i

STEW-MAP in the

New York City Region

Survey Results of the Stewardship Mapping and Assessment 

Project, 2017

Laura Landau

Lindsay K. Campbell

Michelle Johnson

Erika Svendsen

Holly Berman 

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Northern Research Station General Technical Report NRS-189 Publication Date June 2019
AUTHOR AFFILIATION

Laura Landau is STEW-MAP project manager at the New York City Urban Field 

Station, New York City.

Lindsay K. Campbell is a research social scientist at the New York City Urban Field 

Station, Northern Research Station of the USDA Forest Service, New York City.

Michelle Johnson is a research ecologist at the New York City Urban Field Station, 

Northern Research Station of the USDA Forest Service, New York City.

Erika Svendsen is a research social scientists at the New York City Urban Field 

Station, Northern Research Station of the USDA Forest Service, New York City.

Holly Berman is a fellow of the New York City Urban Field Station and Rutgers 

University Center for Resilient Landscapes, New York City.

COVER

TOP ROW, FROM LEFT TO RIGHT:

Conserve: community garden preservation sign. Photo by NYC Urban Field Station.

Manage: volunteers at a MillionTreesNYC tree planting. Photo by NYC Parks, used 

with permission. 

Monitor: volunteers monitoring an oyster research station. Photo by Billion Oyster 

Project, used with permission.

BOTTOM ROW, FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: 

Educate: GrowNYC youth urban forestry education program. Photo by NYC Urban 

Field Station.

Advocate: community gardeners protesting on the steps of City Hall. Photo by Edie 

Stone, used with permission.

Transform: volunteers with the Lower East Side Ecology Center bagging

compost for delivery to NYC residents. Photo by LESEC, used with permission.

DISCLAIMER

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.
STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Contents

Executive Summary1

Acknowledgments3

Introduction4

Methods6

Data Collection6

Survey development and pre-survey outreach8

Survey distribution and follow-up outreach9

Data Processing 10

Survey Responses 10

Turfs 10

Networks 11

Results 12

NYC Organizational Characteristics 12

Function 12

Site Type 12

Focus 13

Percent Stewardship 16

Mission, Goals, and Metrics 16

Staff and Year Founded 19

Legal Designation and Land Ownership 21

Communication and Services Offered 21

Budget 24

Professionalization Index 25

Impacts and Influences 25

Geography 27

Networks 29

Regional Groups Organizational Characteristics 33

Function 33

Site Type 33

Focus 33

Percent Stewardship 33

Mission, Goals, and Metrics 33

Staff and Year Founded 41

Legal Designation and Land Ownership 41

Communications and Services Offered 41

Budget 43

Professionalization 43

Impacts and Influences 43

Geography 44

Networks 44

Discussion 48

Conclusion 51

Footnotes 53

References 54

Appendix A 55

Appendix B 56

Appendix C 57

Appendix D 58
STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figures

Figure 1. STEW-MAP Methodology Graphic 6

Figure 2. Crowdsourced suggestions of data providers from Mentimeter poll responses at NYC STEW-MAP kickoff meeting 7

Figure 3. Study area map. Map created by Michelle Johnson. 7

Figure 4. STEW-MAP 2017 survey recruitment email 9

Figure 5. Examples of various turf sizes and geographies 11

Figure 6. Number of NYC groups by function, select all option 13

Figure 7. Number of NYC groups by function, select one option 13

Figure 8. Number of NYC groups by site type, select all option 14

Figure 9. Number of NYC groups by site type, select one option 14

Figure 10. Number of NYC groups by organizational foci, select all option 15

Figure 11. Number of NYC groups by organizational foci, select one option 15

Figure 12. Proportion of groups’ work focused on stewardship in NYC 16

Figure 13. Mission word cloud for NYC 16

Figure 14. Scale of NYC stewardship groups’ goals 19

Figure 15. NYC stewardship groups’ goals by action 20

Figure 16. NYC stewardship groups’ metrics by subject 20

Figure 17. Number of NYC stewardship groups by year founded 21

Figure 18. Number of NYC stewardship groups by legal designation 22

Figure 19. Number of NYC stewardship groups by primary land owner 22

Figure 20. Number of NYC stewardship groups by communication methods and sector 23

Figure 21. Number of NYC stewardship groups by services provided 23

Figure 22. NYC stewardship groups’ budget histogram 24

Figure 23. Professionalization scores for NYC groups 25

Figure 24. Number of NYC stewardship groups by professionalization and year founded 26

Figure 25. Number of NYC stewardship groups by professionalization and site type 26

Figure 26. Perceived outcomes of NYC stewardship groups 27

Figure 27. Influential plans and programs for NYC stewardship groups 28

Figure 28. Influential events and processes for NYC stewardship groups 28

Figure 29. Distribution of turf sizes for NYC-based civic environmental stewardship groups 29

Figure 30. Density of NYC- based civic stewardship organizations responding to the NYC Region 2017 STEW-MAP. 30

Map created by Michelle Johnson.

Figure 31. Organizational collaboration network of NYC respondents and groups they named, color-coded by sector 31

and size-coded by in-degree statistic. Network graph created by Michelle Johnson.

Figure 32. Number of regional groups by function, select all option 34

Figure 33. Number of regional groups by function, select one option 34

Figure 34. Number of regional groups by site type, select all option 35

Figure 35. Number of regional groups by site type, select one option 35

Figure 36. Number of regional groups by organizational foci, select all option 37

Figure 37. Number of regional groups by organizational foci, select one option 37

Figure 38. Proportion of groups’ work focused on stewardship in region 37
STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 39. Mission word cloud for region 38

Figure 40. Scale of regional stewardship groups’ goals 38

Figure 41. Regional stewardship groups’ goals by action 39

Figure 42. Regional groups’ metrics by subject 39

Figure 43. Number of regional stewardship groups by year founded 41

Figure 44. Number of regional stewardship groups by primary land owner 41

Figure 45. Number of regional stewardship groups by communication methods 42

Figure 46. Number of regional stewardship groups by services provided 42

Figure 47. Regional stewardship groups’ budget 43

Figure 48. Professionalization scores for regional groups 43

Figure 49. Number of regional stewardship groups by professionalization and year founded 44

Figure 50. Perceived outcomes of regional stewardship groups 45

Figure 51. Influential events and processes for regional stewardship groups 45

Figure 52. Distribution of turf sizes in the region 45

Figure 53. Density of regional civic stewardship organizations responding to the NYC Region 2017 STEW-MAP survey 46

Map created by Michelle Johnson.

Tables

Table 1. STEW-MAP 2017 NYC survey response rate 10

Table 2: Stewardship functions and example practices 13

Table 3. Coded Actions of Stewardship Goals 17

Table 4. Number of staff, members, and volunteers for NYC-based groups responding to the 2017 STEW-MAP survey 19

Table 5. In-degree Statistics for the 20 most-mentioned groups in the NYC-only collaboration network 32

Table 6. Region Staff, Members and Volunteers 40

Table 7. Overlaps in named groups between NYC and regional collaboration networks. 47
1 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Who takes care of our 

environment? The answer is all 

of us. Our landscapes are shaped 

by many different institutions, 

groups, and individuals.

STEW-MAP data demonstrate that people 

can be positive agents of change in their 

communities. STEW-MAP supports a model 

of shared stewardship, where government 

and civic groups alike collaborate to achieve 

shared outcomes. Maps and tools derived 

from STEW-MAP identify opportunities to 

better engage local communities in caring for 

the environment and enhance the capacity of 

the stewards of our communities.

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment 

Project (STEW-MAP) began in 2007 as a 

comprehensive way to understand and map

civic capacity to care for the environment

across New York City. Civic environmental 

stewardship groups are defined by their 

functions or what they do: conserve, manage, 

monitor, transform, educate, and advocate 

for the local environment—including land, air, 

water, and systems (such as energy, waste, and 

food systems). 

STEW-MAP gathers information on civic 

groups taking part in any of these stewardship 

functions through a voluntary organizational 

survey covering group characteristics, geographic 

catchment area, and organizational networks. By 

taking care of the local environment in the city, 

these groups support our social infrastructure, 

public places where communities can build trust 

and foster cooperation. 

In 2017, we implemented a ten-year update to 

STEW-MAP in New York City’s five boroughs and 

expanded to the larger metropolitan area as a 

regional pilot survey in all identified spots. Key 

findings include:

Groups exist and persist: Large numbers of 

stewardship groups not only exist but persist 

in their work throughout New York City and the 

region. Over 800 groups responded to this 

survey representing an estimated 540,000 

members and staff and with budgets totaling 

approximately $800 million.

Agents of change: Stewardship groups have 

been found to transform their environments 

and communities through direct action, 

management, education and advocacy. Civic 

groups have developed specific skills and 

expertise in the field of natural resource 

management and their work covers over 

205,000 acres in New York City. New York City 

groups’ work extends in the New York Harbor, 

Jamaica Bay, the East River, and up the Hudson 

River. In the wider region, groups cover over 35 

million acres of land and over 8 million acres of 

water. Across these acres, stewardship groups 

are affecting both environmental and social 

conditions. Groups are improving habitat and 

water quality, but they also create essential 

social outcomes such as strengthening trust 

between neighbors.

Not just green: Stewardship groups hail from 

many different sectors including public health, 

Executive Summary
2 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

social services, transportation, education, 

housing and faith-based organizations. Yet, 

these groups share the same belief that the 

environment can be a catalyst for social change.

The abiding power of the grassroots:

Thousands of stewardship groups have emerged 

from concerns about their neighborhood 

and have been active in caring for the New 

York City landscape since the 1970s. These 

groups operate with budgets ranging from 

zero to millions of dollars. Over the years, 

stewardship groups have harnessed the labor 

and resourcefulness of hundreds of thousands 

of volunteers.

...Yet some stewards are professionalized:

Over time, many stewardship groups in New 

York City have professionalized by transforming 

from a group of friends and neighbors to a 

registered nonprofit organization with full-time 

staff. Eleven percent of groups have budgets 

that exceed $1 million, but many still work with 

no budget at all. While some groups prefer to 

remain all volunteer, they are still an active force 

of change at the neighborhood scale.

Stewardship groups are knowledge producers:

In addition to tree-plantings and beach 

cleanings, stewardship groups are knowledge 

producers, often collecting and disseminating 

their own data and research. Many groups track 

their own metrics, from the number of invasive 

plants removed to the number of volunteer 

hours. New York City stewardship groups 

consider information and data sharing as one 

of the top services they provide on behalf of the 

urban environment.

Stewardship comes in different shapes and 

sizes: Stewardship groups are working at 

multiple scales: from a single community garden 

or vacant lot, to a neighborhood, to a series of 

parcels across the city, across a borough, the 

New York Harbor, the entire city, and out into 

the greater region. Looking across respondent 

groups’ efforts, the spatial distribution of these 

groups’ turfs is not evenly distributed across 

New York City, raising questions about why civic 

stewardship action is higher in certain places 

than others.

Groups do not work alone: Stewardship groups 

are not working in isolation. For the most part, 

stewardship groups are highly connected to 

each other. At the same time, stewardship 

groups are working alongside or embedded 

with the work of government agencies and the 

private sector. It is clear that certain groups 

are serving as important nodes in New York 

City’s stewardship network. These nodes or 

brokers serve a critical function in supporting 

our social infrastructure and have been found to 

be highly adaptive and responsive every day and 

particularly during times of crisis.

Not just urban: Stewardship groups work 

beyond the boundary of New York City. Groups 

working in the greater metropolitan region are 

similar in structure to their city cousins but are 

often working on substantially larger sites and 

with a focus on conservation efforts. At the 

same time, there is a porous boundary between 

the city and suburbs with many groups learning 

from each other and using similar tactics and 

approaches to stewardship.

For more information and to view

the interactive map, visit:

www.nrs.fs.fed.us/STEW-MAP
3 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our lead partner, the 

NYC Mayor’s Office. Specifically, both Kizzy 

Charles-Guzman, and Erika Lindsey (formerly) 

of the NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and 

Resiliency, and Morgan Monaco of the NYC 

Mayor’s Office of Operations. 

We also owe our thanks to the entire STEWMAP NYC technical team, including Ryan 

Baker-Urzua, Jessie Braden, Joana Chan, 

Jim Duncan, John Franklin, Lidia Henderson, 

Krista Heinlen, Michael Hsu, Lorien Jasny, 

Diana Kaliff, Tyler Konyak, Jesse Krauss, 

Justine Marchal-Appelton, Renae Reynolds, 

and Case Wyse. Thank you to Erin Johnson, 

Andrew Lewis, and the entire Green City Force 

team for helping with outreach. Thank you to 

our STEW-MAP colleagues around the globe, 

including our colleagues from Paris, France, 

Nathalie Blanc and Flaminia Paddeu, as they 

helped to inspire us in new ways to analyze 

this work. Our heartfelt appreciation to many 

of our USDA Forest Service colleagues for 

their direct and abiding support of this work, 

specifically, Jim Lootens-White, Sharon Hobrla, 

Sarah Hines, Jennifer Smith, Lauren Marshall, 

Beth Larry, Keith Nislow, and Tony Ferguson.

Thank you to all of the data providers 

who helped make this project possible (see 

Appendix A). We would also like to thank our 

working group, friends, and partners: Kubi 

Ackerman, Hunter Armstrong, Myla Aronson, 

Novem Auyeung, Erin Barnes, Jainey Bavishi, 

Beth Bingham, Kate Boicourt, Le’alani Boykin, 

Terri Carta, Mohamad Chakaki, Sarah CharlopPowers, Joanna Crispe, Ricky da Costa, 

Dominick Durso, Melissa Everett, Jessica 

Fain, Arturo Garcia-Costas, Jennifer Greenfeld, 

Maggie Greenfield, Bram Gunther, Cliff Hagen, 

Nichole Henderson-Roy, Denise HoffmanBrandt, Lynn Kelly, Mina Kim, Barry Kogan, 

Sarah Lerman-Sinkoff, Michelle Leyko, William 

LoSasso Jackie Lu, David Maddox, Emily 

Maxwell, Timon McPhearson, Dara Mendeloff, 

Sarah Metcalf, Leila Mougoui Bakhtiari, Mary 

Northridge, Matt Palmer, Andrea Parker, Adam 

Parris, Rob Pirani, Montira Pongsiri, Sara 

Powell, Anne Rademacher, Alicia Ragusa, 

Bonnie Ralston, Lucy Robson, Sabina 

Saragoussi, Catherine Seavitt-Nordensen, 

Melanie Sifton, Phillip Silva, Dan Steinberg, 

Adam Taylor, Anne Toomey, Mike Treglia, 

Emily Walker, and Bethany Wall. Thank you to 

Amy Freitag for graciously allowing us to use 

the offices of The J.M. Kaplan Fund for our 

gatherings. 

Special thanks to all of the stewardship 

groups citywide who took the time to respond 

to the survey and be a part of STEW-MAP. We 

acknowledge the broader STEW-MAP multicity 

network across the world with whom we share 

and exchange ideas.
4 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 White Paper

Introduction

The Stewardship Mapping and 

Assessment Project (STEW-MAP) 

is a mapping tool and database 

of organizations designed to help 

understand and strengthen our 

civic capacity to take care of New 

York’s neighborhoods. 

STEW-MAP aligns with the USDA Forest 

Service’s model of shared stewardship, which 

is about working together in an integrated 

way to make decisions and take actions that 

will achieve common goals and objectives. 

As cities and towns face challenges ranging 

from overstressed infrastructure to extreme 

weather, community-based civic groups 

are often on the frontlines of responding 

to these challenges. Many of these groups 

are essential in helping their communities, 

prepare for, respond to, and recover from all 

types of disturbance. These groups are the 

stewards of our social infrastructure-- places 

like parks, gardens and other types of public 

spaces that strengthen social trust and foster 

cooperation. Yet, visualizing the often “behind 

the scenes” work of these groups can be 

challenging. To address this issue, STEWMAP highlights existing stewardship gaps and 

overlaps in order to strengthen capacities, 

enhance and promote broader civic 

engagement with on-the-ground environmental 

projects, and build effective partnerships 

among stakeholders involved in urban 

sustainability. As a result, a growing number 

of cities are conducting STEW-MAP as they 

seek to engage more directly with their local 

communities, strengthen civic capacity, and 

build a model of shared stewardship. Since 

2007, STEW-MAP has expanded nationally 

and internationally. STEW-MAP projects are 

completed or currently under way in Baltimore; 

Philadelphia; Seattle; Chicago region; 

Portland, Maine region; Los Angeles; Denver; 

Honolulu; North Kona and South Kohala in 

Hawaii; Paris, France; San Juan, Puerto Rico; 

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; and 

Valledupar, Colombia.

This report presents the results of STEWMAP data collected on civic environmental 

stewardship groups for New York City and its 

surrounding region (census-defined combined 

metropolitan statistical area) in 2017. We 

define stewardship broadly as engaging 

in acts of conservation, management, 

monitoring, transformation, education, 

and advocacy for the local environment—

including land, air, water, waste, and toxics 

(Svendsen and Campbell 2008, Fisher et 

al. 2012, Campbell et al. in press). In this 

study, we draw attention to the abiding 

role of civil society—including both formal 

nonprofits and informal, community groups—

in shaping and caring for the environment. 

The civic sector is an important component 

of local environmental governance, as these 

groups work both independently of and in 

collaboration with the public and private 

sectors in the management of ecosystem 

services (Connolly et al. 2012, 2014). STEWMAP originated in 2007, when researchers 

with the USDA Forest Service aimed to 
5 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

answer the question: Who takes care of New 

York City? The data were collected through a 

widely-circulated organizational survey and 

comprise measures of civic stewardship 

groups’ organizational characteristics, 

geographic turf, and social networks: 

Organizational Characteristics: 

Characteristics include measures 

such as year founded, budget, legal 

status, number of employees and volunteers, 

mission, site type, and primary focus. 

These data demonstrate the ways in which 

environmental stewardship practices are 

embedded in the work of diverse civic groups. 

They describe the resources that groups bring 

in pursuit of their mission and vision and can 

reveal trends in the form and emphasis of 

stewardship in a city.

Geographic Turf: A turf refers to 

the geography of where a group 

works in the city or region - as 

defined by the group itself. It is not only a 

mailing address. It can be as small as a 

single tree or as large as a region. It can be 

defined by where they physically work, in the 

case of hands-on land managers, or a wider 

catchment area in the case of social service 

providers. It helps us better understand the 

territorial basis of power at the group level, 

as well as the patterns, gaps, and overlaps in 

space across groups.

Social Networks: Networks are the 

relationships between groups - which 

include information, resources, and 

collaborative ties. They can be analyzed by 

sector to identify relationships between civic, 

public, and private actors. Networks identify 

central nodes or “brokers” in the network as 

well as groups on the periphery. Networks 

help us understand that connections can jump 

scales or transcend physical space.

STEW-MAP 2007 resulted in a publiclyaccessible online map and database of more 

than 500 groups. Of the respondent groups, 

the most commonly stewarded site types were 

parks, community gardens, and street trees. 

