Extension Agents’ Perceptions, Practices, and Needs of Urban Forestry: A Case Study from Tennessee, United States

Abstract

Urban forests are essential green infrastructure for sustainable cities. However, existing studies are mainly focused on the general public’s perception and needs of urban forestry, and little is known about non-traditional educators like extension agents. To address this gap, the main objective of this study is to explore extension agents’ perceptions, practices, and future training needs. Specifically, a statewide online survey consisting of 33 questions was designed and disseminated to extension agents in Tennessee via email with 64 responses. We found that the majority of respondents valued urban forestry, with 68.9% of them believing that urban forests are very important, especially for providing shade, cooling, energy saving, aesthetic values/beautification, increasing property values, and wildlife habitat and biodiversity. Their main clientele includes homeowners, farmers, and landowners, and 63.3% of extension agents reported that they have received urban forestry-related requests. However, less than half of them are comfortable addressing these requests, and over 50% of them reported that they are slightly or not knowledgeable about urban forestry. Additionally, the interest in urban forestry is high, with 98.3% of respondents having some level of interest in urban forestry. This demonstrates great potential for urban forestry education, extension, and training in the region.

1. Introduction

Globally, over half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and this number is projected to increase to 68% by 2050 [1]. There is an urgent need to provide sufficient resources, a good environment, and a quality of life for the increasing number of urban dwellers to ensure a sustainable future for all. Meanwhile, climate change poses increased threats (e.g., heat, droughts, flooding) to urban communities, especially the most economically and socially marginalized communities [2]. As a nature-based solution, urban forests can provide a wide range of ecosystem services such as food and nutrition security, resilience to flooding events, biodiversity and landscapes, climate change mitigation and adaptation, economic benefits and green economy, and human health and well-being to promote sustainable urban development [3]. For example, according to a study of five cities (Fort Collins, Colorado; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Bismarck, North Dakota; Berkeley, California; and Glendale, Arizona) in the United States, for every dollar invested in urban forest management, the annual benefits returned can be over USD 3 [4]. In the United States, it is estimated that urban trees store 700 million tonnes of carbon (USD 14,300 million value) with a gross carbon sequestration rate of 22.8 million tC/yr (USD 460 million/year) [5]. Trees in the cities can also provide cooling and save human lives lost to heatwaves. In Los Angeles County, California, for example, by strategically increasing tree canopy cover and cool surfaces, about one in four human lives currently lost during heat waves could be saved [6].

There are emerging studies about public perceptions of urban forests. In general, residents highly value trees in the urban environment, and trees’ benefits far outweigh their annoyances [7]. Urban residents’ willingness to pay for urban forest protection and preservation is positively associated with their perceptions of the benefits of trees [8]. Based on a nationwide survey conducted in the continental United States [9], urban residents highly rated the social, environmental, and practical benefits of trees. For example, they valued the shade and cooling provided by trees and believed trees helped people feel calmer. According to a study conducted in Bari, Italy [10], urban green spaces are perceived as a life quality enhancer to residents. Similarly, a study conducted in London, UK [11] also found that the public values park trees highly. Baur et al. [12] studied the attitudes of homeowners and renters on urban forest ecosystem services management in four Oregon cities and found that watershed health, ecological health, habitat preservation, and sustainability were important management goals. In two hurricane-prone urban communities in Florida, Wyman et al. [13] found that community leaders were most concerned about hurricane damage to and from trees, indicating that support for expanding urban forests might be linked to community-specific needs. Additionally, a national survey [14] conducted with the Society of American Foresters (SAF) members showed that urban forestry is well accepted as a community of interest by foresters.

Community education has been identified as one of the top priorities for urban forestry programs [15]. As non-traditional urban forestry educators, extension agents can play an important role in forestry and natural resources education, communications, and outreach. A study conducted with West Virginia University extension personnel [16] showed that most (72%) extension personnel who received incoming forestry questions at least a few times a year answered some of those questions. In particular, extension programs are important sources of information for diverse stakeholders like Spanish speakers [17]. Meanwhile, there are potential barriers to communicating about agriculture and natural resources, including a lack of interest, knowledge, and awareness among the general public, government, clientele, and media, a lack of agent access to resources/contacts, and inconsistent/ineffective message delivery methods [18]. Extension agents could help bridge this communication divide and ramp up public interest in natural resources, including aspects such as conservation and urban forestry. However, previous studies mainly focus on the public’s perception of urban forestry [7,8,9,12,13]. Few studies have investigated the perceptions of demographically, ethnically, or culturally diverse people with respect to urban forests, and previous studies are usually limited to a single city [19]. As a result, little is known about how extension agents as non-traditional educators perceive and practice urban forestry and what their training needs are, especially at the state level. The main objectives of this study are as follows:

(1)

Assess extension agents’ perceptions and interests in urban forestry;

(2)

Better understand the extension agents’ current practices related to urban forestry-related extension; and

(3)

Determine extension agents’ knowledge, challenges, and future training needs in the area of urban forestry.

Doing so will help us better understand the statewide community needs of urban forestry extension as well as the interest level, knowledge, and training needs of extension agents about urban forestry. Consequently, it will help with identifying areas where extension agents can be best supported and resourced with respect to disseminating urban forestry-related information. In addition, it will help us better develop future urban forestry education, communications, and extension programs to meet community needs.

