 

7. _____________________________________

8. _____________________________________

9. _____________________________________

10. ____________________________________ 
Chicago Survey 89

Please list up to ten groups/organizations to which you provide funding related to 

environmental stewardship: 

1. _____________________________________

2. _____________________________________

3. _____________________________________

4. _____________________________________

5. _____________________________________

6. _____________________________________

7. _____________________________________

8. _____________________________________

9. _____________________________________

10. ____________________________________

PARTNERSHIPS: 

Does your group/organization belong to any coalitions, partnerships, or working 

groups/organizations that share information, plan strategy, or coordinate activities? 

☐ Yes ☐ No

If yes, please list the coalition(s) your group/organization is active in. 

1. _____________________________________

2. _____________________________________

3. _____________________________________

4. _____________________________________

5. _____________________________________

6. _____________________________________

7. _____________________________________

8. _____________________________________

9. _____________________________________

10. ____________________________________

Section 9: Final Section 

Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your group/organization or this survey? 

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for your participation. If you have questions about the survey or the 

project, please contact Cherie LeBlanc Fisher at clfisher@fs.fed.us or 847-866-9311 x12. 
90 Baltimore Survey

Appendix 2: continued

Survey protocol for Baltimore

" "$ !
!!!!" "	

  "
" " 

 %"&!$!#! $% %"!! #!

 !!  !$!  % ! !$ !#!%
$"!

"!! !#! "$!%"&! $$%


" !" !#! !$ !!"$ !!	
		

	
			

 !

!$!$$#!!#" "! ! ! $$

$$!!!#!#!!

! "!	$!%!! "!"! !  "#% 

#% !$ &! !$!!!$ " !  "!

 !  !%$!#!

  "#% "!"!#"!!!%"$%"&!


!%!%"!!! "#%!$" !#!!" !$ !

!!#! !!%" !!%"" !! "!%""!"$


 	 



!

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+
Baltimore Survey 91







	














	









	

	





#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+
92 Baltimore Survey

*

&&%&+#!*+$/&)%!0+!&%*!%&)$+!&%



	

/&,)!#!+.!+ $&)+ %&%)&,'&)&)%!0+!&%/&,.!##)!-*')+*,)-/!%-!++!&%*&) )&,'

#*&$'#++ *,)-/&)+ )&,'&)&)%!0+!&%%$!%+ $!#!%-!++!&%

/&,)%&+#+&%*.)##&+ (,*+!&%*'#*) &,++&%&+ )!%/&,)&)%!0+!&%%*"+ $+&!##&,+

+ *,)-/

)&,')%!0+!&%$



')+$%+!$


*!+!-!##


*!+&*+.)* !'

')&)$!!)%+


)&,')%!0+!&%$!#


)&,')%!0+!&% &%


	



!#!%)**!%#,!%!+/++!'


)**


)**	


!+/


++


!'



	
	%&+ )!+!*+ !*)*&,) *

 #'*+.)*. &* )!%+)*+*+&!% &+ )%&##&)+!+ /.!* 

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+
Baltimore Survey 93




#
# 
$
"
# #  
!


 




	#  




 
 


	# "# 
$


# ""

# 
"

"

"  !#

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+




		

		 








 





	









 
	








 










 

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+

	








 
 

		

		
	

		


			

		


	
					


	
					

	 		



	

			
	


	

 		




	

	
		

		




		


	



		

				
		

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+
94 Baltimore Survey





				
	

	!!"




! 

	
  !



#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+

	"#!!

"#!!

 %$(" %! ")$ '$ %$	 "#$$%##%# %

 #$"$


" &"$(

$$ &"$(

  &"$(

%#$$%$  $(

%# &"$ ")$ #%#! "$%$ "$(

"&$" "!" $%###

$"!##!(







	










#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+



	

	







	


	


	




	





#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+
Baltimore Survey 95









		



#&-!)#!)*&'&))!#'+('&))%+%*!&%)&&(%!0*!&%)&--##&) &* &##&-!%)(!* 

'+('&)&(+%*!&%&/&+((&+'&(&(%!0*!&%

&**## &$- * (/-##

&**## &$- * (/-##

&**## &$- * (/-##

  &**## &$- * (/-##

+#! #* !%#+!%$%*# #* &&(!)!)

!%*(,%*!&% #* (

+*!&%

&+)!%%) #*(

&$$+%!*/!$'(&,$%*%'!*/+!#!%

%,!(&%$%*!%#+!%(%!%&()*(/&#&!#

()*&(*!&%-*(%!('(&**!&%

&.!)'&##+*!&%(#*

	%!$#(#*

+$%)(,!)!%#+!%/($!#/)(,!)

&+* ,#&'$%*

&%&$!&(+)!%)),#&'$%*

$'#&/$%*"&(#*

#)(,!)!,!#(! *)

	(*)+#*+((*!,'(*!)

(*!&%%)'&(*)!%#+!%!(!%%!) !%

(!$(!$!%#"+)*!

%*(%*!&%#&(!%!()%%*!&%#)+(!*/

)( !%)!%%&(* %&#&/


!* )*!,!*!)

&-(#*(!!*/%(*!&%

%(/!!%/

* ('#))'!/

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+
96 Baltimore Survey

				

	


 ! !#!  # %""&! $!!%"! 

 !$ 

		

		
	







	
	


	
	

	



#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+
Baltimore Survey 97


	

		
	

"),3."-,//&)"-.,'" 0/&0"//"00&+$/,3,#0"+!,"/5,1.$.,1-,.,.$+&60&,+!,/0"3.!/%&-3,.(0" %,#0%"

#,)),3&+$/&0"05-"/




"2". ,*"0&*"/ #0"+

0"./%"!"3"./%"!