The majority of these groups, 65%, were 

categorized as having low professionalization, 

based on number of paid staff an annual 

budget (Fisher et al. 2012). Tools derived from 

STEW-MAP data have supported government 

and civic groups alike to effectively coordinate 

and collaborate, to identify opportunities 

to better engage New Yorkers, and to 

enhance the capacity of the stewards of 

our communities. STEW-MAP can support 

civic participation, increase neighborhoods’ 

social cohesion, and facilitate the sharing of 

resources between groups. 

Ten years after STEW-MAP 2007, our 

understanding of the way stewardship 

supports social resilience and of the 

importance of cross-sector governance 

approaches has deepened. In “One New York: 

The Plan for a Strong and Just City,” Mayor Bill 

de Blasio acknowledged that New York City is 

only as strong as its neighborhoods are – our 

civic groups and social networks are a crucial 

part of the lifeblood of the city and are the 

stewards of our community resources. STEWMAP 2017 was conducted in partnership 

with the NYC Mayor’s Office of Recovery and 

Resiliency to update the data and understand 

how the stewardship landscape of New York 

has changed since 2007. 

In this report, we present the findings on 

organizational characteristics, turfs, and 

networks of our STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 

data, for both NYC-based organizations and 

a pilot survey effort to extend the survey into 

the larger region.
6 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Methods

The NYC Region 2017 STEWMAP project collected data on 

civic stewardship organizations 

through an organizational survey 

that draws upon a sampling frame 

of known civic organizations that 

may engage in stewardship. 

Geography and network responses were used 

to derive spatial and social network maps. 

This methods section describes survey data 

collection methods, data processing, and data 

analysis (Figure 1).

Data Collection

The sampling frame of groups to receive the 

2017 STEW-MAP survey was built over the 

course of five months. Potential stewardship 

groups were identified both within the 

five boroughs of New York City and within 

the larger metropolitan region. Lists were 

gathered in three ways and then compiled into 

an Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet that tracked 

group name, data provider, and contact 

information: 

1. Data providers: First, all of the partner 

organizations and data providers from 2007 

STEW-MAP were approached and asked to 

serve as data providers for the five boroughs 

by sharing their lists of partner stewardship 

organizations. A working group was created 

and from there, additional organizations were 

invited to add to the sampling frame as data 

providers. Working group members made 

recommendations for additional types of data 

providers to approach (see Figure 2). The 

final list of over 55 data providers covered 

a wide range of sectors, including natural 

resource management, food services, disaster 

preparedness, and education (see Appendix A). 

2. Public lists: To fill any gaps that were 

left out of the sampling frame, additional 

groups were added from publicly available 

lists and databases. These included 

websites where partner organizations and/

or grantees were listed, as well as lists of 

nonprofit environmental organizations and 

publicly available tax information reported by 

organizations on Internal Revenue Form 990, 

commonly referred to as 990 forms.

Figure 1. STEW-MAP implementation steps.

Discuss 

Scope and 

Build your 

Team

Compile 

your lists of 

Groups to 

Survey

Send out the 

Survey

Share

Results

Conduct

Survey

Outreach

Clean and

Analyze Data
7 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 2. Crowd-sourced suggestions of data providers from Mentimeter interactive 

presentation software (www,mentimeter.com) poll results at NYC STEW-MAP kickoff 

meeting.

Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area

New York City boundary

^

Locator Map

0 30 60 15 Kilometers

New York

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

Connecticut

Long Island Sound

Atlantic Ocean

Figure 3. Study area map. Map created by Michelle Johnson, USDA Forest Service. 
8 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

groups taking the STEW-MAP survey, both 

geographically (groups from the city and 

the region), and characteristically (groups 

of various size, focus, and formality). All 

partners participating in the pretesting 

exercise provided feedback and suggested 

changes to the questions. The final survey 

instrument is included in Appendix D.

Prior to launching the survey, stewardship 

groups were targeted through an outreach 

process to introduce them to STEW-MAP and 

encourage them to take the survey when they 

received it. Data providers and partners were 

encouraged to share information about STEWMAP through their website, social media, 

email blasts, and newsletters. In addition, 

groups that were willing to host a STEW-MAP 

table at events and conferences provided an 

opportunity to hand out postcards and onepagers introducing STEW-MAP. 

3. Region: In 2017, the sampling frame 

was extended beyond the five boroughs for 

a pilot survey of groups from the 35-county 

metropolitan region, defined as the New YorkNewark NY-NJ-CT-PA combined statistical area 

(CSA) (Figure 3; see Appendix B for a full 

list).1 The geographically extended sampling 

frame was compiled from publicly available tax 

information reported on groups’ 990 forms. 

Groups were identified by their activity codes 

and national taxonomy of exempt entities 

(NTEE) codes reported on each group’s 990 

form; we accessed information of groups 

whose codes corresponded to environmental 

and environmental causes (see Appendix C for 

list of codes).

Once the sampling frame was complete 

and all data providers had shared their 

lists, a process was created to “clean” the 

data and remove and duplicate groups that 

had been on multiple lists. After cleaning, 

the population consisted of 10,253 groups, 

6,999 in the Region and 3,254 in the five 

boroughs. Unique numbers were assigned 

for each group (PopID). Groups included in 

the NYC 2007 sampling frame and 2007 

networks already had an assigned PopID; 

these were retained in the 2017 sampling 

frame.

Survey Development and 

Pre-Survey Outreach

The 2017 STEW-MAP survey was based 

on the 2007 survey, with some additional 

questions to capture change over time, 

desired impact, drivers of change, and a more 

nuanced understanding of social networks. 

The survey was reviewed by all attendees of 

the second working group meeting in January 

of 2017 (n=16) and pretested by a small 

group of partners (n=12). These partners 

were selected to represent the range of
9 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Survey Distribution and 

Follow-up Outreach 

The survey launched in May 2017 and 

remained open for 8 months. For groups with 

a contact email, the 2017 STEW-MAP survey 

was implemented using the survey software 

Maptionnaire (Maptionnaire.com). The survey 

questions were input into the online platform 

in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, Korean, 

Russian, and Mandarin Chinese. The contact 

emails from the sampling frame spreadsheet 

were then loaded into Mailchimp (Mailchimp.

com), which was used to send out the email 

invitation to participate, along with a link 

to the survey (Figure 4). Three reminder 

emails were sent at 4- to 8-week intervals to 

groups that had not previously responded. 

The second reminder email introduced an 

incentive of an Amazon gift card through a 

drawing of all respondent groups. 

For groups with no email contact, a 

postcard was sent to introduce the survey. 

Approximately 3 weeks later, the paper 

version of the survey was mailed, along with 

a prepaid envelope to return the survey. A 

second paper survey was sent approximately 

8 weeks later to the groups that had not 

responded, including groups that were sent 

the email survey but had bounced back. 

The second version included language about 

the incentive. 

Next, a round of phone calls went out to 

groups that did not respond. Calls were 

made to all groups that had a phone number 

associated with them on the population 

spreadsheet. Phone calls were used 

to confirm contact information, answer 

questions, encourage groups to respond, and 

to offer to send another copy by mail or email 

to groups who requested one. 

In all, 7,003 groups received the survey 

within New York City’s five boroughs, and 

another 3,259 outside of New York City 

received the survey as part of a NYC Region 

pilot survey. A final round of mail surveys was 

sent to all email nonrespondents 1 month 

before the survey closed in November 2017. 

As the surveys came in, the group names 

were checked against the sampling frame 

and marked as complete or incomplete, 

depending on the extent to which the survey 

had been completed. As of December, 2017,2

when the survey officially closed for research, 

847 responses were recorded, resulting in a 

response rate of 11 percent for the New York 

City and 3 percent in the Regional pilot suvey 

(Table 1). Responses were calculated as all 

of the surveys returned, both complete and 

incomplete. The sampling frame was cleaned 

to exclude duplicates and errors, as well as 

lists from data providers that generated a 

particularly low response.

Figure 4. STEW-MAP 2017 survey recruitment email.
10 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Data Processing

Survey Responses

Responses were downloaded from 

Maptionnaire as a Microsoft EXCEL® 

spreadsheet and a geospatial shapefile, which 

included self-defined polygons of turf by some 

of the respondents. Survey responses were 

cleaned and standardized for items such as 

zip code, telephone number, and budget. Data 

acquired from follow-up outreach (described 

above) were incorporated with the EXCEL 

spreadsheet downloaded from Maptionnaire 

to create a more complete set of responses. 

Unique numbers were assigned for each group 

(PopID column). Groups included in the NYC 

2007 sampling frame and 2007 networks 

already had an assigned PopID; these were 

retained in the 2017 sampling frame.

A data dictionary was developed for the 

survey responses, and some fields in the 

survey were recoded to be consistent with 

STEW-MAP data standards (e.g., Yes/No 

recoded to 1/0). Open-ended questions for 

mission, goals, and metrics were coded 

through applying qualitative methodologies. 

Responses to questions were coded 

separately by two researchers via an open 

coding approach that identified key phrases 

and concepts (Lofland et al. 2005). These 

initial codes were then compared and 

discussed, and discrepancies were examined 

using an iterative approach until consensus 

was reached across both coders, thereby 

enhancing reliability (Neuman and Kreuger 

2003). Thematic clusters were then created 

to aggregate common codes together into 

broader themes. These clusters emerged 

out of key phrases, repeated language, and 

common ideas (Ryan and Bernard 2003). 

Specific subcategories were retained. 

Turfs

Polygons representing each group’s turf were 

developed either from a self-mapped polygon 

in Maptionnaire or from a text description 

provided in the survey. Self-mapped polygons 

were downloaded in a WGS84 decimal degrees 

format. All processing of turfs within the NYC 

Region occurred using the UTM 18N NAD83 

projection; turfs occurring outside the NYC 

Region were kept in a WGS84 decimal degrees 

format. To minimize slivers, all polygons 

were adjusted and snapped to existing GIS 

boundaries of NYC, New York state, New 

Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania 

datasets obtained from NYC Open Data 

(https://opendata/cityofnewyork.us) and state 

and federal GIS clearinghouses. 

The team of GIS mappers consulted 

regularly to ensure consistency among 

mappers in terms of interpretation and 

datasets used. Interpretation of descriptions 

required identifying the correct location of 

a turf as well as the intended extent of the 

Table 1. STEW-MAP 2017 NYC survey response rate.

NYC REGIONAL PILOT TOTAL

Groups in Sampling Frame 7,003 3,259 10,262

Number of Responses 754 93 847

Response Rate 11% 3% 8%
11 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

turf. Clarifications were made through followup outreach as needed. The mapping effort 

resulted in both turfs (where a group works, 

broadest extent) and sites (specific locations 

where a group works within a turf). This 

report will only refer to turf datasets, as not 

all groups identified sites in their responses. 

See Figure 5 for examples of mapped turfs of 

various sizes. 

Networks

The NYC STEW-MAP 2017 survey included 

three network questions, asking respondents 

to lists partner organizations in three 

categories: groups with which they regularly 

collaborate; groups that they go to for 

knowledge, data, or expertise; and groups 

from which they receive resources. Survey 

responses to these questions were cleaned 

and standardized to create network datasets 

(e.g., edgelists) for each of the three 

networks, which identified the respondent 

(sender) and alter (receiver) of each network 

tie, or edge, on a single row of data. Group 

names were standardized across all three 

networks and unique numbers (PopID column) 

linked or assigned, as needed. These PopID 

numbers are also consistent with 2007 

networks to enable temporal analysis. In 

addition to standardized alter names and 

PopIDs, a standardized alter detail column 

was also created, to parse whether the 

named group (alter/receiver) was a group 

or a program or branch of a larger group. 

Additional information in the dataset identifies 

whether the alter was a group, individual, 

or a general category (i.e., “community 

groups”). A sector (e.g., civic, government, 

business) was also assigned to each group. 

General categories and individuals have been 

excluded from analysis and presentation 

in this report. Network results include the 

in-degree statistic, which is a measure of 

the number of times a group is named by 

another group as well as a diagram of the 

organizational collaboration network.

Figure 5. Examples of various turf sizes and geographies.

Small: Green Acres Community Large: Green Bronx Machine

Garden

Multi-site: Brooklyn-Queens Land 

Trust

Corridor: East River Crew, Inc.
12 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

We present results for NYC 

respondents first, followed 

by regional respondents. 

Organizational characteristics 

are presented first, with the 

majority of survey responses 

presented as tables and/or 

figures. These are then followed 

by maps of stewardship turfs and 

collaboration networks. 

NYC Organizational 

Characteristics

The STEW-MAP survey asks respondent groups 

to self-select their functions, site types, and 

focus. Because environmental stewardship is 

often nested within other goals focusing on 

community quality of life and occurs in diverse 

ways across the landscape, these questions 

begin to describe the various approaches to 

stewardship that groups are using. Each of 

these questions are asked in two forms: select 

all, and select one. This allows groups to list 

all of the answers that represent their work and 

then to narrow down to the one answer that 

best describes their organization. 

Function

STEW-MAP defines six stewardship functions 

that cover the many ways groups help take 

care of the environment. The six functions 

are conserve, manage, monitor, transform, 

advocate for and educate about the local 

Results

environment (see Table 2). Many groups work 

across multiple functions.

On the survey, groups are also able to 

select the options participate in, partner 

with groups, or support other environmental 

work, or none of the above. Groups answer 

the question: Does your group do any of the 

following in the New York City region? Select 

all (Figure 6), and Select one (Figure 7). 

The most commonly selected functions in 

both versions of the question are manage, 

educate, and advocate. Participate is also a 

common choice, suggesting that groups often 

engage in stewardship through collaboration 

with others. Groups that reported no primary 

stewardship function are not required to 

complete the survey, and are excluded from 

these results.3

Site Type

The STEW-MAP survey asks groups to identify 

the site types where they work in order to 

understand which kinds of areas are most 

and least stewarded. These site types include 

green space such as parks and forests; 

water, including waterfronts and wetlands; 

built environment, such as courtyards and 

green buildings; and systems-related, such 

as food systems or waste systems. Groups 

respond to the question, In the last year, what 

sites has your group’s stewardship worked 

focused on? Select all (Figure 8), and Select 

one (Figure 9). Community gardens, parks and 

street trees are the most commonly identified 

site types in both the select all and select one 

questions. These site types are also the most 
13 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

commonly selected by respondents in STEWMAP 2007, which only included the select all

option (Svendsen et al. 2016, Fisher et al. 

2012).

Focus

Groups are asked to identify the overall 

issues they work on, not just through their 

stewardship work. Seeing the wide range of 

groups that take part in stewardship work 

helps us understand how a variety of civic 

issues overlap with stewardship. Groups 

responded to the question, What does your 

group work on?

The most selected primary focus is 

environment (Figure 10). However, community 

improvement and capacity building are 

the most frequently selected types of 

organizational focus when offered the 

opportunity to select all categories that apply 

(Figure 11). This suggests that the majority 

of respondents see their work as somehow 

impacting community and capacity, even if 

they focus more specifically on environment or 

education.

Figure 6. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC groups 

by function, select all option (n=718).

13 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 6. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC groups 

FUNCTION EXAMPLES

Conserve

-- Preserving landmarks of cultural significance

-- Protecting green space

-- Defending endangered species

Manage

-- Maintaining and operating parks

-- Planting flower beds

-- Hosting volunteer cleanups

Monitor

-- Sharing data on water quality

-- Tracking habitat metrics

-- Surveying the public on park use

Educate

-- Leading after school classes

-- Public programming

-- Preparing employees for green jobs

Advocate

-- Community organizing

-- Supporting environmental justice campaigns

-- Voting for sustainable policies

Transform

-- Making art from repurposed materials

-- Collecting compost

-- Installing solar panels

Table 2. Stewardship functions and example practices.

Figure 7. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC groups 

by function, select one option (n=680).

commonly selected by respondents in STEWMAP 2007, which only included the select all 

option (Svendsen et al. 2016, Fisher et al. 

2012).

Focus

Groups are asked to identify the overall 

issues they work on, not just through their 

stewardship work. Seeing the wide range of 

groups that take part in stewardship work 

helps us understand how a variety of civic 

issues overlap with stewardship. Groups 

responded to the question, What does your 

group work on? 

The most selected primary focus is 

environment (Figure 10). However, community 

improvement and capacity building are 

the most frequently selected types of 

organizational focus when offered the 

opportunity to select all categories that apply 

(Figure 11). This suggests that the majority 

of respondents see their work as somehow 

impacting community and capacity, even if 

they focus more specifically on environment or 

education.

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Manage

Participate

14%

Educate

41%

Transform

11%

Advocate

23%

Conserve

6%

Monitor

4%

1%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

FUNCTION

TOTAL SELECTED

Manage 71%

Advocate 54%

Participate 63%

Conserve 29%

Educate 56%

Monitor 27%

Transform 23%

4%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

None of 

the Above

FUNCTION

TOTAL SELECTED

Figure 7. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC groups 

by function, select one option (n=680).

13 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 6. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC groups 

by function, select all option (n=718).

FUNCTION EXAMPLES

Conserve

-- Preserving landmarks of cultural significance

-- Protecting green space

-- Defending endangered species

Manage

-- Maintaining and operating parks

-- Planting flower beds

-- Hosting volunteer cleanups

Monitor

-- Sharing data on water quality

-- Tracking habitat metrics

-- Surveying the public on park use

Educate

-- Leading after school classes

-- Public programming

-- Preparing employees for green jobs

Advocate

-- Community organizing

-- Supporting environmental justice campaigns

-- Voting for sustainable policies

Transform

-- Making art from repurposed materials

-- Collecting compost

-- Installing solar panels

Table 2. Stewardship functions and example practices.

Figure 7. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC groups 

by function, select one option (n=680).

commonly selected by respondents in STEWMAP 2007, which only included the select all 

option (Svendsen et al. 2016, Fisher et al. 

2012).

Focus

Groups are asked to identify the overall 

issues they work on, not just through their 

stewardship work. Seeing the wide range of 

groups that take part in stewardship work 

helps us understand how a variety of civic 

issues overlap with stewardship. Groups 

responded to the question, What does your 

group work on? 

The most selected primary focus is 

environment (Figure 10). However, community 

improvement and capacity building are 

the most frequently selected types of 

organizational focus when offered the 

opportunity to select all categories that apply 

(Figure 11). This suggests that the majority 

of respondents see their work as somehow 

impacting community and capacity, even if 

they focus more specifically on environment or 

education.

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Manage

Participate

14%

Educate

41%

Transform

11%

Advocate

23%

Conserve

6%

Monitor

4%

1%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

FUNCTION

TOTAL SELECTED

Manage 71%

Advocate 54%

Participate 63%

Conserve 29%

Educate 56%

Monitor 27%

Transform 23%

4%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

None of 

the Above

FUNCTION

TOTAL SELECTED

Table 2. Stewardship functions and example practices.

FUNCTION EXAMPLES

Conserve

-- Preserving landmarks of cultural significance

-- Protecting green space

-- Defending endangered species

Manage

-- Maintaining and operating parks

-- Planting flower beds

-- Hosting volunteer cleanups

Monitor

-- Sharing data on water quality

-- Tracking habitat metrics

-- Surveying the public on park use

Educate

-- Leading after school classes

-- Public programming

-- Preparing employees for green jobs

Advocate

-- Community organizing

-- Supporting environmental justice campaigns

-- Voting for sustainable policies

Transform

-- Making art from repurposed materials

-- Collecting compost

-- Installing solar panels
14 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 8. Number of NYC groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common categories, 

select all option (n=623).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 9. Number of NYC groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common categories, 

select one option (n=551). Community Garden

Watershed/Sewershed

44%

40%

46%

Food System

Forest/Woodland

Park

Vacant Lot

Waste System

Rooftop

Street Tree

Stormwwwater Management

Residential Building Grounds

Public Right-of-Way

Atmosphere

Freshwater Wetland

Schoolyard

Stream/River/Canal

Energy System

Urban Farm

Public Building Grounds 

Green Buildings

Other

Greenways

Athletic Field

Flower Box

None of the Above

Public Garden

Building Courtyard

Playground

Salt Marsh

Dog Run/Dog Park

Brownfield

0

300

150

100

50

200

250

SITE TYPE

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Community Garden

Playground

27%

18%

9%

Waterfront/Beach/Shoreline

Botanical Garden/Arboretum

Park

Vacant Land / Vacant Lot

Athletic Field

Rooftop

Street Tree

Public Right-of-Way

Food System

School yard/Outdoor Classroom

Green Buildings

Urban Farm

Atmospehre

Waste System

Dog Run/Dog Park

Watershed/Sewershed

Grounds of Public Building

Sustainable Energy System

Forest/Woodland

Salt Marsh

Brownfield

Stream/River/Canal

Bike Trails/GreenwayRail-Trail

Storm Water Management System

Residential Building Grounds

Freshwater Wetland

Other

0

150

60

30

90

120

SITE TYPE

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Figure 9. Number of NYC groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common categories,

select one option (n=551).

14 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 8. Number of NYC groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common categories, 

select all option (n=623).

Figure 9. Number of NYC groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common categories, 

select one option (n=551). Community Garden

Watershed/Sewershed

44%

40%

46%

Food System

Forest/Woodland

Park

Vacant Lot

Waste System

Rooftop

Street Tree

Stormwwwater Management

Residential Building Grounds

Public Right-of-Way

Atmosphere

Freshwater Wetland

Schoolyard

Stream/River/Canal

Energy System

Urban Farm

Public Building Grounds 

Green Buildings

Other

Greenways

Athletic Field

Flower Box

None of the Above

Public Garden

Building Courtyard

Playground

Salt Marsh

Dog Run/Dog Park

Brownfield

0

300

150

100

50

200

250

SITE TYPE

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Community Garden

Playground

27%

18%

9%

Waterfront/Beach/Shoreline

Botanical Garden/Arboretum

Park

Vacant Land / Vacant Lot

Athletic Field

Rooftop

Street Tree

Public Right-of-Way

Food System

School yard/Outdoor Classroom

Green Buildings

Urban Farm

Atmospehre

Waste System

Dog Run/Dog Park

Watershed/Sewershed

Grounds of Public Building

Sustainable Energy System

Forest/Woodland

Salt Marsh

Brownfield

Stream/River/Canal

Bike Trails/GreenwayRail-Trail

Storm Water Management System

Residential Building Grounds

Freshwater Wetland

Other

0

150

60

30

90

120

SITE TYPE

NUMBER OF GROUPS
15 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 10. Number of NYC groups by organizational foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common 

categories, select all option (n = 621).

Figure 11. Number of NYC groups by organizational foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common 

categories, select one option (n=595).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 10. Number of NYC groups by organizational foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common 

categories, select all option (n = 621).

Figure 11. Number of NYC groups by organizational foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common 

categories, select one option (n=595). Community Impovement

Research in Science/Tech

Food

Energy Efficiency

Environment

Arts, culture

Employment

Transportation

Education

Toxics/Pollution

Food

Crime, Criminal Justice

Recreation & Sports

Emergency Management

Economic Development

Seniors

Housing

Human Services

Faith

Animal Related

Power Generation

Private Grantmaking

Public Health

Legal Services/Civil Rights

Other

0

50

100

250

150

300

200

350

400 62%

60%

51%

NUMBER OF GROUPS

FOCUS

Environment

Research in Science/Tech

24%

22%

17%

Food

Legal Services, Civil Rights

Community Impovement

Arts, culture,

Public Health

creative practices

Faith-based Activites

Education

Toxics/Pollution related

Youth

Employment, Job Related

Economic Development

Seniors

Recreation & Sports

Crime, Criminal Justice

Animal Related

Energy Efficiency

Housing & Shelter

Transportation

Human Services

Other

0

150

60

30

90

120

NUMBER OF GROUPS

FOCUS

15 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 10. Number of NYC groups by organizational foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common 

categories, select all option (n = 621).

Figure 11. Number of NYC groups by organizational foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common 

categories, select one option (n=595). Community Impovement

Research in Science/Tech

Food

Energy Efficiency

Environment

Arts, culture

Employment

Transportation

Education

Toxics/Pollution

Food

Crime, Criminal Justice

Recreation & Sports

Emergency Management

Economic Development

Seniors

Housing

Human Services

Faith

Animal Related

Power Generation

Private Grantmaking

Public Health

Legal Services/Civil Rights

Other

0

50

100

250

150

300

200

350

400 62%

60%

51%

NUMBER OF GROUPS

FOCUS

Environment

Research in Science/Tech

24%

22%

17%

Food

Legal Services, Civil Rights

Community Impovement

Arts, culture,

Public Health

creative practices

Faith-based Activites

Education

Toxics/Pollution related

Youth

Employment, Job Related

Economic Development

Seniors

Recreation & Sports

Crime, Criminal Justice

Animal Related

Energy Efficiency

Housing & Shelter

Transportation

Human Services

Other

0

150

60

30

90

120

NUMBER OF GROUPS

FOCUS
16 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Percentage of Stewardship

Groups are also asked to estimate how much 

of their work focuses on stewardship, as a 

percentage of overall activities (Figure 12). 

Many respondent groups consider stewardship 

to comprise the largest percentage of their 

work, but some groups that engage in 

stewardship do so only as one aspect of 

their work.

Mission, Goals, and Metrics

STEW-MAP asks groups to share their formal 

mission statement if they have one, and if 

not, to summarize the mission of the group 

in their own words. The word cloud (Figure 

13) shows the most frequently used words 

in all of the combined mission statements 

for NYC groups. The larger and darker the 

word, the more frequently it was mentioned. 

Overwhelmingly, the most used word was 

“community.” Other frequently used words 

include “park” and “garden,” referring to 

the most common site types. Additionally, 

the words “improve,” “safe,” and “health” 

Figure 12. Proportion of work focused on stewardship in 

NYC (n= 583).

Figure 13. Word cloud showing relative frequency reported as the mission of NYC groups (n=522). The larger and 

darker the word, the more frequently it was mentioned. 

16 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 12. Proportion of work focused on stewardship in 

NYC (n= 583).

Percentage of Stewardship

Groups are also asked to estimate how much 

of their work focuses on stewardship, as a 

percentage of overall activities (Figure 12). 

Many respondent groups consider stewardship 

to comprise the largest percentage of their 

work, but some groups that engage in 

stewardship do so only as one aspect of 

their work.

Mission, Goals, and Metrics

STEW-MAP asks groups to share their formal 

mission statement if they have one, and if 

not, to summarize the mission of the group 

in their own words. The word cloud (Figure 

13) shows the most frequently used words 

in all of the combined mission statements 

for NYC groups. The larger and darker the 

word, the more frequently it was mentioned. 

Overwhelmingly, the most used word was 

“community.” Other frequently used words 

include “park” and “garden,” referring to 

the most common site types. Additionally, 

the words “improve,” “safe,” and “health” 

Figure 13. Word cloud showing relative frequency reported as the mission of NYC groups (n=522). The larger and 

darker the word, the more frequently it was mentioned. 

20–39%

123

0%

40–59%

85

1–19%

18

60–79%

70

80–100%

56

231

0 50 100 150 200 250

PERCENT STEWARDSHIP

NUMBER OF GROUPS
17 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

are used by many respondents. This 

demonstrates that environmental stewardship 

groups are contributing to the overall sense of 

well-being in their neighborhoods.

All STEW-MAP respondents are asked to 

share their groups’ goals and metrics in 

open-ended answer form. A coding process 

categorized the responses into multiple 

categories to help understand the trends 

among the goals of stewardship groups, as 

well as the metrics they collect to help inform 

their progress. Goals are categorized first by 

the scale at which the groups are attempting 

to create change (Figure 14). The vast majority 

of goals are at the neighborhood scale, such 

as creating a greener street or improving 

community engagement. Groups’ goals to 

create local-scale change align with the number 

of groups working at a neighborhood or smaller 

scale (see Geography section, page 27).

Table 3. Coded actions of stewardship goals. 

ACTION DEFINITION

Access Improve or provide access to something

Advocate Advocate and/or plan for the local environment (planning, organizing, direct action, 

fundraising); promote, encourage better practices/planning for the local environment

Beautify Beautify a place, make a place more attractive

Collaborate Collaborate, cooperate, work closely with other groups

Connect Create relationships, collaborations, partnerships; bring people together

Conserve Conserve or preserve the local environment in the face of development pressures 

and threats

Create Create new programs, events, jobs

Educate Educate, train, change behavior, increase awareness and better understanding of the public 

about the local/global environment

Empower Make people stronger and more confident about stewarding their environment; enhance their 

pride and interest; make people take ownership of a place

Enjoy Enjoy, experience a place in the local environment

Improve Improve, enhance something in the local or global environment; make the local environment 

cleaner, greener

Increase Make greater in size, amount, intensity

Maintain Manage or maintain a site (park/garden/area) or program

Mobilize Persuade, engage, assemble and organize people; get people involved; have more impact on 

people

Monitor Monitor, collect, gather data about the quality of local environment (air or water quality, 

dumping, species monitoring, citizen science)

Protect Keep safe from damage

Restore Restore a place, an ecosystem, an entity in the local environment

Secure Make a local environment safer

Transform Transform or completely change local or global environmental systems.
18 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

A CLOSER LOOK: BLOCK ASSOCIATIONS IN STEW-MAP

More than 60 block and/or civic associations responded to the STEW-MAP 2017 survey. 

Most indicate either manage or advocate as their primary function, suggesting actions 

that focus both on the physical assets of their block as well as the community culture. 

Many span the environmental and civic realm, with efforts such as unifying neighbors 

in addition to greening streets. Common themes among the missions in these groups 

include their desire to build community connections, and to bring more safety and beauty 

to their blocks. Some encourage care of street trees, and some plan social events or 

establish small community gardens. A few share specific ways that their group was 

able to respond to local needs, like organizing to gain historic landmark protection or 

advocating for better schools and city services.

One such group, the East 34th Street Block Association in Brooklyn, explains the 

connection between their environmental and civic goals as follows: 

“We are trying to improve our neighborhood by caring for our block. When a block 

is cared for, when neighbors know and work with each member, we improve our 

community and ensure greater safety for all. In addition, a well-cared-for block, with 

flowers, shrubs, and trees, maintains the economic value not just of this street, but 

of our city”.

Park Slope Civic Council

Photo courtesy of ioby
19 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Goals are also categorized into a series 

of actions, or ways in which a group goes 

about attempting to achieve their goals

(Table 3). Each group received multiple

codes, depending on how many different 

actions were mentioned. The most popular 

action by far is improve, defined as “Improve, 

enhance something in the local or global 

environment, make the local environmental 

cleaner, greener,” followed by educate. The 

rest of the actions are similar in frequency 

and include mobilize, beautify, and connect

(Figure 15).

Groups are also asked whether they track 

any metrics and, if relevant, to list the 

metrics they track. These are coded similarly 

to goals, into categories classifying the 

metrics’ type, action, and subject. Figure 

16 shows the metrics groups identify as 

tracking, organized by subject. The subjects 

are further categorized into environmental 

and social metrics. Of both of those 

categories, the most popular types of metrics 

collected by groups are labor (i.e., number 

of volunteers), participation (i.e., number of 

participants, members, visitors), and activity

(i.e., everything related to programs and 

events).

Staff and Year Founded

Groups are asked to report on the number of 

full-time and part-time staff, members, and 

volunteers (Table 4). The minimum reported 

number for all of these categories is zero, 

because many groups have no paid staff, and 

some groups do not work with volunteers, nor 

do they operate with a membership structure. 

In the STEW-MAP survey, volunteers refer to 

regular volunteers and excludes participants 

in one-time volunteer events. Members can 

refer to members of a group, groups that are 

members of a larger coalition, or those who 

pay dues and/or membership fees to larger 

organizations. Numbers of volunteers and 

members have an especially large range, 

Table 4. Number of staff, members, and volunteers for NYC-based groups responding to the 2017 STEW-MAP survey.

FULL-TIME STAFF PART-TIME STAFF MEMBERS VOLUNTEERS

Mean 13.28 7.28 1,144.82 228.68

Standard 

Deviation 62.81 34.36 9,137.47 2,145.71

Minimum 0 0 0 0

Maximum 877 500 150,000 30,015

n 423 406 428 516

Figure 14. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC 

stewardship groups’ goals (n=434).

19 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Goals are also categorized into a series 

of actions, or ways in which a group goes 

about attempting to achieve their goals 

(Table 3). Each group received multiple 

codes, depending on how many different 

actions were mentioned. The most popular 

action by far is improve, defined as “Improve, 

enhance something in the local or global 

environment, make the local environmental 

cleaner, greener,” followed by educate. The 

rest of the actions are similar in frequency 

and include mobilize, beautify, and connect

(Figure 15).

Groups are also asked whether they track 

any metrics and, if relevant, to list the 

metrics they track. These are coded similarly 

to goals, into categories classifying the 

metrics’ type, action, and subject. Figure 

16 shows the metrics groups identify as 

tracking, organized by subject. The subjects 

are further categorized into environmental 

and social metrics. Of both of those 

categories, the most popular types of metrics 

collected by groups are labor (i.e., number 

of volunteers), participation (i.e., number of 

participants, members, visitors), and activity

(i.e., everything related to programs and 

events).

Staff and Year Founded

Groups are asked to report on the number of 

full-time and part-time staff, members, and 

volunteers (Table 4). The minimum reported 

number for all of these categories is zero, 

because many groups have no paid staff, and 

some groups do not work with volunteers, nor 

do they operate with a membership structure. 

In the STEW-MAP survey, volunteers refer to 

regular volunteers and excludes participants 

in one-time volunteer events. Members can 

refer to members of a group, groups that are 

members of a larger coalition, or those who 

pay dues and/or membership fees to larger 

organizations. Numbers of volunteers and 

members have an especially large range, 

Table 4. Number of staff, members, and volunteers for NYC-based groups responding to the 2017 STEW-MAP survey.

FULL-TIME STAFF PART-TIME STAFF MEMBERS VOLUNTEERS

Mean 13.28 7.28 1,144.82 228.68

Standard 

Deviation 62.81 34.36 9,137.47 2,145.71

Minimum 0 0 0 0

Maximum 877 500 150,000 30,015

n 423 406 428 516

Figure 14. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC 

stewardship groups’ goals (n=434).

County

Neighborhood

Region

City

Global

State

26%

4%

6%

2%

1%

1%

50 100 150 200 250

12%

Country

SCALE

NUMBER OF GROUPS
20 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 15. NYC stewardship groups’ goals by action with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common 

categories (n=215).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 16. NYC stewardship groups’ metrics by subject with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common 

categories (n=215).

Figure 15. NYC stewardship groups’ goals by action with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common 

categories (n=215).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

S

Improve

Educate

Mobilize

Empower

Beautify

Increase

Conserve

Access

Connect

Advocate

Create

Secure

Transform

Maintain

Enjoy

Protect

Collaborate

Restore

Monitor

15%

37%

6%

NUMBER OF GOALS

ACTION

41%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

S

Improve

Conserve

Educate

Mobilize

Restore

Protect

Access

Secure

Advocate

Empower

Increase

Beautify

Enjoy

Maintain

Monitor

Transform

Collaborate

Connect

12% 11%

NUMBER OF METRICS

SUBJECT

Figure 16. NYC stewardship groups’ metrics by subject with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common 

categories (n=215).

20 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 15. NYC stewardship groups’ goals by action with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common 

categories (n=215).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

S

Improve

Educate

Mobilize

Empower

Beautify

Increase

Conserve

Access

Connect

Advocate

Create

Secure

Transform

Maintain

Enjoy

Protect

Collaborate

Restore

Monitor

15%

37%

6%

NUMBER OF GOALS

ACTION

41%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

S

Improve

Conserve

Educate

Mobilize

Restore

Protect

Access

Secure

Advocate

Empower

Increase

Beautify

Enjoy

Maintain

Monitor

Transform

Collaborate

Connect

12% 11%

NUMBER OF METRICS

SUBJECT
21 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

due to the sizes and natures of responding 

groups. For example, citywide groups that 

rely on volunteers for public events, such as 

Partnerships for Parks and New Yorkers for 

Parks had over 5,000 volunteers. Certain 

groups with a broad geographic scope, such 

as League of Conservation Voters, have a 

large membership base. Trout Unlimited, 

which counts all donors as members, has 

150,000 members. 

Groups are also asked to report their year 

founded. The data indicate an increase in 

groups since 1950, with the caveat that 

this does not take into account groups that 

have disbanded or ended prior to 2017. The 

increase in groups after 2007, when the last 

STEW-MAP survey was conducted, suggests 

that grassroots stewardship is becoming more 

popular (Figure 17). 

Legal Designation and Land Ownership

The majority of the NYC-based groups 

responding are registered nonprofit groups, 

though there were also many informal 

community groups, such as block and civic 

associations with no official legal designation 

(Figure 18). For the purpose of this study, 

civic stewardship groups excludes groups that 

identify as part of government or the private 

sector.

Most of the responding groups work 

primarily on NYC government-owned land 

(Figure 19). This accounts for public spaces 

such as parks, as well as sidewalk/street tree

and other public right-of-way site types.

Communication and Services Offered

Groups are asked to choose all methods of 

communication used. Word of mouth was the 

most commonly selected communication for 

NYC stewardship groups, followed closely 

by social media, flyers, email blasting, and 

website. All of these methods are either free 

or low-cost, and are therefore accessible 

to groups regardless of budget. In fact, the 

more expensive methods of communication 

Figure 17. Number of NYC stewardship groups by year founded (n=520).

21 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

due to the sizes and natures of responding 

groups. For example, citywide groups that 

rely on volunteers for public events, such as 

Partnerships for Parks and New Yorkers for 

Parks had over 5,000 volunteers. Certain 

groups with a broad geographic scope, such 

as League of Conservation Voters, have a 

large membership base. Trout Unlimited, 

which counts all donors as members, has 

150,000 members. 

Groups are also asked to report their year 

founded. The data indicate an increase in 

groups since 1950, with the caveat that 

this does not take into account groups that 

have disbanded or ended prior to 2017. The 

increase in groups after 2007, when the last 

STEW-MAP survey was conducted, suggests 

that grassroots stewardship is becoming more 

popular (Figure 17). 