0."*&2".
+)

0".#.,+0" %%,.")&+"

"0)+!




"2". ,*"0&*"/ #0"+

.&.&"2++

,."/0,,!)+!

.(


,**1+&05$.!"+

.+#.*

"2". ,*"0&*"/ #0"+

)5&+$#&")!))#&")!

,$.1+,$-.(

1)& $.!"+,0+& )$.!"+.,."01*"0 

.&)/&("-0%.""+35&)0.&)




"2". ,*"0&*"/ #0"+

"/&!"+0&)1&)!&+$$.,1+!/-.0*"+0 ,1.05.! (

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+
98 Baltimore Survey

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+ "/&!"+0&)1&)!&+$$.,1+!/-.0*"+0 ,1.05.! (

5.!"0 

 +0)+! +0),0

.,3+#&")!-.,-".05

 %,,)5.!,.$.,1+!/	,10!,,. )//.,,*

"2". ,*"0&*"/ #0"+

.,1+!/,#-1)& 1&)!&+$,0%".0%+/ %,,) &05%))

)&..5%,/-&0)"0 


,1.05.!0.&1*)6

0.""00.""/,1)"2.!.##& &/)+!.""+/0.""0

.(351)& .&$%0,#35

&+$.!"+&+..")".*")"-2"*"+0&,/3)" 

"2". ,*"0&*"/ #0"+

.""+1&)!&+$

.""+.,,#

),3".,4)+0".

0%"./&0"05-"-)"/"/-" 

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+

	



	


#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+






 



#

!  #



 #

#

	"#



	
	
	




		


	
Baltimore Survey 99

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+



	

	


$)%,"%+&"(('  $) ")%*$' (%

+'-%*''%*&%'$ .) %$(%$+%'! $)"()-'%*$" ()#*") &""%) %$(
				

	

	

	
			
			



%',#&"

0'*  ""'!1/0
") #%'%*$)-1/0)"%!%*$$)')10(&!
-1/0"%$)+-$$(""(' "1/

""%. &%			

100 Baltimore Survey

%-#&(+ - 0+,"#)))#'!,, ,,& '-+($ -

		
	

	
		




 

+%!2%2%+%#3-%)'(".1(..$26(%1%7.4$.23%6!1$2()/6.1*

(%2%-%)'(".1(..$-!,%2!-$".4-$!1)%2!1%3(.2%42%$"73(%#)37!-$,!7$)&&%1&1.,.3(%12.41#%2&7.4!1%

4-241%/+%!2%5)2)3!+3),.1%)37)%63.5)%6-%)'(".1(..$,!/2.137/%)-!2/%#)&)#!$$1%223.&)-$7.41

-%)'(".1(..$	(33/	#)375)%6"!+3),.1%#)37'.5)37)%6

	





   






 

.-%7'1.4/$.%2-.36.1*

6)3()-!+3),.1%)37 !731%%3 1!-'%5)++%


++-%)'(".1(..$2#)376)$% +%- 1!-'%5)++%-$4231)!+
1%!


"%++ +%-!*2 1)')-!+.13(6..$


++%-$!+% +%-(!,%+&.1$ 33%1"%)-


1#!$)! 1!#%+!-$!1* 5%1+%!


1+)-'3.- 1%%*3.6- !-6!71!$$)2(
5%-4%


1,)23%!$!1$%-2 1%%-,.4-3%,%3!17 !1*)1#+%


2("413.- 1%%-,.4-3%23 !1*+!-%

!+3),.1%)'(+!-$2 1%%-2/1)-' !1*2)$%

!+3),.1%)-6..$ 1.5%!1* !1*5)%6..$"1..*

!1#+!7 4)+&.1$ !33%12.-!1*

!11%)1#+% 67--2!++2 !33%12.-+!#%

%%#(&)%+$ 67--2!++2%!*)-!1* %-4#7

%+!)1$)2.- !,/$%- %--.13(

%+!)1!1*2)$% !-+.-.-'6..$ %--!++26!7

%++.-!)33)-'2 !1&.1$#(.$!+%%11)-'

!1*6!7

%-1.2%!7%33%31%%3

431%!#(

%1%! !1+%,!1* %1*)-2.,%2

%33%1!5%1+7 !16..$ %11)-'.#(

%5%1+7)++2 !6*)-2.)-3 ),+)#...$%)'(".12

)$$+%31%%3 %1)3!'%1.22)-' +%!2!-3)%6!1$%-2

+73(%6..$ %11)-'4-!1* .//+%3.-

.+3.-)++ )'(+!-$3.6- .13.5)-'3.-
Baltimore Survey 101

%-#&(+ - 0+,"#)))#'!,, ,,& '-+($ - .+3.-)++ )'(+!-$3.6- .13.5)-'3.-

..3(.7$ )++%- 4+!2*)-$4231)!+
1%!