Legal Designation and Land Ownership

The majority of the NYC-based groups 

responding are registered nonprofit groups, 

though there were also many informal 

community groups, such as block and civic 

associations with no official legal designation 

(Figure 18). For the purpose of this study, 

civic stewardship groups excludes groups that 

identify as part of government or the private 

sector.

Most of the responding groups work 

primarily on NYC government-owned land 

(Figure 19). This accounts for public spaces 

such as parks, as well as sidewalk/street tree

and other public right-of-way site types.

Communication and Services Offered

Groups are asked to choose all methods of 

communication used. Word of mouth was the 

most commonly selected communication for 

NYC stewardship groups, followed closely 

by social media, flyers, email blasting, and 

website. All of these methods are either free 

or low-cost, and are therefore accessible 

to groups regardless of budget. In fact, the 

more expensive methods of communication 

Figure 17. Number of NYC stewardship groups by year founded (n=520).

NUMBER OF GROUPS

YEAR FOUNDED
22 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 18. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC stewardship groups by legal designation (n=691).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 19. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC stewardship groups by primary land owner (n=574).

Figure 18. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC stewardship groups by legal designation (n=691).

501(c)(3) (or has applied)

Public-private partnership

Group without 501(c)(3) 

or 501(c)(4) status 

501(c)(4) (or has applied)

School-affiliated group

Community board

Religious congregation

Other

53%

26%

2%

2%

7%

2%

0%

8%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

LEGAL DESIGNATION

NUMBER OF GROUPS

City / Local Government

Public & Private Lands

Nonprofit

State Government

Individual

Corporation

Federal Government

Other Government

County Government

Don’t Know

Other

56%

11%

7%

3%

8%

3%

1%

1%

1%

3%

6%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

NUMBER OF GROUPS

LAND OWNER

Figure 19. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC stewardship groups by primary land owner (n=574).

22 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 18. Number and frequency (as %) of NYC stewardship groups by legal designation (n=691).

501(c)(3) (or has applied)

Public-private partnership

Group without 501(c)(3) 

or 501(c)(4) status 

501(c)(4) (or has applied)

School-affiliated group

Community board

Religious congregation

Other

53%

26%

2%

2%

7%

2%

0%

8%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

LEGAL DESIGNATION

NUMBER OF GROUPS

City / Local Government

Public & Private Lands

Nonprofit

State Government

Individual

Corporation

Federal Government

Other Government

County Government

Don’t Know

Other

56%

11%

7%

3%

8%

3%

1%

1%

1%

3%

6%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

NUMBER OF GROUPS

LAND OWNER
23 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 20. Number of NYC stewardship groups by communication methods and sector (n=522).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 21. Number of NYC stewardship groups by services provided (n=488).

Word of Mouth

Conferences

Email Blasting

Blog

Social Media

Door-to-Door Outreach

Website

National Media

Flyers

Listserv

Community Meetings

TV

Local Media

Radio

Direct Mailing

Other 

N/A

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Other Groups

Nonprofit Groups

METHOD

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Labor

Educational Curricula/

Trainings

Public Relations/

Marketing

Plant Materials/

Equipment

Technical Assistance

Buildings/Facilities

Grants

Community Organizing

Date/Information/

Resarch

Legal Resources

Other

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Other Groups

Nonprofit Groups

SERVICE

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Figure 21. Number of NYC stewardship groups by services provided (n=488).

23 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 20. Number of NYC stewardship groups by communication methods and sector (n=522).

Word of Mouth

Conferences

Email Blasting

Blog

Social Media

Door-to-Door Outreach

Website

National Media

Flyers

Listserv

Community Meetings

TV

Local Media

Radio

Direct Mailing

Other 

N/A

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Other Groups

Nonprofit Groups

METHOD

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Labor

Educational Curricula/

Trainings

Public Relations/

Marketing

Plant Materials/

Equipment

Technical Assistance

Buildings/Facilities

Grants

Community Organizing

Date/Information/

Resarch

Legal Resources

Other

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Other Groups

Nonprofit Groups

SERVICE

NUMBER OF GROUPS
24 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

involving media are disproportionately 

selected by nonprofit groups that presumably 

have a budget dedicated to outreach (Figure 

20). It is also notable that only 51 percent of 

groups communicate via community meetings, 

suggesting that less time-consuming and 

costly methods are more popular. 

The next question asks groups to check 

off all of the services they provide. Data/

information/research is the most frequently 

selected, followed closely by community 

organizing and labor. More tangible services, 

like labor and plant materials/equipment are 

slightly less common. In 2007, respondents 

also said that community organizing and 

labor were among the top three, but data was 

not (USDA Forest Service 2007). The least 

common services of marketing, facilities, 

grants, and legal resources all require more 

funding and specialized staff, and it is 

therefore expected that they are provided more 

frequently by nonprofit groups (Figure 21). 

Budget

The STEW-MAP survey asks groups to share 

their budget in an open-ended question 

format. Many groups chose not to answer 

this question (105 groups), but of the 369 

groups that responded, the vast majority have 

an annual budget that falls between $1,000 

and $10,000. This was not the case in the 

2007 STEW-MAP survey, where respondents 

said that they most common budget category 

was $0 to $1,000 (USDA Forest Service 

2007). In 2017, 36 groups report a budget 

of $0 and a total of 86 check a box indicating 

that they are operating with no budget at all. 

At the same time, 10 have a budget of over 

$5 million (Figure 22). Some groups indicate 

that they do not wish to share their budget 

details (105 groups). The largest budget 

category in the 2017 data is $1,000 to 

$10,000, proportionally larger than the same 

category in 2007. This could be because of 

professionalization over time, or could be the 

result of more micro grants and other funding 

opportunities for stewardship groups. 

Figure 22. NYC stewardship groups’ budgets (n=369). 

An additional 86 groups reported “no budget” and 105 

groups declined to respond to this question.

24 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

involving media are disproportionately 

selected by nonprofit groups that presumably 

have a budget dedicated to outreach (Figure 

20). It is also notable that only 51 percent of 

groups communicate via community meetings, 

suggesting that less time-consuming and 

costly methods are more popular. 

The next question asks groups to check 

off all of the services they provide. Data/

information/research is the most frequently 

selected, followed closely by community 

organizing and labor. More tangible services, 

like labor and plant materials/equipment are 

slightly less common. In 2007, respondents 

also said that community organizing and 

labor were among the top three, but data was 

not (USDA Forest Service 2007). The least 

common services of marketing, facilities, 

grants, and legal resources all require more 

funding and specialized staff, and it is 

therefore expected that they are provided more 

frequently by nonprofit groups (Figure 21). 

Budget

The STEW-MAP survey asks groups to share 

their budget in an open-ended question 

format. Many groups chose not to answer 

this question (105 groups), but of the 369 

groups that responded, the vast majority have 

an annual budget that falls between $1,000 

and $10,000. This was not the case in the 

2007 STEW-MAP survey, where respondents 

said that they most common budget category 

was $0 to $1,000 (USDA Forest Service 

2007). In 2017, 36 groups report a budget 

of $0 and a total of 86 check a box indicating 

that they are operating with no budget at all. 

At the same time, 10 have a budget of over 

$5 million (Figure 22). Some groups indicate 

that they do not wish to share their budget 

details (105 groups). The largest budget 

category in the 2017 data is $1,000 to 

$10,000, proportionally larger than the same 

category in 2007. This could be because of 

professionalization over time, or could be the 

result of more micro grants and other funding 

opportunities for stewardship groups. 

$10K –$50K

$0

$200K –$500K

$500K–$2M

$100K –$200K

$1K–$10K

FREQUENCY

$50K

$1–$1K –$100K

$1M–$2M$2M–$5M

$5M+

0

80

40

120

20

100

60

140

Figure 22. NYC stewardship groups’ budgets (n=369). 

An additional 86 groups reported “no budget” and 105 

groups declined to respond to this question.
25 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Professionalization Index

To understand the overall professionalization 

of respondent groups, the professionalization 

index used for the 2007 NYC STEW-MAP data 

was replicated for the 2017 data (Fisher et al. 

2012). Professionalization is based on staff 

and budget and is one way to understand 

group capacity. To recreate the index, the 

open-ended budget responses are binned into 

one of five categories: 

1. Less than $1,000

2. $1,000–$9,999

3. $10,000–$999,999

4. $100,000–$1 million

5. $1 million+

Number of staff are also assigned to five 

categories:

1. 0–1.5

2. 2–3.5

3. 4–5.5

4. 6–10.5

5. 11+

Each full-time staff member counts as 1, and 

part-time staff count as 0.5 each. The staff 

and budget for each group are then averaged, 

resulting in a number between 1 and 5. An 

overall professionalization score is assigned 

based on this average, where 1–2 = low, 

2.5–3.5 = medium, 4–5 = high. Of the 

New York City respondents, 47 percent are 

assigned a low professionalization score 

(Figure 23), suggesting that many of the city’s 

stewardship groups are operating with low 

professionalization.

Next, professionalization indices are 

compared to year founded in order to 

understand when groups of varying 

professionalization scores were founded 

(Figure 24). Beginning in the 1960s, we see a 

steady increase of stewardship groups with a 

low professionalization score. This supports 

the idea that smaller grassroots stewardship 

groups are on the rise in New York City. Further, 

it takes time for groups to professionalize, and 

many groups that start out as small grassroots 

groups with low budgets eventually grow and 

sometimes even obtain nonprofit status. 

Professionalization and site type are visualized 

together (Figure 25), and the top three site 

types all have low professionalization scores.

Impacts and Influences

The 2017 STEW-MAP survey includes a set 

of questions to understand groups’ perceived 

impacts. This question was answered on 

a seven-point Likert scale indicating level 

of agreement with a number of outcomes 

(1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). 

Stewardship groups most commonly 

identify as having an impact on community 

participation and plants and habitat quality – 

demonstrating that they aim to achieve

both social and environmental outcomes 

(Figure 26).

Groups are also asked to comment on 

other influences on a seven-point Likert 

scale (1=not influential, 7=highly influential). 

We seek to understand the ways in which 

city plans and programs affect groups, as 

these have been demonstrated to serve as 

Figure 23. Professionalization scores for NYC groups 

(n=294).

25 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Professionalization Index

To understand the overall professionalization 

of respondent groups, the professionalization 

index used for the 2007 NYC STEW-MAP data 

was replicated for the 2017 data (Fisher et al. 

2012). Professionalization is based on staff 

and budget and is one way to understand 

group capacity. To recreate the index, the 

open-ended budget responses are binned into 

one of five categories: 

1. Less than $1,000

2. $1,000–$9,999

3. $10,000–$999,999

4. $100,000–$1 million

5. $1 million+

Number of staff are also assigned to five 

categories:

1. 0–1.5

2. 2–3.5

3. 4–5.5

4. 6–10.5

5. 11+

Each full-time staff member counts as 1, and 

part-time staff count as 0.5 each. The staff 

and budget for each group are then averaged, 

resulting in a number between 1 and 5. An 

overall professionalization score is assigned 

based on this average, where 1–2 = low, 

2.5–3.5 = medium, 4–5 = high. Of the 

New York City respondents, 47 percent are 

assigned a low professionalization score 

(Figure 23), suggesting that many of the city’s 

stewardship groups are operating with low 

professionalization.

Next, professionalization indices are 

compared to year founded in order to 

understand when groups of varying 

professionalization scores were founded 

(Figure 24). Beginning in the 1960s, we see a 

steady increase of stewardship groups with a 

low professionalization score. This supports 

the idea that smaller grassroots stewardship 

groups are on the rise in New York City. Further, 

it takes time for groups to professionalize, and 

many groups that start out as small grassroots 

groups with low budgets eventually grow and 

sometimes even obtain nonprofit status. 

Professionalization and site type are visualized 

together (Figure 25), and the top three site 

types all have low professionalization scores.

Impacts and Influences

The 2017 STEW-MAP survey includes a set 

of questions to understand groups’ perceived 

impacts. This question was answered on 

a seven-point Likert scale indicating level 

of agreement with a number of outcomes 

(1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). 

Stewardship groups most commonly 

identify as having an impact on community 

participation and plants and habitat quality – 

demonstrating that they aim to achieve 

both social and environmental outcomes 

(Figure 26).

Groups are also asked to comment on 

other influences on a seven-point Likert 

scale (1=not influential, 7=highly influential). 

We seek to understand the ways in which 

city plans and programs affect groups, as 

these have been demonstrated to serve as 

Figure 23. Professionalization scores for NYC groups 

(n=294).

47%

29%

24%

Low

Medium

High
26 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 24. Number of NYC stewardship groups by professionalization and year founded (n=294).

Figure 25. Number of NYC stewardship groups by professionalization and site type (n=294).

1930–1939

1960–1969

1940–1949

1800s

1970–1979

1950–1959

1900–1909

1980–1989

1910–1919

1990–1999

1920–1929

2000–2009

2010–2017

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Low

Professionalization 

Score

Medium

High

YEAR FOUNDED

Low

Professionalization 

Score

Medium

High

Bike Trails/Greenway/

Rail-trail

Grounds of Public Building other than School

Botanical Garden/ 

Arboretum

Green Buildings

Atmosphere

Forest/Woodland

Playground

Rooftop

Salt Marsh

Storm Water Management System

Waste System

Other

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Waterfront/Beach/

Shoreline

School Yard/Outdoor 

Classroom

Residential Building 

Grounds

Stream/River/Canal

Stream/River/Canal

Community Garden

Urban Farm

Park

Food System

Street Tree

Athletic Field

Public Right-of-Way

Vacant Land/Vacant Lot

Freshwater Wetland

SITE TYPE

Figure 24. Number of NYC stewardship groups by professionalization and year founded (n=294).

26 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 25. Number of NYC stewardship groups by professionalization and site type (n=294).

1930–1939

1960–1969

1940–1949

1800s

1970–1979

1950–1959

1900–1909

1980–1989

1910–1919

1990–1999

1920–1929

2000–2009

2010–2017

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Low

Professionalization 

Score

Medium

High

YEAR FOUNDED

Low

Professionalization 

Score

Medium

High

Bike Trails/Greenway/

Rail-trail

Grounds of Public Building other than School

Botanical Garden/ 

Arboretum

Green Buildings

Atmosphere

Forest/Woodland

Playground

Rooftop

Salt Marsh

Storm Water Management System

Waste System

Other

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Waterfront/Beach/

Shoreline

School Yard/Outdoor 

Classroom

Residential Building 

Grounds

Stream/River/Canal

Stream/River/Canal

Community Garden

Urban Farm

Park

Food System

Street Tree

Athletic Field

Public Right-of-Way

Vacant Land/Vacant Lot

Freshwater Wetland

SITE TYPE

Figure 25. Number of NYC stewardship groups by professionalization and site type (n=294).
27 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

key moments in which governance networks 

rearrange (e.g., Campbell 2017). Looking 

across a wide range of efforts related to 

sustainability and resilience—including urban 

forestry, transportation, and arts—we find 

that groups were most strongly influenced by 

MillionTreesNYC—the plan to plant and care 

for 1 million trees citywide from 2007–2015–

and PlaNYC, the city’s first sustainability plan 

from 2007 (Figure 27).

Finally, in addition to city plans, a broad 

range of environmental and social drivers 

also influence group practices. The most 

commonly identified influences are climate 

change, neighborhood redevelopment, and 

extreme weather. Through these questions, 

we see the way in which stewardship groups 

shape and are shaped by the dynamic urban 

environment (Figure 28). Error bars have 

been provided to demonstrate the standard 

deviation of responses, indicating whether 

responses were highly varied or uniform 

across responding groups.

Geography

New York City groups work on areas that span 

a variety of size classes, with most working 

at a neighborhood level or smaller, 10 acres 

or less (Figure 29). Some groups based in 

New York City work at larger regional extents, 

others work in a single community garden

or parcel. 

Often, public spaces such as community 

gardens and parks have many groups working 

in the same area. Sometimes turfs overlap 

or are stacked on top of one another. STEWMAP survey results allow us to calculate the 

number of turfs in an area. Figure 30A shows 

density patterns and make it easier to visualize 

how many groups work in a given area. Parts 

of NYC have more turfs of responding groups 

than other parts, and some of these groups’ 

turfs also extend out into the region, including 

the entire state of New York (Figure 30B). The 

inset map (Figure 30C) zooms in to highlight a 

few of these smaller turfs in lower Manhattan 

and northern Brooklyn.

Figure 26. Average perceived outcomes of NYC stewardship groups. Error bars show standard 

deviation (n=523).

27 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

key moments in which governance networks 

rearrange (e.g., Campbell 2017). Looking 

across a wide range of efforts related to 

sustainability and resilience—including urban 

forestry, transportation, and arts—we find 

that groups were most strongly influenced by 

MillionTreesNYC—the plan to plant and care 

for 1 million trees citywide from 2007–2015–

and PlaNYC, the city’s first sustainability plan 

from 2007 (Figure 27).

Finally, in addition to city plans, a broad 

range of environmental and social drivers 

also influence group practices. The most 

commonly identified influences are climate 

change, neighborhood redevelopment, and 

extreme weather. Through these questions, 

we see the way in which stewardship groups 

shape and are shaped by the dynamic urban 

environment (Figure 28). Error bars have 

been provided to demonstrate the standard 

deviation of responses, indicating whether 

responses were highly varied or uniform 

across responding groups.

Geography

New York City groups work on areas that span 

a variety of size classes, with most working 

at a neighborhood level or smaller, 10 acres 

or less (Figure 29). Some groups based in 

New York City work at larger regional extents, 

others work in a single community garden 

or parcel. 

Often, public spaces such as community 

gardens and parks have many groups working 

in the same area. Sometimes turfs overlap 

or are stacked on top of one another. STEWMAP survey results allow us to calculate the 

number of turfs in an area. Figure 30A shows 

density patterns and make it easier to visualize 

how many groups work in a given area. Parts 

of NYC have more turfs of responding groups 

than other parts, and some of these groups’ 

turfs also extend out into the region, including 

the entire state of New York (Figure 30B). The 

inset map (Figure 30C) zooms in to highlight a 

few of these smaller turfs in lower Manhattan 

and northern Brooklyn.

Figure 26. Average perceived outcomes of NYC stewardship groups. Error bars show standard 

deviation (n=523).

1

3

5

2

4

6

7

Community 

Participation

Trust 

Between 

Neighbors

Air/Water 

Quality

Plants & 

Habitat 

Quality

Influence 

on Policy & 

Programs

Land 

 Protection

Urban 

Sustainability

OUTCOMES

HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

NOT INFLUENTIAL
28 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 27. Average influential plans and programs for NYC stewardship groups. Error bars show standard

deviation (n=466).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 27. Average influential plans and programs for NYC stewardship groups. Error bars show standard 

Figure 28. Average influential events and processes for NYC stewardship groups. Error bars show standard 

deviation (n=478).

MillionTreesNYC 

(2007–2015)

PlaNYC 

(2007)

PlaNYC 

(2013)

0X30: Zero 

Waste 

(2015–Present)

DEP: Green 

Infrastructure Plan 

(2010)

OneNYC 

(2015)

VisionZero 

Action Plan 

(2014)

Vision 2020: 

Comprehensive 

Waterfront Plan 

(2011)

Other 

Plans

1

3

5

2

4

6

7

INFLUENTIAL PROGRAMS

HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

NOT INFLUENTIAL

Climate 

Change

Extreme 

Weather 

Events

Financial 

Crises

Neighborhood 

Development

Changes 

in Elected 

Officials

Social 

Movements

Other

1

3

5

2

4

6

7

INFLUENTIAL EVENTS

HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

NOT INFLUENTIAL

Figure 28. Average influential events and processes for NYC stewardship groups. Error bars show standard 

deviation (n=478).