1%6%12)++ .%2%)'(32 41-%++

1)$'%5)%61%%-+!6- .+!")1$-$4231)!+!1* !$-.1)-23.-

1.!$6!7!23 .++)-2!1*%3 !,"+%6..$

1.%-)-'!-.1 .,%+!-$ %)23%13.6-3!3).-

1..*+7- ./*)-2!75)%6 %,)-'3.-

41+%)3(%)'(3.- .6!1$!1* %2%15.)1)++

43#(%12)++ 4-3)-')$'% )#(-.1/1)-'2

!++!6!7!11)2.- $+%6..$ )$'%+%72
%+)'(3

!,%1.-)++!'% --%1!1".1 )5%12)$%

!-3.- 15)-'3.- .'-%+%)'(32

!-3.--$4231)!+
1%! .(-2./*)-2.,%6..$ .+!-$!1*

!11.++!,$%--$4231)!+
1%! .(-23.-04!1% .2%"!-*

!11.++!1* .-%2!++2
1%! .2%,.4-3

!11.++.43()+3.- .-%23.6- .2%,.4-3!23

!11.++3.-)$'% .2%/(%% .2%,.4-3

.,%.6-%12%-!-32

%$!1#1.&3 %-)+6.13(!1* !")-!!33&%+$3

%$,.-3 %1-6..$ !)-3
'-%2

%$.-)! %26)#* !)-3%+%-!

%-31!+.1%23!1* 1%22.- !)-3.2%/(2

%-31!+!1*%)'(32 !*%5%2(!, !)-3!4+

(!1+%2.13( !*%!+*%1 !-$3.6-)-#(%23%1

(!1+%2)++!'% !*%+!-$ 

(%117)++ !-'23.-4'(%2 %3.-42)-%22!1*

(%26.+$% !41!5)++% %3.-)++

()-04!/)-!1*%+5%$%1% %5)-$!+% (!1/%!$%-(!++

(1)23./(%1 )"%13704!1% ()/+%7)++

+!1%,.-31%%$., )33+%3!+7 .43(+)&3.-!1*

+)&3.-!1* .#(!5%- /1)-'!1$%--$4231)!+
1%!

.+$2/1)-' .#423.)-3 3!$)4,
1%!

.+$2/1)-'.,%23%!$

.-3%"%++. .#423.)-3-$4231)!+
1%! 3.-%6..$%-36..$)-23.-

.-#%1-%$)3)8%-2.&.1%23

!1* .6%1%11)-'4-!1* !7+.1%)'(32

.//)-%)'(32
2(.!23 .7.+!.31%
!,% %-)++2

1.22.4-317 4#)++%!1* (%1#(!1$2

1.22%72 !$)2.-!1* .6!-$!1!-3+%7
102 Baltimore Survey

%-#&(+ - 0+,"#)))#'!,, ,,& '-+($ -

413)2!7 !$)2.-!23%-$ 1%,.-3

413)2!7-$4231)!+
1%! !7&)%+$ 42#!-7!-3%1"417

7+"41- #+$%117!1* -).-04!1%


!1+%7!1* %$&)%+$ -)5%12)37.&!17+!-$


)#*%75)++% %$&.1$ /+!-$2


.+&)%+$ )$.5!-2 //%1%++2.)-3


.1#(%23%1 )$.6-%+5%$%1% /3.-


.6-3.6- )$$+%1!-#(%%$")1$!1*2 )++!'%2.&.,%+!-$


14)$%)'(32 )$$+%!23 ).+%35)++%


14)$)++!1* )$3.6-$,.-$2.- !*%&)%+$


4-"!11.!$6!7 )++()++ !+"1..*


4-$!+*!1)-%%1,)-!+ )+3.-.-3&.1$ !+3(%12.-

!23
1+)-'3.- .-$!6,)- !2()-'3.-)++

!23!+3),.1%)$6!7 .-3%"%++. )'.6-

!23%16..$ .1!5)!!+3(%1 !5%1+7

!236..$ .1'!-!1* %23
1+)-'3.-

$,.-$2.-)++!'% .1'!-3!3%-)5%12)37 %23.1%23!1*

$-.1!1$%-2!*%2)$% .11%++!1* %23)++2

++6..$!1*.-4,%-3 .2(%1 %23&)%+$

5%1'1%%- %6.43(6%23.4-3+!1% %23'!3%

5%1'1%%-!6- .4-3.++7 %23/.13

!1)&)%+$
1%! .4-3%1-.- )+2.-%)'(32

!)1,.-3 .4-3!2()-'3.- )+2.-!1*

!++23!&& .4-3)-!-2 )-#(%23%1

%$%1!+)++ 3+%!2!-3!1* )-$2.1)++2

%++2.)-3 %6.13(6..$ )-23.-.5!-2

.1%23!1* .13(!1&.1$.!$ ..$"%117

.1%23!1*.+&.412% .13(.+!-$!1*./+!1)++ ..$".41-%%)'(32

.41"7.41 .13(6%23.,,4-)37
#3).- ..$".41-%#!"%

1!-*&.1$ 
.--%++%)'(32 ..$,%1%

1!-*+)-04!1% !*%-2(!6% ..$1)-'

1!-*+)-3.6- !*+%% 7,!-!1*

1!-*+)-3.6-.!$ +$3.6- 7-$(4123

!167-!*2 +)5%1 !+%%)'(32
Baltimore Survey 103

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+

#" # ! %

#" # ! "

#" # ! ' 

	











" "   #! ("!!"#!" &"' '# " %!#

 #








#"!"


 ""!"

 !

# $#" !	


			





	




		


		

	

	




 "!$#" !%#"!''#!""%'# !"'" #"	
!!

" # ! %" ' 
104 Baltimore Survey

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+

		




	


&"  $# 
$

$ 

 

	"$'#$$"#

	 "$  " %$"


("##

&"  $# 
$

#$

#$#"&

  
 '$$"$

$  "#$#

  "#$#

&"  $# 
$

$( "#$#

 " # "#$#

 




$"!##!(
Baltimore Survey 105

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+

!!" ($%%$ "# "" $$ #'"





	


 





















 %  "%  "%

	 "! "$&! # "#!

$  %$ 


  %$ 


 '$

 %  "%  "%

#" " 

%"#"###&$#"#$

&% $ #

"#!#

 %  "%  "%

" &"$

$$ &"$

%! &"$

$"!##!)
106 Baltimore Survey

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+


	
	


		


	!
!

"

 

!


!"

!"

			

								
		


				



		

					Baltimore Survey 107

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+




	
	

""#$ ##!$ "!)#"!&($!%!#%!' !#"!##

%!#"#&!" # "#(!

"($!"##%!#!)#" !%# " !#"""!

$#(!$ !)#"#

	!
 


	 

!$ !)#

!$ !)#

!$ !)#

!$ !)#	

!$ !)#


!$ !)#

!$ !)#

!$ !)#


!$ !)#

!$ !)#




	
	

""#$ ##!$ "!)#"#&($ !%!#%!' !#"!##

%!#"#&!" # "#(!

!$ !)#

!$ !)#

!$ !)#
108 Baltimore Survey

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+

!$ !)#	

!$ !)#


!$ !)#

!$ !)#

!$ !)#


!$ !)#

!$ !)#
Baltimore Survey 109

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+




""#$ ##!$ "!(#"!&'$!%$!##%!#"#&!" #

 "#'!

"'$!"##%!#!(#" !%# " !#"""!

$#'!$ !(#"#

	!
 


	 

!$ !(#

!$ !(#

!$ !(#

!$ !(#	

!$ !(#


!$ !(#

!$ !(#

!$ !(#


!$ !(#

!$ !(#

	
 

""#$ ##!$ "!(#"#&'$ !%$!##%!#"#&!" # "#

'!

!$ !(#

!$ !(#

!$ !(#
110 Baltimore Survey

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+

!$ !(#	

!$ !(#


!$ !(#

!$ !(#

!$ !(#


!$ !(#

!$ !(#

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+






	


	



	







 #+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+

		




	

		
				

					

	


		




Baltimore Survey 111

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+


	




&"%!! "#& !&! &"$"!!" "!&""'!!  "#&	

	

!$"!!$$&" $ ! "#&"   $ #&"

$!!!"!! "#&


&"#! ! "#& !
"!!$!!"!#" " !  &"$ 

$$!!"!!!

#+!$&)+.)* !'''!%
****$%+)&"+











	






























	



112 Seattle Survey

Appendix 2: continued

Survey protocol for Seattle

12/6/10 

Page 1 of 10

SEATTLE STEW-MAP SURVEY

Does your organization work on behalf of the environment in some way? This may include 

planting trees, advocating against toxics, restoring a riparian area, gardening in a schoolyard, or 

some other stewardship activity. We would like to learn about these activities, including what 

your organization does, where, and why. 

The intent of this study is to understand environmental stewardship in the Seattle region. We 

define stewardship as conserving, managing, caring for, monitoring, advocating for, and 

educating the public about local environments. 

A similar study was conducted in New York City, and it has helped stewardship groups connect 

with each other, obtain new resources and partners, and has helped support citizens as they 

work on behalf of their local environment. 

This survey should take about 20-30 minutes to complete. Based on the information we collect, 

we will develop maps to show where and how people work together to improve the 

environment of the region. Thanks in advance for completing the survey; your input will help us 

to develop a complete picture of stewardship in the Seattle area. 

1. Please enter your contact information to get started.

Your personal information is confidential. We will not share your name, personal email, 

personal phone number, or other identifying information with anyone outside of the research 

team. We may contact you if we have questions about information you provide on this survey.

Your name: 

Your title or position description: 

Your phone number: 

Your email: 

From this point on you will be asked a series of questions about your group or organization. 

Please try to provide responses that indicate the conditions or situations of the entire 

organization or group, rather than just your own personal experience or preferences. 

2. Basic Information about your group/organization.

Group/organization name: 
Seattle Survey 113

12/6/10 

Page 2 of 10

Web site (if available): 

Mailing Address (with City, State, ZIP): 

Group/organization Email: 

Group/organization Phone: 

Does your group/organization wish to be listed in a public, online stewardship 

database? In other cities, this database allows stewards who share interests to find 

each other and collaborate if they wish. YES/NO

3. Please tell us about your group/organization’s environmental stewardship activities: 

How often does your organization do the following types of 

stewardship activities? 

Never Sometimes Often

Conserve the local environment? 

Take care of a place in the local environment (for example, a 

community garden, a block of street trees, an empty lot, 

a riverbank, a schoolyard, a forest preserve)? 

Restore or transform local ecosystem (for example, 

daylighting a stream, brownfield recovery, or habitat 

restoration)

Monitor the quality of the local environment? (for example, 

monitoring air or water quality, or species monitoring)?

Advocate for the local environment?

Educate the public about the local environment?

*Skip logic: If anyone answers “never” to all questions, jump to a page that says: 

“Thank you for your interest in filling out this survey. Based on your response to the last 

question, your group/organization's activities do not fit into our research definition.

If you made a mistake while filling out the last question(s), please click the Back arrow (below) 

to update your response.”
114 Seattle Survey

12/6/10 

Page 3 of 10

Please tell us about your group/organization:

4. What is your group/organization’s legal designation? (Please choose the most appropriate 

response).

501(c)(3) (or has applied)

501 (c)(4) (or has applied)

Community group/organization without 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status (such as a block club)

School district

Federal government agency 

State government agency

Local government agency

Public institution (not an agency)

Quasi governmental (such as a port authority) 

Private firm, for-profit business  If checked, then pop-up with a note that says, “For this 

survey, please answer stewardship questions based only on the stewardship work that your 

business does that is volunteer or pro bono.” 