28 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 27. Average influential plans and programs for NYC stewardship groups. Error bars show standard 

deviation (n=466).

Figure 28. Average influential events and processes for NYC stewardship groups. Error bars show standard 

deviation (n=478).

MillionTreesNYC 

(2007–2015)

PlaNYC 

(2007)

PlaNYC 

(2013)

0X30: Zero 

Waste 

(2015–Present)

DEP: Green 

Infrastructure Plan 

(2010)

OneNYC 

(2015)

VisionZero 

Action Plan 

(2014)

Vision 2020: 

Comprehensive 

Waterfront Plan 

(2011)

Other 

Plans

1

3

5

2

4

6

7

INFLUENTIAL PROGRAMS

HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

NOT INFLUENTIAL

Climate 

Change

Extreme 

Weather 

Events

Financial 

Crises

Neighborhood 

Development

Changes 

in Elected 

Officials

Social 

Movements

Other

1

3

5

2

4

6

7

INFLUENTIAL EVENTS

HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

NOT INFLUENTIAL
29 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Also notable is that some groups are 

working not just on land but into the waters 

surrounding New York City. The Hudson River 

and Jamaica Bay have more responding 

groups working in those areas compared to 

the waters between Long Island Sound and 

the East River, or waters between Staten 

Island and New Jersey.

Networks

The STEW-MAP survey includes questions 

on three types of networks: collaboration, 

knowledge, and resources. We present 

results for only the collaboration network, 

limited to NYC respondents and their 

named collaborators. The collaboration 

network includes 2,042 groups, including 

455 respondents and 1,774 named groups 

(some respondents are also named groups). 

Figure 31 identifies the collaboration network 

of NYC respondents and named groups. 

Most of the groups in the network are civic 

organizations (85.2 percent), with school 

groups comprising 7.3 percent, government 

comprising 5.5 percent, and businesses 

2.1 percent of the network.

Table 5 presents the 20 groups with 

the highest in-degree statistic in this 

collaborative network. In-degree is a measure 

of the number of times a group is named by 

another group. Evaluating in-degree can be 

one way of assessing broker organizations, 

or those organizations in a network that can 

serve as connectors of people, information, 

and resources. Of the most named groups, 

five are government agencies (NYC Parks, 

NYC Department of Sanitation, NYS 

Department of Environmental Conservation, 

NYC Department of Environmental Protection, 

and NYC Department of Education), one is 

a public-private partnership (Partnerships 

for Parks), and the other 14 are civic 

organizations. The most named group is the 

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, 

which is the largest land manager in the city. 

This is followed by Partnership for Parks, 

which is a public-private partnership between 

NYC Parks and City Parks Foundation that 

builds local community capacity to engage 

with parkland, including by helping to foster 

Figure 29. Distribution of turf sizes for NYC-based civic environmental stewardship groups (n=635).

29 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Also notable is that some groups are 

working not just on land but into the waters 

surrounding New York City. The Hudson River 

and Jamaica Bay have more responding 

groups working in those areas compared to 

the waters between Long Island Sound and 

the East River, or waters between Staten 

Island and New Jersey.

Networks

The STEW-MAP survey includes questions 

on three types of networks: collaboration, 

knowledge, and resources. We present 

results for only the collaboration network, 

limited to NYC respondents and their 

named collaborators. The collaboration 

network includes 2,042 groups, including 

455 respondents and 1,774 named groups 

(some respondents are also named groups). 

Figure 31 identifies the collaboration network 

of NYC respondents and named groups. 

Most of the groups in the network are civic 

organizations (85.2 percent), with school 

groups comprising 7.3 percent, government 

comprising 5.5 percent, and businesses 

2.1 percent of the network.

Table 5 presents the 20 groups with 

the highest in-degree statistic in this 

collaborative network. In-degree is a measure 

of the number of times a group is named by 

another group. Evaluating in-degree can be 

one way of assessing broker organizations, 

or those organizations in a network that can 

serve as connectors of people, information, 

and resources. Of the most named groups, 

five are government agencies (NYC Parks, 

NYC Department of Sanitation, NYS 

Department of Environmental Conservation, 

NYC Department of Environmental Protection, 

and NYC Department of Education), one is 

a public-private partnership (Partnerships 

for Parks), and the other 14 are civic 

organizations. The most named group is the 

NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, 

which is the largest land manager in the city. 

This is followed by Partnership for Parks, 

which is a public-private partnership between 

NYC Parks and City Parks Foundation that 

builds local community capacity to engage 

with parkland, including by helping to foster 

Figure 29. Distribution of turf sizes for NYC-based civic environmental stewardship groups (n=635).

0–1 162

16

1.01–10 132

10.01–50 50

50.01–100

100.01–1,000

1,000.01–10,000

10,000.01–100,000

100,000.01–1 million

1,000,000.01–10 million

22

103

68

42

40

0 50 100 150 200

ACRES

NUMBER OF GROUPS
30 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 30. Density of NYC-based civic stewardship groups (n = 635). Map inset B shows areas outside 

the NYC metropolitan region where NYC-based groups work. Map inset C shows areas in NYC with high 

density of stewardship groups. Map created by Michelle Johnson, USDA Forest Service.

C
31 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 31. Organizational collaboration network of NYC respondents and groups they named, color-coded by sector and 

size-coded by in-degree statistic (n = 2,042, including 455 respondents, 1,774 named groups). Network graph created 

by Michelle Johnson, USDA Forest Service.

LEGEND

Collaborative Ties

CIVIC

SCHOOL

GOVERNMENT

BUSINESS
32 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

hundreds of “Friends of Parks” groups 

citywide. While many of these broker groups 

have citywide mandates, it is important to 

note that several neighborhood-scale groups 

also appear, such as the Gowanus Canal 

Conservancy and Lower East Side Ecology 

Center. These brokers also span the range of 

site types in the dataset, focusing on parks, 

waterways and waterfronts, gardens, trees, 

waste, and the built environment. In addition 

to these central brokers with large networks, 

it is also important to understand the 

role of groups with smaller networks or 

subsets of the full network. Critical to this 

understanding is that the number of network 

ties is not the sole indication of capacity 

or impact; innovation can often occur on 

the periphery.

Table 5. In-degree statistics for the 20 most-mentioned groups in the NYC-only collaboration network.

ORGANIZATION IN-DEGREE STATISTIC

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation 182

Partnerships for Parks 50

Grow NYC 43

Brooklyn Botanic Garden 36

Citizens Committee 36

Department of Sanitation of New York City 27

New Yorkers for Parks 21

Trees New York 21

Waterfront Alliance 20

New York Restoration Project 19

Green Guerillas 19

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 19

New York City Department of Environmental Protection 18

Gowanus Canal Conservancy 16

New York Botanical Garden 16

Lower East Side Ecology Center 16

Bronx River Alliance 15

New York City Department of Education 14

City University of New York 14

Riverkeeper 13
33 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Regional Groups 

Organizational Characteristics

STEW-MAP 2017 included a pilot suvey 

to begin to examine the stewardship work 

occurring in the region outside of the five 

boroughs (see methods). The regional sample 

only includes 501(c)(3) organizations; these 

organizations were identified through 990 

forms. The sample size for the region is 

93 groups.4

Function

The survey asks groups to identify which of the 

six stewardship functions (conserve, manage, 

monitor, educate, advocate, transform) best 

capture their work. In contrast to the NYC 

data, the most common function among the 

regionwide groups is educate (Figures 32 and 

33). Participate, which accounts for all forms 

of working with stewardship groups, is also a 

common selection.

Site Type

Site type captures the kinds of places that 

are stewarded by respondents. Parks, 

forests and woodlands, and watersheds and 

sewersheds are the most common site types 

for the regional groups (Figure 34). Forest/

woodland stands out as the most commonly 

selected primary site type (Figure 35). This is 

not surprising, as there are more forested and 

wooded areas in the region outside of the five 

boroughs. Further, small informal groups are 

not included in the regional sampling frame 

because of the methods, and these groups 

might be more likely to care for so the site 

types such as vacant lots, residential building 

grounds, and playgrounds. 

Focus

The survey also asks groups to identify their 

overall organizational focus, by answering the 

question What does your group work on?

Environment, education, and community 

improvement and capacity building are the 

most common foci for groups throughout the 

region (Figure 36) with environment being 

the most common single focus (Figure 37). 

Community improvement and capacity building 

is a less common focus for the regional 

groups than for the city (compare Figure 10 

and Figure 36). This could also be because 

the groups surveyed in the region were formal 

environmental nonprofits, and did not include 

smaller groups like block associations.

Percent Stewardship

Forty percent of regional respondent groups 

indicate that between 80–100 percent of their 

overall work was dedicated to stewardship 

(Figure 38). 

Mission, Goals, and Metrics

Mission, goals, and metrics were coded using 

the system as described for the NYC groups 

(see page 17). The mission statements of 

the regional groups have many of the same 

themes as the NYC groups’ missions, and 

similarly center around community. However, 

the regional sample responses show a 

proportionally higher use of words such as 

“natural”, “land”, “watershed”, and “wildlife”, 

suggesting that outside of highly urban areas, 

natural areas are more of a focus (Figure 39). 

The coded goals of the regional groups 

reflect their regional focus. While neighborhood

is still the most common scale, 35 percent 

of the goals were coded as having a regional 

scale (Figure 40), as opposed to only 4 percent 

of the NYC groups’ goals (Figure 14). Like New 

York City, improve is the most common action 

for goals, and labor, activity and participation, 

are the most common codes for metrics 

(Figures 41 and 42).
34 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 32. Number and frequency (as %) of regional groups by function, select all option (n=92).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 33. Number and frequency (as %) of regional groups by function, select one option (n=79).

Figure 32. Number and frequency (as %) of regional groups by function, select all option (n=92).

Educate 80%

80%

Manage 54%

Participate

Conserve 59%

Advocate 67%

66%

Monitor 45%

Transform 25%

14%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

None of 

the Above

FUNCTION

TOTAL SELECTED

Educate

Advocate

18%

Conserve

27%

Participate

15%

Manage

24%

Monitor

9%

Transform

5%

3%

0 5 10 15 20 25

FUNCTION

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Figure 33. Number and frequency (as %) of regional groups by function, select one option (n=79).

34 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 32. Number and frequency (as %) of regional groups by function, select all option (n=92).

Educate 80%

80%

Manage 54%

Participate

Conserve 59%

Advocate 67%

66%

Monitor 45%

Transform 25%

14%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

None of 

the Above

FUNCTION

TOTAL SELECTED

Educate

Advocate

18%

Conserve

27%

Participate

15%

Manage

24%

Monitor

9%

Transform

5%

3%

0 5 10 15 20 25

FUNCTION

NUMBER OF GROUPS
35 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 34. Number of regional groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most 

common categories, select all option (n=85).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 35. Number of regional groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most 

common categories, select one option (n=64). St

Wate

49%

47%

41%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Park

Forest/Woodland

Watershed/Sewershed

Stream/River/Canal

ormwater Management

Freshwater Wetland

Community Garden

Food System

Vacant Lot

Schoolyard

Greenways

Public Building Grounds

Salt Marsh

Energy System

Urban Farm

Public Garden

Public Right of Way

Playground

Residential Building Grounds

Athletic Field

Green Buildings

Street Trees

Building Courtyard

Flower Box

Waste System

Atmosphere

Green Roof

Dog Run/Dog Park

rfront/Beach/Shoreline

NUMBER OF GROUPS

SITE TYPE

Forest/Woodland

Watershed/Sewershed

Community Garden

Park

Green Buildings

Waterfront/Beach/Shoreline

Storm Water Management System 

Stream/River/Canal

Bike Trails/Greenway/ Rail-Trail

Street Tree

Vacant Land/ Vacant Lot

Urban Farm

Botanical Garden/Arboretum

Residential Building Grounds

Other

0 5 10 15 20

14%

28%

11%

SITE TYPE

NUMBER OF GROUPS

35 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 34. Number of regional groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most 

common categories, select all option (n=85).

Figure 35. Number of regional groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most 

common categories, select one option (n=64). St

Wate

49%

47%

41%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Park

Forest/Woodland

Watershed/Sewershed

Stream/River/Canal

ormwater Management

Freshwater Wetland

Community Garden

Food System

Vacant Lot

Schoolyard

Greenways

Public Building Grounds

Salt Marsh

Energy System

Urban Farm

Public Garden

Public Right of Way

Playground

Residential Building Grounds

Athletic Field

Green Buildings

Street Trees

Building Courtyard

Flower Box

Waste System

Atmosphere

Green Roof

Dog Run/Dog Park

rfront/Beach/Shoreline

NUMBER OF GROUPS

SITE TYPE

Forest/Woodland

Watershed/Sewershed

Community Garden

Park

Green Buildings

Waterfront/Beach/Shoreline

Storm Water Management System 

Stream/River/Canal

Bike Trails/Greenway/ Rail-Trail

Street Tree

Vacant Land/ Vacant Lot

Urban Farm

Botanical Garden/Arboretum

Residential Building Grounds

Other

0 5 10 15 20

14%

28%

11%

SITE TYPE

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Figure 35. Number of regional groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most 

common categories, select one option (n=64).

35 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 34. Number of regional groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most 

common categories, select all option (n=85).

Figure 35. Number of regional groups by site type with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most 

common categories, select one option (n=64). St

Wate

49%

47%

41%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Park

Forest/Woodland

Watershed/Sewershed

Stream/River/Canal

ormwater Management

Freshwater Wetland

Community Garden

Food System

Vacant Lot

Schoolyard

Greenways

Public Building Grounds

Salt Marsh

Energy System

Urban Farm

Public Garden

Public Right of Way

Playground

Residential Building Grounds

Athletic Field

Green Buildings

Street Trees

Building Courtyard

Flower Box

Waste System

Atmosphere

Green Roof

Dog Run/Dog Park

rfront/Beach/Shoreline

NUMBER OF GROUPS

SITE TYPE

Forest/Woodland

Watershed/Sewershed

Community Garden

Park

Green Buildings

Waterfront/Beach/Shoreline

Storm Water Management System 

Stream/River/Canal

Bike Trails/Greenway/ Rail-Trail

Street Tree

Vacant Land/ Vacant Lot

Urban Farm

Botanical Garden/Arboretum

Residential Building Grounds

Other

0 5 10 15 20

14%

28%

11%

SITE TYPE

NUMBER OF GROUPS
36 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

The data collected from the STEW-MAP 

regional pilot survey show the breadth 

and depth of stewardship work happening 

outside of urban areas. For the purposes 

of the STEW-MAP 2017 survey, the region 

includes counties across New York, New 

Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. 

Responses came from all four states, with 

the majority from New York and New Jersey. 

All of the functions and site types are 

represented in the regional data, but 

there is more of an emphasis in their 

work on natural areas such as forests 

and wildlife. For example, the East 

Hampton Group for Wildlife, a nonprofit 

organization, uses advocacy to promote 

“human solutions to human-wildlife 

conflicts,” acknowledging the challenges 

that come with living outside of urban 

areas in closer contact to wildlife habitats. 

The Pocono Wildlife Rehabilitation Center 

in Stoudsburg, Pennsylvania, takes in 

abandoned and injured animals and, after 

caring for them, transitions them back to 

live in the wild. Land trusts also serve a 

slightly different purpose in areas with 

more open space. The Bethlehem Land 

Trust in Connecticut serves to preserve 

open meadows and forested land for 

public uses such as hiking. There are 

also many groups in the region focused 

on protecting natural resources that span 

political boundaries. Bergen Save the 

Watershed Network, Inc., works across 

multiple towns in the entire area of 

the Hackensack River Watershed. 

They work with local environmental 

commissions to try to get residents living 

in all parts of the watershed to adopt 

more sustainable landscaping practices, 

and advocate for access to open space 

along the waterway.

A CLOSER LOOK: REGIONAL GROUPS IN THE STEW-MAP PILOT SURVEY

Cleanup at Laurel Hill 

County Park in Secaucus.

Photo courtesy of Hackensack Riverkeeper.
37 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 36. Number of regional groups by organizational foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three 

most common categories, select all option (n=86).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 37. Number of regional groups by organizational 

foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most 

common categories, select one option (n=79).

Figure 38. Proportion of groups’ work focused on 

stewardship in region (n=80).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Youth

Toxics/Pollution

Energy Efficiency

Economic Development

Seniors

Power Generation

Transportation

Public Health

Crime

Employment

Housing

Emergency Management

Human Services

Faith

Other

Environment

Education

Community Improvement

Recreation/Sports

Animal Related

Arts/Culture

Food

Research in Science/Tech

80%

55%

35%

NUMBER OF GROUPS

FOCUS

Education 16%

7%

Community Improvement 6%

Environment 48%

Food 3%

Recreation and Sports

Animal Related

Youth

Emergency Management/ 

Disaster Response

Arts, culture, 

creative practices

Other

1%

1%

1%

3%

6%

0 5 10 15 20 25 3530 40

NUMBER OF GROUPS

FOCUS

40–59%

7

80–100%

20–39%

7

60–79%

40

1–19%

15

0%

10

1

0 105 15 20 25 30 35 40

NUMBER OF GROUPS

PERCENT STEWARDSHIP

Figure 37. Number of regional groups by organizational 

foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most 

common categories, select one option (n=79).

37 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 36. Number of regional groups by organizational foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three 

most common categories, select all option (n=86).

Figure 37. Number of regional groups by organizational 

foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most 

common categories, select one option (n=79).

Figure 38. Proportion of groups’ work focused on 

stewardship in region (n=80).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Youth

Toxics/Pollution

Energy Efficiency

Economic Development

Seniors

Power Generation

Transportation

Public Health

Crime

Employment

Housing

Emergency Management

Human Services

Faith

Other

Environment

Education

Community Improvement

Recreation/Sports

Animal Related

Arts/Culture

Food

Research in Science/Tech

80%

55%

35%

NUMBER OF GROUPS

FOCUS

Education 16%

7%

Community Improvement 6%

Environment 48%

Food 3%

Recreation and Sports

Animal Related

Youth

Emergency Management/ 

Disaster Response

Arts, culture, 

creative practices

Other

1%

1%

1%

3%

6%

0 5 10 15 20 25 3530 40

NUMBER OF GROUPS

FOCUS

40–59%

7

80–100%

20–39%

7

60–79%

40

1–19%

15

0%

10

1

0 105 15 20 25 30 35 40

NUMBER OF GROUPS

PERCENT STEWARDSHIP

Figure 38. Proportion of groups’ work focused on 

stewardship in region (n=80).

37 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 36. Number of regional groups by organizational foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three 

most common categories, select all option (n=86).

Figure 37. Number of regional groups by organizational 

foci with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most 

common categories, select one option (n=79).