Other (please specify) ______________________ 

5. Tell us about what your group/organization does: 

Below is a list of possible purposes and functions of 

organizations. How well does each of the following 

describe the purpose or function of your group or 

organization? not at all somewhat very well

Public health (including mental health, food, crisis 

intervention, health care) 

Education 

Housing and shelter 

Community improvement and capacity building 

Environment (including gardening, forestry, 

ecological restoration, water and air protection) 

Toxics/pollution related

Animal related 
Seattle Survey 115

12/6/10 

Page 4 of 10

Human services (including day care, family services) 

Youth development

Economic or business development

Employment, job related 

Legal services, civil rights 

Arts, culture, creative practices

Recreation and sports (including birding and fishing) 

Crime, criminal justice 

International, foreign affairs, and national security 

Research in science and/or technology 

Faith-based activities

Power/electricity generation

Energy Efficiency

Other ________________________

6. Considering all of the programs, activities, and services your group/organization does, 

what percentage of your effort is for stewardship? 

0 – 19% 20 – 39% 40 – 59% 60 – 79% 80 – 100%

7. Below are possible project sites/settings for 

stewardship. In the past year, how often did your 

group or organization do stewardship work at each of 

the site types? never sometimes often 

WATER & WATER-RELATED

Watershed / Sewershed

Stream / River / Canal

Waterfront / Beach / Shoreline

Wetland

OPEN SPACES & NATURAL AREAS

Prairie/Savanna

Forest/Woodland 
116 Seattle Survey

12/6/10 

Page 5 of 10

Park 

Community garden

Urban farm

Playing field / Ball field

Dog run or dog park

Public garden (botanical garden, arboretum, 

etc.) 

Trails / Bike paths / Greenway / Rail-trail

NATURE IN BUILT PLACES

Residential building grounds (apartment 

courtyard, back yard, etc.)

Vacant Land / Vacant Lot

Brownfield property 

School yard or grounds / Outdoor classroom

Grounds of public building other than school 

(city hall, library, hospital, etc.) 

Courtyard / Atrium / Plaza 

Street trees / Boulevard/ traffic island / 

greenstreet / parkway (Public right of way)

Rain gardens / rain barrels / permeable 

pavement / bioswales

Green buildings 

Green roofs

Flower box / Planter

Other ______________

8. Please tell us why your group/organization does stewardship work. [Freeform answer.]
Seattle Survey 117

12/6/10 

Page 6 of 10

Please tell us where your group/organization physically conducts stewardship activities: 

9. What is the broadest geographic scope of your group or organization’s stewardship

activities?

International 

National 

Multiple states 

State of Washington 

Regional (e.g. several neighboring counties, a landscape element such as the Puget 

Sound, etc.) 

County 

City of Seattle 

Local (e.g. one or more neighborhoods, specific greenspaces within the city, etc.) 

10. Please identify all Seattle neighborhoods in which you work. Click on the neighborhood

name for a map. If you are still unsure, please visit the City Clerk's website for additional

maps: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/nmaps/neiglist.htm.

[LIST OF NEIGHBORHOODS HOTLINKED TO CITY CLERK’S NEIGHBORHOOD MAPS]

11. Please describe in detail the boundaries of where your group/organization has done work

in the last year. Be as specific as possible. You can list multiple locations.

For example: 

“Interlaken Park” – “All of King County” – “the traffic circle on Belmont and E Thomas” –

“The Puget Sound” – “along the Duwamish River” – “the Bradner Gardens P-Patch”

12. Approximately what year was your group/organization founded? ____________

Note: for national or regional groups/organizations please tell us the approximate year your 

chapter was founded.

13. Approximately how many of the following does your group/organization have:

Full-time staff: _____________

Part-time staff: _____________

Members: _____________
118 Seattle Survey

12/6/10 

Page 7 of 10

Regular Volunteers: _____________ (note regular volunteers are those who routinely 

volunteer in your group/organization’s activities. This is different from volunteers who 

may come out for a single work day).

For those volunteers who come out occasionally, can you estimate how many hours they 

contribute? per . . . . week _________ or month ___________ or year ____________

14. How often does your group/organization use 

the following methods to share information with 

the public? never sometimes often

N/A, we don’t share information

National media

Local media

Direct mailing / newsletters

Door-to-door outreach

Flyers / signs

Website 

Listserv 

Social media (e.g. blog, Facebook, Twitter)

National conferences/meetings

Regional conferences/meetings

City conferences/meetings

Neighborhood-based conferences/meetings

Radio

TV

Other (please specify) 

___________________________________ 

15. What is your group/organization’s estimated annual budget for the current year?

___________________________ 
Seattle Survey 119

12/6/10 

Page 8 of 10

Check box: Prefer not to answer 

16. Please indicate the level of funding your 

group/organization has received in the last 

year from the following sources. no funding minor funding major funding

Corporate giving/sponsorship

Local foundation 

National foundation 

Endowment

Fees/program Income

Fundraisers (events, dinners, etc.)

Individual donations

Memberships

Federal government

State government

Municipal government

Other (Please Specify) 

_____________________________ 

GROUP/ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

In the final section of the survey, please tell us about your group or organization’s 

relationship to other groups and organizations. 

For all questions in this section, we are interested in hearing about all possible collaborations. 

These may include federal, state, and local government; private companies; nonprofits, 

schools, or community group/organizations; etc. 

17. In the past year, did you seek information, advice, or expertise from other groups or 

organizations? 

Please list up to ten groups/organizations from whom you received information, advice, or 

expertise related to environmental stewardship:
120 Seattle Survey

12/6/10 

Page 9 of 10

18. In the past year, did you offer information, advice, or expertise to other groups or 

organizations? 

Please list up to ten group/organizations to whom you provided information, advice, or 

expertise related to environmental stewardship:

19. Please list up to ten group/organizations from whom you received funding related to 

environmental stewardship in the past year: 

20. Please list up to ten group/organizations to whom you provided funding related to 

environmental stewardship in the past year: 

21. Does your group/organization belong to any coalitions, partnerships, or working groups 

to share information, plan strategy, or coordinate activities? Yes/No

If yes, please list the coalition(s) your group/organization is active in.
Seattle Survey 121

12/6/10 

Page 10 of 10

22. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your group/organization or this

survey?

This concludes the Seattle stewardship assessment. Thank you for your participation. We 

will send you an announcement when our report and stewardship maps are available. 

Feel free to contact us with any questions or comments at: stewards@u.washington.edu
122 Philadelphia Survey

Appendix 2: continued

Survey protocol for Philadelphia

STEW-MAP: The Citywide Stewardship Census

STEW-MAP:

The Citywide

Stewardship Census
Philadelphia Survey 123

STEW-MAP: The Citywide Stewardship Census STEW-

The intent of this study is to understand environmental 

stewardship in Philadelphia. We define stewardship 

as the act of conserving, managing, monitoring, 

advocating for, and educating the public about their 

local environments.

In this assessment we ask questions about your 

organization, who you work with, where you work, 

what you do, and how you do it. It should take about 

15–20 minutes to complete.

Based on the information we collect, we will develop 

maps to show how people work together to improve 

the urban environment of Philadelphia. Thank you for 

participating in this effort.

This identifying information

is confidential. We will not

share your name, personal

email, personal phone

number, or other identifying

information with anyone.

respondent name:

respondent email: 

respondent phone: 

SE

Tell 

grou

stew

SE

Tell 

wha

doe

organizational contact information

 organization name

web site (if available)

mailing address

city state zip

key contact name 

organization email 

organization phone 

Does your organization wish to be listed in a public, online 

stewardship database?

□ yes □ no
124 Philadelphia Survey

STEW-MAP: The Citywide Stewardship Census

ntal 

p 

r 

t 

p 

 

for 

SECTION I

Tell us about your 

group’s environmental 

stewardship activities 

SECTION II

Tell us about us about 

what your organization 

does

1. does your group aim to conserve the local environment?

□ yes □ no

2. does your group manage some area of the local environment?

□ yes □ no

3. does your group monitor the quality of the local environment?

□ yes □ no

4. does your group advocate for the local environment?

□ yes □ no

5. does your group aim to educate the public about the local environment?

□ yes □ no

6. what is your group’s primary focus? (Please select all that apply)

□ public health (Including Mental Health, Crisis Intervention, Health Care) 

□ education

□ housing and shelter

□ community improvement and capacity building

□ environment (Including Gardening, Forestry, Water and Air Protection, Ecological Restoration 

and/or Land Management) 

□ animal related

□ human services (Including Day Care, Family Services)

□ employment, job related

□ legal services, civil rights

□ arts, culture

□ recreation and sports (Including Birding and Angling) 

□ crime, criminal justice

□ international, foreign affairs, and national security

□ research in science, technology, and social sciences

□ religion related

□ private grantmaking foundation

□ seniors

□ youth

□ transportation related

□ development (Including Business, Community, Real Estate) 

□ other:

7. what is your group’s mission statement? (200 words or less please.)

8. what year was your organization founded?
Philadelphia Survey 125

STEW-MAP: The Citywide Stewardship Census STEW-

9. at which types of sites does your group physically work?

(Please circle all that apply) 

10. my organization: (Please check and fill in all that apply.)

□ is a 501(c)(3)

□ has applied for 501(c)(3) status

□ receives funding through the following

501(c)(3) organization:

□ is a branch of a larger 501(c)(3)

□ is a community group without 501(c)(3) status

□ is a school-affiliated community group

□ is a religious congregation (church, synagogue, mosque, etc),

but not a 501(c)(3) 

□ is not tax exempt (private firm, etc)

□ is a government agency

□ is a 501(c)(4)

□ is a public – private partnership

□ other:

Since the purpose of this study is to learn more about nonprofit organizations and community groups, if you chose “is not tax exempt” or “is a government agency”, you do not 

need to complete the entire form. Please return the form in the enclosed envelope. Thank 

you.

11. how many of the following does your organization have?

(Please circle the appropriate range in each category)

SE

Tell 

orga

rela

grou

water

watershed/sewershed

stream/river/canal

waterfront/beach/

shoreline

wetland

land

“natural”/

restoration area

park

community garden

vacant land

playing field/ballfield

dog run

street tree

botanical garden / 

arboretum

greenway/rail-trail

flower box/planter

public right of way

(e.g. street ends, roadside,

traffic island, greenstreet)

urban farm

building

green building

rooftop

courtyard/atrium/

plaza

front yard / back yard

school yard

apartment grounds

recreation center

paid staff

0 – 1

2 – 3

4 – 5

 6 – 10

 11+

volunteers

0 – 1

2 – 3

4 – 5

 6 – 10

 11+

members

0 – 1

2 – 3

4 – 5

 6 – 10

 11+
126 Philadelphia Survey

STEW-MAP: The Citywide Stewardship Census

12. who owns the property on which your organization typically works?