Figure 38. Proportion of groups’ work focused on 

stewardship in region (n=80).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Youth

Toxics/Pollution

Energy Efficiency

Economic Development

Seniors

Power Generation

Transportation

Public Health

Crime

Employment

Housing

Emergency Management

Human Services

Faith

Other

Environment

Education

Community Improvement

Recreation/Sports

Animal Related

Arts/Culture

Food

Research in Science/Tech

80%

55%

35%

NUMBER OF GROUPS

FOCUS

Education 16%

7%

Community Improvement 6%

Environment 48%

Food 3%

Recreation and Sports

Animal Related

Youth

Emergency Management/ 

Disaster Response

Arts, culture, 

creative practices

Other

1%

1%

1%

3%

6%

0 5 10 15 20 25 3530 40

NUMBER OF GROUPS

FOCUS

40–59%

7

80–100%

20–39%

7

60–79%

40

1–19%

15

0%

10

1

0 105 15 20 25 30 35 40

NUMBER OF GROUPS

PERCENT STEWARDSHIP
38 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 39. Word cloud showing relative frequency reported as the mission of the regional groups (n=79).

Figure 40. Geographic scale and frequency (as %) of regional stewardship groups’ goals (n=74).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

City

15%

41%

County

35%

Neighborhood

14%

Region

Global 5%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

SCALE

NUMBER OF GOALS
39 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 41. Regional stewardship groups’ goals by action with frequencies (as %) identified for the three 

most common categories (n=74).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 42. Regional groups’ metrics by subject with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common categories (n=53).

41%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Improve

Conserve

Educate

Mobilize

Restore

Protect

Access

Secure

Advocate

Empower

Increase

Beautify

Enjoy

Maintain

Monitor

Transform

Collaborate

Connect

12% 11%

NUMBER OF GOALS

ACTION

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Labor

Activity

Participation

Water

Tree

Area

Infrastructure

Waste

Plant

Student

School

Outcome

Invasive

Visitor

Food

E-Activity

Energy

Soil

Connection

Satisfaction

Grant

17%

13% 13%

SUBJECT

NUMBER OF METRICS

Figure 42. Regional groups’ metrics by subject with frequencies (as %) identified for the three most common categories (n=53).

39 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 41. Regional stewardship groups’ goals by action with frequencies (as %) identified for the three 

most common categories (n=74).

41%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Improve

Conserve

Educate

Mobilize

Restore

Protect

Access

Secure

Advocate

Empower

Increase

Beautify

Enjoy

Maintain

Monitor

Transform

Collaborate

Connect

12% 11%

NUMBER OF GOALS

ACTION

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Labor

Activity

Participation

Water

Tree

Area

Infrastructure

Waste

Plant

Student

School

Outcome

Invasive

Visitor

Food

E-Activity

Energy

Soil

Connection

Satisfaction

Grant

17%

13% 13%

SUBJECT

NUMBER OF METRICS
40 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Staff and Year Founded 

In general, the regional respondents report 

fewer staff, both part time and full time, than 

the NYC respondents (Table 6). 

The fact that our pilot survey was only sent 

to registered nonprofit groups may explain why 

there is a smaller number of reporting groups 

in recent years (Fig. 43). Publicly available tax 

information accessed was for 2015, so any 

informal groups or groups founded after 2015 

would not have received the survey and would 

not be reflected in this data.

Legal Designation and Land Ownership 

The regional sample was created from publicly 

accessible nonprofit tax information, so 

we can assume that all of the groups that 

responded are nonprofit organizations. These 

groups are also most commonly working on 

land that is owned by nonprofit organizations 

(Figure 44), which stands in contrast to the 

NYC sample, where groups primarily worked 

on government-owned land (Figure 11). 

Communications and Services Offered 

Website is the most commonly selected 

method of communication (Figure 45). 

Regional groups also use a range of digital 

and in-person communication strategies, 

but local media in the region is a far more 

common method than in the city. Data/

information/research is the most commonly 

selected service offered in the region by far 

(Figure 46).

Table 6. Average staff, members, and volunteers for regional stewardship groups.

FULL-TIME STAFF PART-TIME STAFF MEMBERS VOLUNTEERS

Mean 4.05 4.79 635.37 167.54

Standard 

Deviation 6.38 13.48 1428.68 572.33

Minimum 0 0 0 0

Maximum 30 100 9000 3500

n 60 63 65 78
41 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 43. Number of regional stewardship groups by year founded (n=80)

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 44. Number and frequency (as %) of regional stewardship groups by primary land owner (n=81).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

City/Local Government

Public and Private Lands

Individual

County Government

Corportaion

State Government

Federal Government

Other Government

Don’t Know

Other

20%

19%

12%

11%

10%

9%

8%

2%

1% 1%

NUMBER OF GROUPS

7%

LAND OWNER

Figure 43. Number of regional stewardship groups by year founded (n=80)

NUMBER OF GROUPS

YEAR FOUNDED

Figure 44. Number and frequency (as %) of regional stewardship groups by primary land owner (n=81).

41 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

City/Local Government

Public and Private Lands

Individual

County Government

Corportaion

State Government

Federal Government

Other Government

Don’t Know

Other

20%

19%

12%

11%

10%

9%

8%

2%

1% 1%

NUMBER OF GROUPS

7%

LAND OWNER

Figure 43. Number of regional stewardship groups by year founded (n=80)

NUMBER OF GROUPS

YEAR FOUNDED
42 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 45. Number of regional stewardship groups by communication methods with frequencies (as %) 

identified for the three most common categories (n=83).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 46. Number and frequency (as %) of regional stewardship groups by services provided (n=80).

Conferences

Local Media

16%

7%

Blog

Email Blasting

6%

Community Marketing

Social Media

Direct Mailing

Website

48%

48%

80%

76%

72%

48%

48%

48%

TV

Word of Mouth

3%

Door-to-Door Outreach

Flyers

Radio

Listserv

N/A

Other

National Media

1%

1%

1%

3%

6%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

16%

6%

48%

3%

1%

METHOD

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Community Organizing 29%

24%

Technical Assistance 25%

Labor

Date/Information/

Research

36%

66%

Educational Curricula/ 

Trainings

25%

Plant Materials/Equipment

Buildings/Facilities

Public Relations/ 

Marketing

Other

Legal Resources

Grants

24%

14%

10%

8%

8%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

SERVICE

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Figure 46. Number and frequency (as %) of regional stewardship groups by services provided (n=80).

42 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 45. Number of regional stewardship groups by communication methods with frequencies (as %) 

identified for the three most common categories (n=83).

Conferences

Local Media

16%

7%

Blog

Email Blasting

6%

Community Marketing

Social Media

Direct Mailing

Website

48%

48%

80%

76%

72%

48%

48%

48%

TV

Word of Mouth

3%

Door-to-Door Outreach

Flyers

Radio

Listserv

N/A

Other

National Media

1%

1%

1%

3%

6%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

16%

6%

48%

3%

1%

METHOD

NUMBER OF GROUPS

Community Organizing 29%

24%

Technical Assistance 25%

Labor

Date/Information/

Research

36%

66%

Educational Curricula/ 

Trainings

25%

Plant Materials/Equipment

Buildings/Facilities

Public Relations/ 

Marketing

Other

Legal Resources

Grants

24%

14%

10%

8%

8%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

SERVICE

NUMBER OF GROUPS
43 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Budget 

Most regional respondents report a budget, in 

contrast to the NYC groups. This is likely due 

to the fact that the regional survey was only 

sent to 501(c)(3) organizations. The majority 

of regional groups’ budgets fall between 

$1,000 and $10,000 (Figure 47). Of the 

regional respondents, 28 groups prefer not 

to share their budget and four groups report 

no budget.

Professionalization 

The professionalization methodology 

described earlier in the report was also 

applied to the regional data. In the 

region, we see a relatively even split 

between groups with low, medium, and 

high professionalization, in contrast to 

the majority of low professionalization 

scores of NYC groups (Fig. 48). Looking at 

professionalization score by year founded, 

the 1980s show the biggest increase in 

both high and low professionalized groups 

(Figure 49).

Impacts and Influences

Regional stewardship groups most commonly 

identify with having an impact on land 

protection and plants and habitat quality, 

based on 7-point Likert scale responses 

(Figure 50). Like with NYC groups, extreme 

weather events and climate change rank 

high on the list of influential events and 

processes, and neighborhood development is 

understandably less influential in the broader 

region (Figure 51). 

Geography

Responding regional groups work on areas 

that span a variety of size classes (Figure 52). 

Some groups are working at large regional 

extents, while others are working on a single 

Figure 47. Regional stewardship groups’ budgets

(n=50). An additional four groups reported “no budget” 

and 28 groups declined to respond to this question.

43 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Budget 

Most regional respondents report a budget, in 

contrast to the NYC groups. This is likely due 

to the fact that the regional survey was only 

sent to 501(c)(3) organizations. The majority 

of regional groups’ budgets fall between 

$1,000 and $10,000 (Figure 47). Of the 

regional respondents, 28 groups prefer not 

to share their budget and four groups report 

no budget.

Professionalization 

The professionalization methodology 

described earlier in the report was also 

applied to the regional data. In the 

region, we see a relatively even split 

between groups with low, medium, and 

high professionalization, in contrast to 

the majority of low professionalization 

scores of NYC groups (Fig. 48). Looking at 

professionalization score by year founded, 

the 1980s show the biggest increase in 

both high and low professionalized groups 

(Figure 49).

Impacts and Influences

Regional stewardship groups most commonly 

identify with having an impact on land 

protection and plants and habitat quality, 

based on 7-point Likert scale responses 

(Figure 50). Like with NYC groups, extreme 

weather events and climate change rank 

high on the list of influential events and 

processes, and neighborhood development is 

understandably less influential in the broader 

region (Figure 51). 

Geography

Responding regional groups work on areas 

that span a variety of size classes (Figure 52). 

Some groups are working at large regional 

extents, while others are working on a single 

Figure 47. Regional stewardship groups’ budgets 

(n=50). An additional four groups reported “no budget” 

and 28 groups declined to respond to this question.

Figure 48. Professionalization scores for regional groups 

(n=40).

29%

24% 24%

Low

Medium

High

10K –50K

200K –500K

500K–2M

100K–200K

1K–10K

50K –100K

1–1K

1M–2M2M–5M

5M+

0

8

4

12

2

10

6

14

FREQUENCY

Figure 48. Professionalization scores for regional groups 

(n=40).

43 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Budget 

Most regional respondents report a budget, in 

contrast to the NYC groups. This is likely due 

to the fact that the regional survey was only 

sent to 501(c)(3) organizations. The majority 

of regional groups’ budgets fall between 

$1,000 and $10,000 (Figure 47). Of the 

regional respondents, 28 groups prefer not 

to share their budget and four groups report 

no budget.

Professionalization 

The professionalization methodology 

described earlier in the report was also 

applied to the regional data. In the 

region, we see a relatively even split 

between groups with low, medium, and 

high professionalization, in contrast to 

the majority of low professionalization 

scores of NYC groups (Fig. 48). Looking at 

professionalization score by year founded, 

the 1980s show the biggest increase in 

both high and low professionalized groups 

(Figure 49).

Impacts and Influences

Regional stewardship groups most commonly 

identify with having an impact on land 

protection and plants and habitat quality, 

based on 7-point Likert scale responses 

(Figure 50). Like with NYC groups, extreme 

weather events and climate change rank 

high on the list of influential events and 

processes, and neighborhood development is 

understandably less influential in the broader 

region (Figure 51). 

Geography

Responding regional groups work on areas 

that span a variety of size classes (Figure 52). 

Some groups are working at large regional 

extents, while others are working on a single 

Figure 47. Regional stewardship groups’ budgets 

(n=50). An additional four groups reported “no budget” 

and 28 groups declined to respond to this question.

Figure 48. Professionalization scores for regional groups 

(n=40).

29%

24% 24%

Low

Medium

High

10K –50K

200K –500K

500K–2M

100K–200K

1K–10K

50K –100K

1–1K

1M–2M2M–5M

5M+

0

8

4

12

2

10

6

14

FREQUENCY
44 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

parcel. In contrast to NYC respondents, the 

majority of responding organizations work on 

large turfs.

When turfs are stacked on top of one 

another, patterns in the distribution of where 

groups work can be visualized (Figure 53). 

Regional respondents note working well 

beyond the NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA, up into Maine 

and southwest into West Virginia, and the 

distribution within the CSA is not even, with 

more turfs in northern and coastal New 

Jersey, the Hudson Valley, and parts of Long 

Island than elsewhere in the region.

Networks

Because the regional dataset is a pilot 

survey and, therefore, incomplete, we have 

not presented a region-only collaboration 

network. Note, the same network questions 

were included to the regional groups. Instead, 

we have looked for overlaps of groups named 

both by NYC- and region-based groups, out of 

the 2,298 groups included in the combined 

NYC/region network (Table 7). Groups named 

multiple times at the regional level and also 

named by NYC-based civic groups include 

two state agencies: New York Department of 

Environmental Conservation and New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection. 

Some local government agencies were named 

by both NYC-based and regional groups, 

and national and regional civic groups like 

The Nature Conservancy, Regional Plan 

Association, and American Legion were also 

named. Some NYC-focused civic groups 

like Gowanus Canal Conservancy and 

Partnerships for Parks were also named by 

regional groups.

Figure 49. Number of regional stewardship groups by professionalization and year founded (n=40).

44 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

parcel. In contrast to NYC respondents, the 

majority of responding organizations work on 

large turfs.

When turfs are stacked on top of one 

another, patterns in the distribution of where 

groups work can be visualized (Figure 53). 

Regional respondents note working well 

beyond the NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA, up into Maine 

and southwest into West Virginia, and the 

distribution within the CSA is not even, with 

more turfs in northern and coastal New 

Jersey, the Hudson Valley, and parts of Long 

Island than elsewhere in the region.

Networks

Because the regional dataset is a pilot 

survey and, therefore, incomplete, we have 

not presented a region-only collaboration 

network. Note, the same network questions 

were included to the regional groups. Instead, 

we have looked for overlaps of groups named 

both by NYC- and region-based groups, out of 

the 2,298 groups included in the combined 

NYC/region network (Table 7). Groups named 

multiple times at the regional level and also 

named by NYC-based civic groups include 

two state agencies: New York Department of 

Environmental Conservation and New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection. 

Some local government agencies were named 

by both NYC-based and regional groups, 

and national and regional civic groups like 

The Nature Conservancy, Regional Plan 

Association, and American Legion were also 

named. Some NYC-focused civic groups 

like Gowanus Canal Conservancy and 

Partnerships for Parks were also named by 

regional groups.

1970–1979

2000–2009

1980–1989

1800s

2010–2017

1990–1999

1920–1929

1930–1939

1960–1969

0 2 4 6 8 10

Low

Professionalization 

Score

Medium

High

NUMBER OF GROUPS

DECADE
45 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 50. Average perceived outcomes of regional stewardship groups. Error bars show 

standard deviation. (n=83).

STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Extreme

Weather Events

Changes in 

Elected 

Officials

Social 

Movements

Climate 

Change

Neighborhood 

Development

Financial

Crises

Other

1

3

5

2

4

6

8

7

EVENTS

HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

NOT INFLUENTIAL

Figure 51. Average influential events and processes for regional stewardship groups. Error bars 

show standard deviation (n=80).

Figure 50. Average perceived outcomes of regional stewardship groups. Error bars show 

standard deviation. (n=83).

Figure 52. Distribution of turf sizes in the region (n=85).

8

Land 

Protection

Community 

Participation

Influence on 

Policy & Programs

Plants 

& Habitat 

Quality

Air/Water 

Quality

Trust Between 

Neighbors

Urban 

Sustainability

1

3

5

2

4

6

7

OUTCOMES

STRONGLY 

AGREE

STRONGLY 

DISAGREE

NUMBER OF GROUPS

0–1 2

16

1.01–10 6

10.01–50 6

50.01–100

100.01–1,000

1,000.01–10,000

10,000.01–100,000

100,000.01–1,000,000

1,000,000.01–10 Million

4

7

11

18

15

0 5 10 15 20

ACRES

Figure 51. Average influential events and processes for regional stewardship groups. Error bars 

show standard deviation (n=80).

45 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Extreme

Weather Events

Changes in 

Elected 

Officials

Social 

Movements

Climate 

Change

Neighborhood 

Development

Financial

Crises

Other

1

3

5

2

4

6

8

7

EVENTS

HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

NOT INFLUENTIAL

Figure 51. Average influential events and processes for regional stewardship groups. Error bars 

show standard deviation (n=80).

Figure 50. Average perceived outcomes of regional stewardship groups. Error bars show 

standard deviation. (n=83).

Figure 52. Distribution of turf sizes in the region (n=85).

8

Land 

Protection

Community 

Participation

Influence on 

Policy & Programs

Plants 

& Habitat 

Quality

Air/Water 

Quality

Trust Between 

Neighbors

Urban 

Sustainability

1

3

5

2

4

6

7

OUTCOMES

STRONGLY 

AGREE

STRONGLY 

DISAGREE

NUMBER OF GROUPS

0–1 2

16

1.01–10 6

10.01–50 6

50.01–100

100.01–1,000

1,000.01–10,000

10,000.01–100,000

100,000.01–1,000,000

1,000,000.01–10 Million

4

7

11

18

15

0 5 10 15 20

ACRES

Figure 52. Distribution of turf sizes in the region (n=85).

45 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Extreme

Weather Events

Changes in 

Elected 

Officials

Social 

Movements

Climate 

Change

Neighborhood 

Development

Financial

Crises

Other

1

3

5

2

4

6

8

7

EVENTS

HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL

NOT INFLUENTIAL

Figure 51. Average influential events and processes for regional stewardship groups. Error bars 

show standard deviation (n=80).

Figure 50. Average perceived outcomes of regional stewardship groups. Error bars show 

standard deviation. (n=83).

Figure 52. Distribution of turf sizes in the region (n=85).

8

Land 

Protection

Community 

Participation

Influence on 

Policy & Programs

Plants 

& Habitat 

Quality

Air/Water 

Quality

Trust Between 

Neighbors

Urban 

Sustainability

1

3

5

2

4

6

7

OUTCOMES

STRONGLY 

AGREE

STRONGLY 

DISAGREE

NUMBER OF GROUPS

0–1 2

16

1.01–10 6

10.01–50 6

50.01–100

100.01–1,000

1,000.01–10,000

10,000.01–100,000

100,000.01–1,000,000

1,000,000.01–10 Million

4

7

11

18

15

0 5 10 15 20

ACRES
46 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Figure 53. Density of regional civic stewardship groups responding to the NYC Region 2017 STEW-MAP 

survey (n = 85). Map created by Michelle Johnson, USDA Forest Service.
47 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Table 7. Overlaps in named groups between NYC and regional collaboration networks.

NAMED ORGANIZATION SECTOR

NUMBER OF TIMES 

NAMED BY

NYC 

RESPONDENTS

REGION 

RESPONDENTS

NJ Department Of Environmental Protection Government 1 9

NYC Department Of Environmental Conservation Government 11 8

NYC Parks Government 110 1

NYC Department Of Environmental Protection Government 18 1

Gowanus Canal Conservancy Civic 11 1

Riverkeeper Civic 11 1

Boy Scouts Of America Civic 10 1

National Parks Service Government 10 1

Partnerships For Parks Civic 10 1

Girl Scouts Of America Civic 9 1

Trust For Public Land Civic 9 1

American Legion Civic 1 1

Appalachian Mountain Club Civic 1 1

Clean Ocean Action Civic 1 1

Cornell University School 1 1

Cornell Cooperative Extension School 1 1

Environmental Protection Agency Government 1 1

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Civic 1 1

Key Club Civic 1 1

Land Trust Alliance Civic 1 1

Lower Hudson Prism Civic 1 1

National Wildlife Federation Civic 1 1

Nature Conservancy Civic 1 1

Newtown Creek Alliance Civic 1 1

NRDC Civic 1 1

NY League Of Conservation Voters Civic 1 1

NYC Department Of Health And Mental Hygiene Government 1 1

NY-NJ Baykeeper Civic 1 1

NY-NJ Trail Conference Civic 1 1

New York State Government 1 1

New York State Parks Government 1 1

Randalls Island Park Alliance Civic 1 1

Regional Plan Assoc Civic 1 1

Rutgers University School 1 1

Sarah Lawrence College Civic 1 1

Scenic Hudson Civic 1 1

Sierra Club Civic 1 1

Student Conservation Assoc Civic 1 1

State University Of New York School 1 1

Storm Water Infrustructure Matters Coalition Civic 1 1

Tri-State Transportation Campaign Civic 1 1

United Way Civic 1 1

Watershed Agricultural Council Civic 1 1
48 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Discussion

Stewardship groups exist and persist over 

time: STEW-MAP 2017 data reinforced 

many of the findings from the 2007 data.

Broadly speaking, we still observe the 

presence of groups who take care of the 

local environment in large numbers and go 

beyond the traditional institutions that are 

commonly credited with stewardship work. 

These groups are varied in their geographies 

and spatial distributions and pursue diverse 

actions and agendas. The sheer number of 

groups claiming stewardship as part or all of 

their mission demonstrates the persistence 

of environmental stewardship over time, and 

the newer groups founded since the last 

STEW-MAP survey show that the trend of 

environmental stewardship is growing. Beyond 

this abiding presence, we find a number of 

ways in which civic stewardship groups shape 

governance and urban ecology. 

Agents of change: Stewards care for and 

transform the urban ecosystem in many 

different ways.

Beyond simply maintaining the environmental 

status quo, stewardship groups serve 

as positive agents of change in their 

communities, caring for and transforming 

the urban ecosystem. This is shown in 

the diversity of functions identified by 

respondents. While manage is a common 

function, many of the groups also take part 

in education and advocacy. The addition 

of transform as a function on the 2017 

STEW-MAP survey revealed that groups 

see themselves as transforming the local 

environment both through pursuing more 

sustainable systems and by drastically 

altering the physical landscape in its 

many forms. 

Not just green: Environmental stewardship is 

embedded in efforts to improve community 

quality of life.

Environmental stewardship also exists 

beyond the strictly defined environmental 

realm. The environmental goals of many 

groups overlap with social goals, showing 

that these groups work to improve the entire 

social-environmental system. The centrality 

of “community” in the mission statements, 

both in NYC and the wider region, indicates 

that stewardship groups aim to improve 

overall quality of life. Stewardship groups also 

have a wide range of areas of interest—from 

strictly environmental to other civic foci such 

as public health and faith-based—but they 

all take part in stewardship work in some 

capacity. The embracing of environmental 

work by social service organizations points to 

a wider recognition of the importance of the 

landscape in communal well-being. 

The abiding power of the grassroots:

Stewardship persists at local levels and 

among all volunteer groups.

One finding that is evident in from our data 

is the importance of the grassroots in civic 

stewardship. The groups surveyed represent 

a range of professionalization; budgets from 

zero to millions; and leadership from volunteeronly to hundreds of staff across multiple 
49 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

offices. Since 2007, many new groups have 

been founded, mainly informal groups with low 

professionalization. This could be indicative 

of the growing trend of stewardship work, 

and could also suggest that many groups 

start out lower on the professionalization 

scale, growing in size and budget over time. 

The scale of stewardship groups’ goals also 

hints at the power of the grassroots. In New 

York City, where the full range of stewardship 

groups were surveyed, the large majority 

of the groups’ goals were focused on the 

neighborhood level, meaning that most seek to 

make small-scale tangible improvements in the 

areas where they live rather than attempting to 

transform the entire city or region. 

...Yet some stewards are professionalized:

With paid staff, substantial budgets, and 

501c3 status.

A subset of groups reflects a more 

professionalized organizational structure. 

Fifty-seven percent of groups have formalized 

nonprofit, 501(c)(3) status, and 42 percent 

have more than one full-time staff person. 

While budgets range widely, 11 percent of 

groups have budgets of over $1 million. 

From the 2007 STEW-MAP data, we found 

that many—but not all—of the key brokers 

in the stewardship network were these 

professionalized groups (Connolly et al. 

2012, 2014). It is important to note that 

professionalization is not the goal of all 

stewardship groups; some groups prefer to 

remain all volunteer or informal based on the 

mission and vision of their group.

Stewardship groups are knowledge 

producers: Groups collect data, track 

metrics, and monitor the local environment

We also found that stewardship groups do far 

more than organize tree-plantings and beach 

cleanings. Stewardship groups are knowledge 

producers, often collecting and disseminating 

their own data and research. Groups who 

selected monitor as their primary function 

make a point to not only collect and track 

data, but to share it with the public so that 

residents gain insight to the quality of their 

environmental resources. Many groups track 

their own metrics, from number of invasive 

plants removed to number of volunteer 

hours. Of all of the services provided, data/

information is the most frequently selected 

in both the city and the region. This was not 

the case in 2007, and suggests a rising 

value of research and citizen science in the 

stewardship world.

Stewardship comes in different shapes and 

sizes: Groups are working everywhere in the 

city, at different scales.

As in 2007, we find stewardship groups 

are working at multiple scales: from a 

single community garden or vacant lot, to a 

neighborhood, to a series of parcels across 

the city, across a borough, the New York 

Harbor, the entire city, and out into the greater 

region. From our intensity maps, we can see 

the spatial distribution of these groups’ turf 

is not evenly distributed across New York City, 

raising questions about why this distribution 

is uneven. Is government already there? Are 

funds available for certain neighborhoods? 

Is civic action higher in certain places? 

We know from previous research on 2007 

turfs that characteristics of stewardship 

groups themselves affect the number of 

groups working in a single place,5 yet more 

remains to be unpacked in this story. From 

an application standpoint, by looking at the 

distribution of groups across the city, places 

for resource allocation and new groups to 

focus on can be identified.
50 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Groups do not work alone: Stewardship 

happens in networks.

Stewardship groups are not working alone or 

in a classic command and control structure. 

From the network diagrams, we see the 2017 

stewardship landscape is highly connected 

and predominantly comprised of civic actors, 

with a few civic groups and government 

agencies serving as brokers among other 

groups. NYC Parks plays a central and highly 

connected role in this system. In the 2017 

data, we observe water-focused groups like 

Waterfront Alliance and Bronx River Alliance 

serving as brokers for the larger stewardship 

network, in addition to land-based broker 

groups. Linking together the network and 

spatial data, we observe some groups are 

serving as cross-scale brokers, linking groups 

working citywide and at the parcel level. We 

also see brokers in the network are clustered 

in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Not just urban: Stewardship groups span 

across the region.

The 2017 STEW-MAP regional pilot survey, 

while small in scale, gives us a sense of 

how the stewardship network expands past 

the city. Environmental stewardship exists 

beyond urban areas and changes based on 

environment. In the region, we see a greater 

percentage of groups with conserve as their 

primary function, and see substantially larger 

turfs. The pilot survey identifies some key 

brokers in the region, but fully understanding 

the network would require a deeper dive into 

each area. Overlaps in the NYC and regional 

networks were few, with NJ Department of 

Environmental Protection and NY Department 

of Environmental Conservation providing 

the strongest linkages between the city and 

region, based on these data.
51 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Conclusion

STEW-MAP is both a research 

project working to understand 

civic stewardship and a set of 

tools aimed to support a model 

of shared stewardship.

Civic groups are important to urban 

ecosystems in many ways—performing a 

broad range of functions and working at 

a range of site types. They help manage 

the biophysical environment, but also aim 

to benefit community well-being, which 

is central to many of their missions and 

goals and evident through their metrics 

and outcomes. Further, beyond maintaining 

natural resources, stewardship groups 

see themselves as agents of change, 

transforming lives and landscapes through 

action and care. They are caretakers of our 

social infrastructure, places where people 

have the opportunity to meet face-to-face and 

build social trust and understanding. Groups 

themselves also create community through 

their work. Stewardship groups do not work 

alone but rather are part of broad networks 

with other civic groups and as partners with 

government—including in hybrid governance 

arrangements where civic action plays a 

critical and shared role.

These findings are made public in order 

to support the work of the very stewardship 

groups who participated in the project. We 

are creating a public map and geodatabase 

that can be accessed via the STEW-MAP 

multi-city web portal: www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

STEW-MAP. Exploring a public map and 

database can allow groups to realize their 

own achievements and, at the same time, 

connect their efforts to a larger system of 

stewardship. STEW-MAP can benefit natural 

resource managers, funders, policymakers, 

educators, stewardship groups, and the 

general public, by providing data to back 

up the prominence and importance of civic 

groups as part of shared stewardship. 

Visualizing the geographies of these groups 

highlights existing stewardship gaps and 

overlaps in order to focus and strengthen 

capacities. It can also help promote broader 

civic engagement with on-the-ground 

environmental projects, and build effective 

partnerships among stakeholders involved 

in urban sustainability. By visualizing the 

sometimes less visible role of stewards, 

groups can identify new partners and 

strengthen linkages and existing networks. 

Our hope is that with greater knowledge of 

these groups and their impacts, we will be 

able to collectively help to create, shape, 

and sustain a healthy environment for all.

This report presents the overall results 

of STEW-MAP 2017 with some general 

analysis, but we plan to conduct further 

research in order to answer some of the 

questions raised. Future survey analyses 

will take into consideration the variation in 

number of responses to various questions 

through a more detailed missing data 

analysis. Additional data will be collected 
52 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

through interviews with groups representing 

a variety of turf sizes and levels of network 

connectivity. 

STEW-MAP 2017 New York City Region 

is part of a growing network of STEW-MAP 

projects around the globe. In many of these 

places, the question is the same as policymakers and planners want to know more 

about the everyday change-makers in their 

communities. STEW-MAP is a first step 

toward identifying many of these groups by 

shining a light on the varied place-based 

approaches to improve human well-being and 

the environment.
53 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

1. Combined statistical area (CSA) is a U.S. Office 

Footnotes

of Management and Budget term for a combination 

of adjacent metropolitan and micropolitan statistical 

areas in the United States and Puerto Rico that can 

demonstrate economic or social linkage.

2. The online survey closed at the end of December 

(12/24/17), but mailed surveys that were assumed 

to be completed by that date but delivered in 

January 2018 were also included. 

3. Eighteen groups that selected “none of the 

above” were recategorized as stewardship 

groups based on their other survey answers. If 

they continued taking the survey and included 

stewardship in their mission and/or indicated that 

more than 0 percent of their work was focused on 

stewardship, it was assumed that they made an 

error when selecting “none of the above.” 

4. Eighteen groups from the NYC responses are 

actually located outside of NYC in the region pool. 

They were categorized as NYC groups because they 

were added to the sampling frame by New York City 

data providers and not through the 990s like the 

other regional groups.

5. Johnson, Michelle, et al. unpublished 

manuscript titled, “Context matters: influence of 

organizational, environmental, and social factors on 

civic environmental stewardship group intensity”, 

submitted to journal Ecology and Society.
54 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

References

Campbell, L.K. 2017. City of forests, city of 

farms: Sustainability planning for New York 

City’s nature. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 

Press. 290 p.

Campbell, L.K.; Landau, L.F.; Johnson, M.L.; 

Svendsen, E.S. In press. Civic stewardship 

of urban ecosystems: Forms of community 

engagement with landscape and places. 

Environmental Issues Reader.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

landurbplan.2012.07.001 .

Connolly, J.J.T.; 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

ecoser.2014.08.005 .

Fisher, D.R.; Campbell, L.K.; Svendsen, E.S. 

2012. The organisational structure of urban 

environmental stewardship. Environmental 

Politics. 21(1): 26-48. https://doi.org/10.108

0/09644016.2011.643367 .

Lofland, J.; Snow, D.A.; Anderson, L.; Lofland, 

L.H. 2005. Analyzing social settings: a guide 

to qualitative observation and analysis. 4th ed. 

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thompson. 304 p. 

ISBN: 978-0534528614. 

Neuman, W.L.; Kreuger, L.W. 2003. Social work 

research methods, qualitative and

quantitative approaches applications. Boston, 

MA: Allyn and Bacon. 640 p. ISBN-13: 978-

0205299140.

Ryan, G.W.; Bernard, H.R. 2003. Techniques 

to identify themes in qualitative data. 

Field methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications.

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 (CATE). 1(1): 1-32.

Svendsen, E.S.; Campbell, L.K.; Fisher, D.R.; 

Connolly, J.J.T.; Johnson, M.L. [et al.]. 2016. 

Stewardship mapping and assessment project: 

a framework for understanding communitybased environmental stewardship. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. NRS-156. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 134 p. 

https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-156.

USDA Forest Service. 2018. STEW-MAP: The 

stewardship mapping and assessment project. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/STEW-MAP/ 

(accessed May 28, 2019).
55 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Appendix A:

Data Providers and Lists Shared

DATA PROVIDER LISTS SHARED

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks) Parks Greening Partners; Parks Super Stewards; Conservancies; General Events Groups

City of New York Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency (NYC ORR) Building Healthy Communities Groups; Partner Organizations

596 Acres Community Garden Groups and Community Organizers

Bronx River Alliance Local Partners

Brooklyn Arts Council Grantees and Community Partners

Brooklyn Borough President Friends of Parks Partners

Brooklyn Botanic Garden Community Gardens; Greenest Block in Brooklyn; Local Partners

Central Park Conservancy Local Partners; School Groups

Citizen’s Committee Grant Recipient Project Contacts

The Compost Project Compost Project Host Organizations

CultureAID Local Partners

Department of Environmental Conservation Working Groups

The Design Trust for Public Space Five Borough Farm Groups

El Puente Local Partners

Farm School NYC Local Partners

Federal Emergency Management Agency Region II Sandy Contact List

The Forest Park Trust, Inc. Local Partners

Friends of the Highline Local Partners; Green Roofs

GreenThumb Community Gardeners

GrowNYC Greenmarkets

Historic Districts Council “Six to Celebrate” Neighborhood Organizations

The Horticultural Society of New York School Groups; Plaza Groups

ioby Community Crowdfunding Project Leaders

Just Food CSAs and Community Gardens

Lower East Side Ecology Center Stewardship Partners

Lower Manhattan Cultural Council Artists; Community Partners

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Organizations working on Newtown Creek; Grantees

National Parks Service Community Boards; Civic Associations; Local Partners

Natural Areas Conservancy Nature Goals 2050 Partners

The Nature Conservancy Greenprinting Parners; Stakeholders

New York Botanical Garden Local Partners; Bronx Green Up Partners

New York City Community Garden Coalition Community Gardeners

New York City Department of Social Services Soup kitchens and food pantries

New York City Environmental Justice Alliance Organization Partners

New York City Housing Authority Tenant Associations; Civic Associations; NYCHA Farms

New York-New Jersey Harbor & Estuary Program Community Advisory Council Members; Organization Partners

New Yorkers for Parks Daffodil Project Recipient Groups

Partnership for Parks Parks Friends Groups and Organization Partners

Pratt Institute SAVI Lab Local Partners

Prospect Park Alliance Local Partners

Queens Botanical Garden Local Partners

Regional Plan Association Local Partners

Science and Resilience Institute at Jamaica Bay Stakeholders

Soil and Water Conservation District Local Partners

Staten Island Arts Future Culture Partner Organizations

Staten Island Borough President Civic Associations

Staten Island Greenbelt Conservancy Local Partners

Storm Water Infrastructure Matters Coalition Coalition Member Organizations

University of Pennsylvania — Social Impact of the Arts Project Project Participants

Waterfront Alliance Local Partners

Wave Hill Community Partners

Public lists

Small Business Services BIDS

Dorris Duke Foundation Environmental Grant Recipients

New York Immigrant Immigration Council NY State Immigration Groups

Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development Environmental Grant Recipients

NYC Mayor’s Office Community Affairs Unit Community Centers

United Neighborhood Houses Community Centers

Rockafeller Brothers Fund Local Grantees

Healthy Food Retail NYC Local Partners

Imapacct BK Local Partners

Pratt Center Local Partners

Wallerstein Local Partners

DSNY Recycling Champions and Zero Waste Schools

LISC Community Development Corporations
56 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau

2012 Combined Statistical Area (CSA) and Metropolitan/Micropolitan

Statistical Area (CBSA) boundaries and names are as of February 2013. 

2007 Combined Statistical Areas (CSA) and Metropolitan/Micropolitan

Statistical Areas (CBSA) are as of December 2006. All other boundaries

and names are as of January 2012.