(Please choose all that apply) 

□ federal government

□ state government

□ local government

□ individual

□ corporation (including joint ventures, reits)

□ nonprofit

□ other:

13. please list the names of all of the organizations with which you collaborate regularly within the following categories.

community groups (civic groups, non profits, etc.)

businesses and/or business groups (chambers of commerce, business improvement districts, etc.)

government agencies/programs (local, state, and/or federal)

school groups/programs (pre k-12, colleges and universities, etc.)

SECTION III

Tell us about your 

organization’s 

relationship to other 

groups
Philadelphia Survey 127

STEW-MAP: The Citywide Stewardship Census STEW-

14. what type of services does your group currently provide?

(Select all that apply) 

□ educational curricula

□ legal resources

□ buildings/facilities

□ plant materials/equipment

□ technical assistance

□ labor: (volunteers/students/interns)

□ grants

□ community organizing

□ computing / internet

□ public relations/outreach

□ data

□ other:

15. how does your group share information with the public?

(Select all that apply) 

□ n/a, we don’t share information

□ national media

□ local media

□ direct mailing / newsletters

□ door-to-door outreach

□ flyers / signs

□ website

□ listserv

□ blog

□ national conferences/meetings

□ regional conferences/meetings

□ city conferences/meetings

□ neighborhood-based conferences/meetings

□ radio

□ tv

16. what is your organization’s annual budget? (Select one range)

□ $0 – $1,000

□ $1,000 – $10,000

□ $10,000 – $50,000

□ $50,000 – $100,000

□ $100,000 – $200,000

□ $200,000 – $500,000

□ $500,000 – $1 million

□ $1 – $2 million

□ $2 – $5 million

□ $5 million +

17. what is your primary funding source? (Select one)

□ government agencies

□ foundations

□ endowment

□ individual memberships

□ fees/program income

□ corporate giving/sponsorship

□ other:

SE

Tell 

con

acti

SECTION IV

Tell us a bit more about 

what your group does 
128 Philadelphia Survey

STEW-MAP: The Citywide Stewardship Census STEW-

□ ogontz □ old city □ olde kensington □ olde richmond □ olney □ overbrook □ overbrook farms □ overbrook park □ oxford circle □ packer park □ paradise □ parkwood □ pennsport □ pennypack woods □ point breeze □ port richmond □ powelton village □ queen village □ rhawnhurst □ rittenhouse sq. □ saunders park □ shared by paradise & east falls □ sharswood □ shawmont valley □ society hill □ somerton □ south philadelphia □ southwest □ southwest center city □ spring garden □ spruce hill □ st. hugh □ strawberry mansion □ summerdale □ tacony □ tioga □ university city □ upper holmesburg □ upper northwood □ upper roxborough □ walnut hill □ walton park □ washington square west □ west fairhill □ west kensington □ west mt. airy □ west oak lane □ west parkside □ west poplar □ west powelton □ west shore □ whitaker □ whitman □ winchester □ winchester park □ wissahickon □ wissinoming □ wynnefield □ wynnefield heights □ yorktown □ other:
Philadelphia Survey 129

STEW-MAP: The Citywide Stewardship Census

19. does your group work in the entire neighborhood(s) or just a specific

part?

□ all □ part

20. does your group work on multiple properties?

□ yes □ no

21. does your group work outside of philadelphia county?

□ yes □ no

22. please describe in detail the neighborhoods, boundaries and/or property addresses where your group works. be as specific as possible and

you can list multiple locations.

For example: “On Fairmount Ave. between 22nd St. and 25th St”; “Walnut Hill Neighborhood”; “South 

of South St and East of Broad St.”; “the Cobbs Creek between Market St and Island Ave”; “all of ZIP 

code 19119”; “The Tacony Creek Watershed”; “The Guangdong Province of China” 
130 Philadelphia Survey

STEW-MAP: The Citywide Stewardship Census

This concludes the STEW-MAP assessment.

Thank you for your participation.

Please return the survey in the provided envelope.

□ please check here if you or another person from your organization is 

 willing to participate in a follow-up interview or focus group 

 related to the stew-map project.

□ please check here if you would like to receive a copy of the report. 

feel free to contact stew-map with any questions or comments at 

stewmap.philly@gmail.com
131
132

APPENDIX 3: NEW YORK CITY SURVEY INVITATION MATERIALS

This is the initial recruitment letter that was used in New York City.

Dear New York City Eco-Steward:

If you are a gardener, a park advocate, a dog walker, a beach cleaner, a kayaker, an 

environmentalist, an educator, or a community organizer—we need your help in putting 

your group on the map!

Don’t let your hard work go unrecognized.

STEW-MAP (the Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project) is New York City’s first 

ever comprehensive map of the more than 5,000 civic environmental groups working in our 

amazing city. Please fill out the enclosed form in order to be a part of this new effort—it will 

only take 15 minutes of your time.

A dozen different citywide greening groups and 20 other organizations are working together 

with researchers from the US Forest Service and Columbia University to develop this project. 

Together we will count, map, and connect all the different forms of environmental work 

happening in NYC.

Remember: it is the people who clean and green NYC for the present and the future.

Major citywide partners include:

• Partnerships for Parks 

• Citizens for New York City 

• Council on the Environment of New York City 

• NYC Department of Parks and Recreation GreenThumb Program 

• New York City Housing Authority

• New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program 

• Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2

• Hudson River Foundation

• Trust for Public Land

• And more than 20 other participating data providers!

For more information on the study, see the enclosed letter and the instructions at the 

beginning of the form. We thank you for your participation!

Para una versión en español, favor de email: stewmap@columbia.edu. 

Sincerely,

The STEW-MAP team
133

This is the postcard reminder that was used in New York City.

You work hard for your city, and the environment.

Get the recognition you deserve. 

The US Forest Service and Columbia University are working 

with citywide greening groups to count, map, and connect all 

the different environmental work in NYC, from gardening to 

park advocacy to beach cleanup.

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP) 

is the first ever inventory of environmental groups working in 

New York City, and we want your group on the map.

You were sent a form from the STEW-MAP 

team, now all you have to do is fill it out, and 

you’re on the map.

If you’ve lost or did not receive your form, 

or have any other questions, contact: 

Lindsay Campbell 

(212) 637-4175 

stewmap@columbia.edu

<<postage>>

<<postal service use>>

GET ON

THE MAP
134

APPENDIX 4: STEW-MAP FACT SHEET

Learn more at www.nrs.fs.fed.us/nyc/focus/stewardship_mapping

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP) is a national USDA Forest Service research program 

designed to answer the questions: Which environmental stewardship groups are working across urban landscapes, and 

where, why, and how?

STEW-MAP defines a “stewardship group” as a civic organization or group 

that works to conserve, manage, monitor, advocate for, and/or educate the 

public about their local environments. This work includes efforts that 

involve water, forests, land, air, waste, toxics, and energy. Many civic 

stewardship groups work within, alongside, or independent of public 

agencies and private businesses in managing urban places. STEW-MAP is 

both a study of urban stewardship socio-spatial characteristics and a 

publicly available online tool to help support those networks. 

To date, STEW-MAP has collected information from thousands of local 

stewardship groups, first in New York City and later in Baltimore, Chicago, 

Seattle, and Philadelphia. These groups include neighborhood block 

associations, kayak clubs, tree planting groups, community gardeners, 

regional environmental coalitions, nonprofit educational institutions, and 

museums. A Los Angeles STEW-MAP project is underway as of this writing 

and other cities, including Washington, DC and San Juan, Puerto Rico are 

also interested in conducting STEW-MAP studies. 

What does STEW-MAP show? 

Stewardship maps tell us about the presence, capacity, geographic turf, and 

social networks of environmental stewardship groups in a given city or 

region. For the first time, these social infrastructure data are treated as 

part of green infrastructure asset mapping. For example, the interactive 

mapping website developed in New York City (NYC) currently displays data 

for 405 groups citywide alongside other open space data layers. Chicago’s 

STEW-MAP data are also available online, allowing stewardship groups to 

find others working near them and/or working on similar issues. Other 

STEW-MAP projects continue to expand the NYC model and have created 

new maps and resources for their cities. 

Why is STEW-MAP important? 

STEW-MAP can highlight existing stewardship gaps and overlaps in order to 

strengthen organizational capacities, enhance citizen monitoring, promote 

broader civic engagement with on-the-ground environmental projects, and 

build effective partnerships among stakeholders involved in urban 

sustainability. Long-term community-based natural resource stewardship 

can help support and maintain our investment in green infrastructure and 

urban restoration projects. STEW-MAP creates a framework to connect 

potentially fragmented stewardship groups with the ultimate goal of 

measuring, monitoring, and optimizing the contribution of our civic resources. 

Who can use STEW-MAP? 

STEW-MAP is a tool for natural resource managers, funders, policymakers, educators, stewardship groups, and the 

public. For example, managers in NYC have queried STEW-MAP to find stewardship groups working near specific forest 

restoration projects run by MillionTreesNYC, a public-private tree-planting initiative. Funders or community organizers 

can also identify areas with the greatest or least presence of stewardship groups, taking into account organization size 

and focus area. Those seeking to disseminate policy information can target the most connected groups to quickly and 

effectively reach an entire network or a subset of groups. Members of the public who want to know who is working in a 

particular neighborhood or who can provide technical resources for a project can search the database, which displays 

results as a list or on a map. 

New York City 

Stewardship 

Organization 

Offices 

New York City 

Stewardship 

Organizations 

near 

Greenspace 

Mapping Urban Environmental Stewardship with STEW-MAP
Printed on Recycled Paper

Svendsen, Erika S.; Campbell, Lindsay K.; Fisher, Dana R.; Connolly, James J.T.; Johnson, 

Michelle L.; Sonti, Nancy F.; Locke, Dexter H.; Westphal, Lynne M.; LeBlanc Fisher, 

Cherie; Grove, J. Morgan; Romolini, Michele; Blahna, Dale J.; Wolf, Kathleen L. 2016. 

Stewardship mapping and assessment project: a framework for understanding 

community-based environmental stewardship. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-156. Newtown 

Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

134 p.

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP) is designed to answer 

who, where, why and how environmental stewardship groups are caring for our 

urbanized landscapes. This report is intended to be a guide for those who wish to 

start STEW-MAP in their own city. It contains step-by-step directions for how to plan 

and implement a STEW-MAP project. STEW-MAP is both an empirical study of a city’s 

or region’s civic environmental stewardship resources and a publicly available online 

database to help support environmental stewardship broadly in these cities. The project 

adds a social layer of information to biophysical and urban geographic information on 

“green infrastructure” in cities. STEW-MAP highlights existing stewardship gaps and 

overlaps in order to strengthen organizational capacities, enhance citizen monitoring, 

promote broader public engagement with on-the-ground environmental work, and build 

effective partnerships among stakeholders involved in urban sustainability.

KEYWORDS: environmental stewardship, public engagement, partnerships, urban 

landscapes, geospatial mapping, social networks

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal 

or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not 

all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint 

Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA 

office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in 

the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form 

or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) 

email: program.intake@usda.gov.
Northern Research Station

www.nrs.fs.fed.us