LEGEND

New York-Newark 2012 Combined Statistical Area

TRENTON

Torrington

NY

KINGS

2012 Metropolitan Statistical Area

2012 Micropolitan Statistical Area

State or Statistical Equivalent

County or Statistical Equivalent

2007 Combined Statistical Area New York-Newark- Bridgeport

2007 Metropolitan Statistical Area

2007 Micropolitan Statistical Area

KINGSTON

East Stroudsburg

Danbury 2012 Principal City

TRENTONEWING

POUGHKEEPSIENEWBURGHMIDDLETOWN

KINGSTON

ALLENTOWNBETHLEHEM- EASTON

NEW YORK-NORTHERN

NEW JERSEY-LONG ISLAND

NEW HAVEN- BRIDGEPORT- MILFORD STAMFORDNORWALK

East Stroudsburg

Torrington

New YorkNewarkBridgeport

1 Newark

2 Jersey City

3 HUDSON

4 NEW YORK

5 New York

6 BRONX

7 Stratford

KEY

New YorkNewark

Torrington

ALLENTOWNBETHLEHEM- EASTON

EAST STROUDSBURG

KINGSTON

NEW HAVENMILFORD

NEW YORK-NEWARKJERSEY CITY

TRENTON

BRIDGEPORTSTAMFORDNORWALK

Dutchess

CountyPutnam

County

New YorkJersey CityWhite Plains

Newark

Nassau CountySuffolk County

ESSEX

SOMERSET

LUZERNE

WINDHAM

WARREN

HAMPSHIRE

TOLLAND

NORTHAMPTON

OCEAN

CAMDEN

CUMBERLAND

PHILADELPHIA

HAMPDEN

3

MONROE

GLOUCESTER

MORRIS

LEHIGH

SALEM

CAPE

MAY

WORCESTER

CARBON

BERKSHIRE

CORTLAND

KENT

BURLINGTON

SCHUYLKILL

HARTFORD

KENT

ATLANTIC

HUNTERDON

LACKAWANNA

MERCER

BUCKS

DELAWARE

NEW

CASTLE

LITCHFIELD

WYOMING LANCASTER

BERKS

SUSQUEHANNA

CHESTER

CECIL

MONTGOMERY

QUEENS

KINGS

ALBANY

MONMOUTH

4

CHENANGO

OTSEGO SCHOHARIE

GREENE

BROOME COLUMBIA

PASSAIC

SUSSEX

PUTNAM

DUTCHESS

ROCKLAND

ORANGE MIDDLESEX

DELAWARE

SULLIVAN

WAYNE

PIKE

NEW

LONDON

ULSTER

FAIRFIELD

NASSAU

NEW HAVEN

SUFFOLK

MIDDLESEX

UNION

BERGEN

WASHINGTON

WESTCHESTER

6

RICHMOND

KENT PROVIDENCE

M

DE

D

NY

PA

NJ

DE

NY

NJ

NJ

PA

CT

NY

MA

MA

CT

CT

RI

NY

New Haven

2

New Brunswick

White

Plains

Bethlehem

Danbury

Kingston

Torrington

Trenton

Norwalk

Lakewood

7 Milford city

(balance)

1

5

Allentown

Bridgeport

Stamford East Stroudsburg

Atlantic

Ocean

New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area

Newark 2012 Metropolitan Divisions

2012 Economic Census

0 10 20 30 40 Kilometers

0 10 20 30 40 Miles

Counties included in the study area: Bergen; Bronx; Carbon; Dutchess; Essex; Fairfield; Hudson; Hunterdon; 

Kings; Lehigh; Litchfield; Mercer; Middlesex; Monmouth; Monroe; Morris; Nassau; New Haven; New York; 

Northampton; Ocean; Orange; Passaic; Pike; Putnam; Queens; Richmond; Rockland; Somerset; Suffolk; Sussex; Ulster; Union; Warren; Westchester.

Appendix B:

Map and List of Counties in the Study Area
57 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Appendix C:

990 Activity Codes and NTEE Codes Used

National taxonomy of exempt entities (NTEE) codes and activity codes used to identify 

groups to target for the STEW-MAP survey.

NTEE 

CODES NTEE CATEGORY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CATEGORY

CO1 Alliance/Advocacy Organizations 350 Preservation of natural resources (conservation

CO2 Management & Technical Assistance 351 Combating or preventing pollution (air, water, etc)

CO3 Professional Societies, Associations 352 Land acquisition for preservation

CO5 Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis 353 Soil or water conservation

C11 Single Organization Support 354 Preservation of scenic beauty

C12 Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution 402 Combat community deterioration

C19 Nonmonetary Support N.E.C. 355 Wildlife sanctuary or refuge

C20 Pollution Abatement and Control Services 356 Garden club

C27 Recycling Programs 379 Other conservation, environmental or beautification activities

C30 Natural Resources Conservation and Protection 230 Farming

C32 Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management 231 Farm Bureau

C34 Land Resources Conservation 232 Agricultural Group

C35 Energy Resources Conservation and Development 233 Horticultural Group

C36 Forest Conservation 234 Farmers Cooperative Marketing or Purchasing

C35 Energy Resources Conservation and Development 404 Community Promotion

C36 Forest Conservation 296 Community Center

C40 Botanical, Horticultural, and Landscape Services 297 Community Recreational Facilities

C41 Botanical Gardens, Arboreta and Botanical Organizations 325 Camp

C42 Garden Club, Horticultural Program 324 YMCA, YWCA, etc.

C50 Environmental Beautification and Aesthetics 400 Area development, redevelopment of renewal

C60 Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs 524 Zoning or Rezoning

C99 Environmental Quality, Protection, and Beautification N.E.C. 900 Cemetery or burial activities

D30 Wildlife Preservation, Protection 903 Community Trust or component

D31 Protection of Endangered Species 923 Indians (tribes, cultures, etc.)

D32 Bird Sanctuary, Preserve 529 Ecology or conservation

D33 Fisheries Resources 322 FFA, FHA, 4-H club

D34 Wildlife Sanctuary, Refuge 286 Hunting or fishing club

D50 Zoo, Zoological Society 284 Dog club

K20 Agricultural Programs 280 Country club

K25 Farmland preservation 320 Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc.

K28 Farm Bureau, Grange 401 Homeowners association

M20 Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services 533 Urban renewal

P28 Neighborhood Centers, Settlement Houses 320 Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc.

K30 Food Service, Free Food Distribution Programs 322 FFA, FHA, 4-H club, etc.

K31 Food Banks, Food Pantries 324 YMCA, YWCA, YMCA, etc.

K01 Alliance/Advocacy Organizations 325 Camp

K02 Management & Technical Assistance

K03 Professional Societies, Associations

K05 Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis

K26 Livestock Breeding, Development, Management

K36 Meals on Wheels

K11 Single Organization Support

K12 Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

K19 Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

N32 Parks and Playgrounds

N31 Community Recreational Centers

N20 Recreational and Sporting Camps

N61 Fishing, Hunting Clubs

O41 Boy Scouts of America

O42 Girl Scouts of the U.S.A.

O40 Scouting Organizations

O43 Camp Fire

O52 Youth Development — Agricultural

P21 American Red Cross

P27 Young Men’s or Women’s Associations (YMCA, YWCA, YWHA, YMHA)

S31 Urban, Community Economic Development

S32 Rural Development

Y50 Cemeteries, Burial Services
58 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Appendix D:

STEW-MAP Survey Instrument

Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project

STEW-MAP 

Survey: 

New York 

City Region

2017
59 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

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 Email

Are you a member of a group or organization? 

(We define a group as having two or more members. This survey is 

intended for groups and organizations, not for individuals working 

alone, as sole proprietors, or as independent contractors.)

Yes 

No

If you are a member of a group with multiple programs, please 

answer for your entire organization. If you are a respondent from 

a national organization, please answer for your local chapter. 

If you answered no, you do not need to complete the rest of the 

survey. Please mail back the survey. Thank you for your time!

Section 2: Basic Information

If you are not able to answer all of the questions, please reach 

out to someone else in your group or organization and ask them 

to fill out the survey.

Group Name

Website 

(if available)

Twitter handle 

(if available)

Mailing Address

City / State / Zip

Group Email

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 information and stewardship territory, which will be addressed 

later in the survey.

Yes 

No

Does your group do any of the following in the New York City region? 

Please select all that apply.

 Conserve or preserve the local environment 

(e.g. hold conservation easements, protect water)

 Manage or take care of a place in the local environment 

(e.g. beautify, improve, or restore a garden, trees, yard)

 Transform local environmental systems (e.g. changing 

the waste stream; transitioning toward sustainable energy)

 Monitor the quality of the local environment (e.g. air or 

water quality, dumping, species monitoring, citizen science)

 Advocate and/or plan for the local environment 

(e.g. planning, organizing, direct action, fundraising)

 Educate the public about the local environment 

(e.g. curriculum, research, science, training, outreach)

 Participate in, partner with groups, or support other 

environmental work

 None of the above

3
2 60 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Welcome to the New York City region STEW-MAP survey!

STEW-MAP stands for the Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project

Burden Statement

Paperwork Reduction and Burden Estimate: 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 30 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of 

information.

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).

Privacy Act Statement

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.
61 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Of these functions, what is your primary stewardship activity? 

(select one)

 Conserve Advocate

 Manage Educate

 Transform Participate

 Monitor None of the above

If you selected none of the above, you do not need to complete the 

rest of the survey. Please mail back the survey. Thank you for your 

time!

What is your group’s legal designation? 

Please choose the most appropriate response.

 Public-private partnership

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMUNITY GROUPS

 501(c)(3) (or has applied)

 501(c)(4) (or has applied)

 Group without 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status 

(for example, a community garden group or block club)

 Community board

 School-affiliated group

 Religious congregation 

(church, synagogue, mosque, etc), but not a 501(c)(3)

GOVERNMENT ENTITIES

 City/ Local government 

 County government 

 State government

 Federal government 

 Other government (e.g. NY-NJ Port Authority)

PRIVATE FIRM

 Private firm, for-profit business

OTHER

 Other — please specify 

 

If you chose government entities or private firm you do not need to 

complete the rest of the survey. Please mail back the survey. Thank 

you for your time!

Section 3: Where Your Group Works

Please describe in detail the boundaries of where your group 

has done stewardship work within the past year. 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.; 

—All of the community gardens in ZIP code 11205

—The Arthur Kill between Staten Island and New Jersey; 

—Hudson River waterfront within the City of Yonkers 

—The Croton Watershed; 

—Bergen County; 

—Town of North Hempstead parks

* If you have multiple programs in different sites or at different scales, 

please list each with corresponding programs (e.g. our education programs 

are citywide; we operate a compost facility at 1234 5th Avenue.)

Does your group have a Geographic Information System (GIS) 

file showing the boundaries of where you have done stewardship work 

within the past year?

 Yes (If you check here, the research team will contact you to 

get the file)

 No

In the last year, what sites has your group’s stewardship work focused 

on? Please choose all that apply.

WATER & WATER-RELATED

 Watershed / Sewershed

 Stream / River / Canal

 Waterfront / Beach / Shoreline

 Freshwater wetland

 Salt marsh

4
62 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

LAND & BUILT ENVIRONMENT

 Forest / Woodland

 Park

 Community garden

 Urban farm

 Vacant land / Vacant lot

 Brownfield 

 Athletic field 

 Playground

 Dog run / Dog park

 Botanical garden / Arboretum

 Bike trails / Greenway / Rail-trail

 Public Right of Way 

(Sidewalk, street ends, traffic island, public plaza)

 Street tree

 Flower box 

 Residential building grounds 

(apartment courtyard, back yard, etc.)

 School yard / Outdoor classroom

 Grounds of public building other than school 

(e.g. city hall, library, hospital, rec center)

 Building courtyard / Atrium 

(e.g. privately owned public spaces)

 Rooftop

 Green buildings

SYSTEMS RELATED

 Waste system (e.g. e-waste drop off location)

 Energy system (e.g. solar array, windmill)

 Food system (e.g. grocery stores, CSA, compost site)

 Storm water management system 

(e.g. rain barrels, permeable paver, bioswales)

 Atmosphere (e.g. air quality, urban heat island)

 None of the above

 Other — please specify 

 

If you had to choose just one site type, what would you 

say is your group’s primary site type? Please select one.

WATER & WATER-RELATED

 Watershed / Sewershed

 Stream / River / Canal 

 Waterfront / Beach / Shoreline

 Freshwater wetland

 Salt marsh

LAND & BUILT ENVIRONMENT

 Forest / Woodland

 Park

 Community garden

 Urban farm

 Vacant land / Vacant lot

 Brownfield 

 Athletic field 

 Playground

 Dog run / Dog park

 Botanical garden / Arboretum

 Bike trails / Greenway / Rail-trail

 Public Right of Way 

(Sidewalk, street ends, traffic island, public plaza)

 Street tree

 Flower box 

 Residential building grounds 

(apartment courtyard, back yard, etc.)

 School yard / Outdoor classroom

 Grounds of public building other than school 

(e.g. city hall, library, hospital, rec center)

 Building courtyard / Atrium 

(e.g. privately owned public spaces)

 Rooftop

 Green buildings

SYSTEMS RELATED

 Waste system (e.g. e-waste drop off location)

 Energy system (e.g. solar array, windmill)

 Food system (e.g. grocery stores, CSA, compost site)

 Storm water management system 

(e.g. rain barrels, permeable paver, bioswales)

 Atmosphere (e.g. air quality, urban heat island)

 None of the above

 Other — please specify 

 

Who owns the majority of the properties where your group 

worked within the past year? Please choose one.

 City / Local government

 County government

 State government

 Federal government

 Other government (e.g. NY-NJ Port Authority)

 Individual

 Corporation 

(including joint ventures, real estate investment groups)

 Nonprofit

 We work across public and private lands

 Don’t know

 Other — please specify 

 

5
63 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Section 4: Group Characteristics

What does your group work on? Please choose all that apply.

 Animal related

 Arts, culture, creative practices

 Community improvement and capacity building

 Crime, criminal justice

 Economic development

 Education

 Emergency management and disaster response

 Employment, job related

 Energy efficiency

 Environment 

 Faith-based activities

 Food

 Housing and shelter

 Human services (including day care, family services)

 International, foreign affairs, and national security

 Legal services, civil rights

 Power / Electricity generation

 Private grantmaking foundation

 Public health 

(including mental health, crisis intervention, health care)

 Recreation and sports (including birding and fishing)

 Research in science and/or technology

 Seniors

 Toxics/pollution related

 Transportation

 Youth

 Other — please specify 

 

If you had to choose just one activity, what would you say 

is your group’s primary focus? Please select one.

 Animal related

 Arts, culture, creative practices

 Community improvement and capacity building

 Crime, criminal justice

 Economic development

 Education

 Emergency management and disaster response

 Employment, job related

 Energy efficiency

 Environment 

 Faith-based activities

 Food

 Housing and shelter

 Human services (including day care, family services)

 International, foreign affairs, and national security

 Legal services, civil rights

 Power / Electricity generation

 Private grantmaking foundation

 Public health 

(including mental health, crisis intervention, health care)

 Recreation and sports (including birding and fishing)

 Research in science and/or technology

 Seniors

 Toxics/pollution related

 Transportation

 Youth

 Other — please specify 

 

Please describe the mission of your group. If you have a 

formal mission statement, please use that, otherwise use your 

own words to describe your group’s goals: (200 words or less)

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%

 1–19%

 20–39%

 40–59%

 60–79%

 80–100%

What year was your group founded?

How many staff, members, and volunteers does your group have?

Note: for national groups, please provide local information. 

Full-time Staff

 

Part-time Staff

Members

 

Volunteers*

*Those who routinely volunteer in your group’s activities. This is different from 

volunteers who may come out for a single work day.

Please estimate the total number of volunteer hours contributed 

per year.

Hours

6
64 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Section 5: Networking

Please tell us about your group’s relationship to other groups. 

These groups may be government agencies, offices of elected 

officials, community-based groups, nonprofits, private companies, 

faith-based organizations, etc. 

You can list each partner in any or all of these three questions, 

where relevant.

Please list groups with which you regularly collaborate on 

environmental projects or programs. 

 

Please list groups that you go to for knowledge, data or expertise

related to environmental issues.

 

 

 

Please list groups from which you have received resources—

funding or materials. 

 

 

Section 6: Impacts

What changes does your group want to achieve from 

its stewardship activities?

Does your group track metrics about your activities? 

(e.g., number of trees planted, number of schools visited, number of 

acres conserved, number of volunteers/event, program satisfaction)

 Yes

 No

 I don’t know

If yes, please list metrics that your group tracks:

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements, 

as they relate to your organization.

Our group has improved the following social outcomes 

in the community(ies) in which we work:

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

 I don’t know/not applicable

TRUST BETWEEN NEIGHBORS

Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

 I don’t know/not applicable

INFLUENCE ON POLICY AND PROGRAMS

Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

 I don’t know/not applicable

7
65 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Our group has improved the following environmental

outcomes in the community(ies) in which we work:

PLANTS AND HABITAT QUALITY

Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

 I don’t know/not applicable

AIR AND/OR WATER QUALITY

Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

 I don’t know/not applicable

LAND PROTECTION

Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

 I don’t know/not applicable

URBAN SUSTAINABILITY 

(e.g., food systems, waste systems, energy systems)

Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

 I don’t know/not applicable

Section 7: Other Influences

Please tell us how influential the following plans and programs 

have been on your group’s work. 

PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York (created 2007)

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MillionTreesNYC Campaign (2007–2015)

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DEP: Green Infrastructure Plan (2010)

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Vision2020: Comprehensive Waterfront Plan (2011)

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PlaNYC: A Stronger, More Resilient New York (2013)

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Vision Zero Action Plan (2014)

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

OneNYC: The Plan for a Strong and Just City (2015)

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0X30: Zero Waste (2015–present)

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CreateNYC: A Cultural Plan for All New Yorkers (2016-present)

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Other plan, program, or report 

(not limited to City of New York), please name it: 

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Not applicable

Please tell us how influential the following events and processes 

have been on your group’s work. 

Extreme weather events 

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Climate change

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Financial crises 

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Social movements 

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Changes in elected officials

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Neighborhood development or rezonings

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Other, please name it: 

Not Influential Neutral Highly Influential

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 Not applicable

8
66 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Section 8: Tell Us a Bit More 

About Your Group

What types of services does your group provide? 

Please select all that apply.

 Educational curricula / Trainings

 Legal resources

 Buildings / Facilities

 Plant materials / Equipment

 Technical assistance

 Labor (volunteers / students / interns)

 Grants

 Community organizing 

 Public relations / Marketing

 Data / Information / Scientific research

 Other — please specify 

 

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 

 E-mail blasting

 Door-to-door outreach

 Word of mouth

 Flyers 

 Website

 Social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter)

 Listserv

 Blog

 Conferences

 Community meetings

 Radio

 TV

 Other — please specify 

 

What is your group estimated annual budget 

for the current year? 

 Prefer not to answer

Approximately what proportion of your budget comes from the 

following funding sources?

Make sure your percentages total to 100%.

 

Percent (out of 100) 

Government 

Foundations 

Corporations 

Individual giving 

Memberships 

Fee for service 

Other: 

 We have no budget

 Prefer not to answer

9
67 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Section 9: Final Section

 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.

Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your group or this survey?

This concludes the STEW-MAP survey.

Thank you for your participation.

To learn more about STEW-MAP, visit: 

www.nrs.fs.fed.us/stewmap

Once the NYC 2017 STEW-MAP is complete, 

we will email you with the results.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at 

stewmap.ufs@gmail.com. 

10
68 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report

Special thanks to our data providers

New York City Urban Field Station
69 STEW-MAP NYC Region 2017 Report
HOW TO CITE THIS DOCUMENT

Landau, Laura; Campbell, Lindsay K.; Johnson, Michelle; Svendsen, Erika; Berman, Holly. 2019. STEW-MAP in 

the New York City region: survey results of the Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project. Gen. Tech. Rep.

NRS-189. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

69 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-189.

ABSTRACT

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP) began in 2007 as a way to understand and map

civic capacity to care for the environment across New York City. In 2017, we implemented a ten-year update

to STEW-MAP in New York City’s five boroughs and expanded it to the larger metropolitan area as a regional

pilot survey. In this report, we share our preliminary findings about the civic stewardship groups working to

care for the local environment through conservation, monitoring, management, transformation, education, and

advocacy. The data presented include organizational characteristics, collaboration networks, and geographic

turf. The results from the STEW-MAP survey show that civic environmental stewardship is a vital force in the

neighborhoods of New York City and the surrounding region. Combined, the respondent stewardship groups

represent an estimated 540,000 members and staff, working in every borough and county and with budgets

totaling approximately $800 million. This capacity is spread across groups from different sectors including

public health, social services, transportation, education, housing and faith-based organizations. They work at

different geographic and professional scales, but many share the goal of improving their communities. The work

of civic stewardship groups impacts not only the physical environment but the social fabric of the places they

live. This report highlights some key findings, and also points to further research questions to consider for future

publications.

NONDISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

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.