The hypotheses of this study include the following: (1) Extension agents’ urban forestry perceptions, knowledge, and interest vary by gender and age; (2) Extension agents’ urban forestry perceptions, knowledge, and interest vary by region; and (3) Extension agents’ urban forestry perceptions, knowledge, and interest vary by education and areas of expertise.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Tennessee, a southeastern state in the United States, covers 42,143 square miles (109,150 sq. km) and had a population of 7,051,339 in 2022 [20]. On average, the urban forest canopy cover across Tennessee was 22.95% in 2001 [21]. The state of Tennessee was divided into three regions by Tennessee Cooperative Extension service areas/county offices: eastern; central; and western regions (Figure 1).

2.2. Online Survey

An online survey with a total of 33 questions (see Supplementary File S1) was developed in Qualtrics (Qualtrics LLC, Provo, UT, USA) to accomplish the objectives of this study. The survey includes three main sections: perception, interest, and knowledge about urban forests; current practices, challenges, and training needs related to urban forestry extension; and demographic information. An electronic consent form was included in the survey. Participants were required to sign/check the electronic consent form before answering any questions in the survey. The survey was approved by the Tennessee State University Institutional Review Board (#HS-2022-4781). It was disseminated to about 150 cooperative extension agents across the state of Tennessee who have responsibilities in agriculture and natural resources via email in October 2022. A weekly reminder was sent for four weeks between October and November, and data collection was completed in November 2022. In total, 64 responses were received. Since participants could skip any questions or stop at any time during the survey, some questions had fewer than 64 responses.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The data internal consistency was tested using Cronbach alpha with a pilot analysis of the participants’ knowledge and interests in urban forestry. The Cronbach alpha values were 0.94 and 0.92, respectively. Study results were mainly described as frequency counts and percentages. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine statistical differences (n ≤ 64) in respondents’ urban forestry value, knowledge, and interest related to their demographic information (i.e., gender, age, ethnicity, years of service, region, education, and expertise). All statistical analyses were conducted using R (v2.0; R core team 2022, Vienna, Austria).

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Information of Survey Respondents

The majority of respondents are 40–59 years old (52.5%), white (93.2%), male (74.6%), have a master’s degree (72.9%) and have expertise in agricultural science (40.7%). Most are extension agents (94.9%) from the University of Tennessee (76.5%) and have been with their current institution for either 0–5 years (32.2%) or 21–30 years (22.0%). Additionally, the respondents are nearly evenly distributed across the state, with 36.2% from the western, 34.5% from the central, and 29.3% from the eastern regions of the state (

Table 1. Demographic information of survey respondents.

Demographic Variables		Percent (%)
Gender (n = 59)	Male	74.6%
	Female	25.4%
	Other/do not want to answer	0.0%
Age (n = 59)	20–29	15.3%
	30–39	15.3%
	40–49	18.6%
	50–59	33.9%
	60+	16.9%
Ethnicity (n = 59)	White	93.2%
	Black/African American	6.8%
	Hispanic/Latino/a	0.0%
	Asian/Pacific Islander	0.0%
	Native American	0.0%
	Other	0.0%
Current Institutional Status (n = 51)	Tennessee State University Employee	21.6%
	University of Tennessee employee	76.5%
	100% County-funded employee	2.0%
Title (n = 59)	Extension agent	59.3%
	County director and extension agent	35.6%
	Area extension specialist	1.7%
	Faculty/extension specialist	1.7%
	Other	1.7%
Years of Service (n = 59)	0–5	32.2%
	6–10	15.3%
	11–20	15.3%
	21–30	22.0%
	30+	15.3%
Region of the State (n = 58)	West	36.2%
	Central	34.5%
	East	29.3%
Educational Level (n = 59)	High School graduate	0.0%
	Bachelor’s degree	23.7%
	Master’s degree	72.9%
	Doctorate degree	3.4%
Area of Expertise (n = 59)	Urban forestry	1.7%
	Forestry	1.7%
	Environmental science	0.0%
	Natural resources management	6.8%
	Agricultural science	40.7%
	Horticulture	23.7%
	Soil science	0.0%
	Agronomy	11.9%
	Other	13.6%

).

3.2. Extension Agents’ Perception, Interest, and Knowledge about Urban Forests

Most respondents (98.4%) value urban forests, with 68.9% of them rating urban forests as very important and 29.5% of them rating urban forests as moderately important (Figure 2). The top five benefits of urban forests include providing shade and cooling and saving energy (80.3%), providing aesthetic values/beautification and increasing property values (77.0%), providing wildlife habitat and increasing biodiversity (70.5%), reducing flooding/mitigating stormwater runoff, supplying water, and improving water quality (60.7%), and providing educational and recreational opportunities (60.7%). Interestingly, only a few respondents believed that urban forests were important in producing food (3.3%) or creating jobs and improving the economy in Tennessee (13.1%) (

Table 2. The top five benefits that urban forests provide to communities in Tennessee ranked by respondents (n = 61).

Benefits of Urban Forests	Count (n)	Percent (%)
Provide shade and cooling and save energy	49	80.3%
Provide aesthetic values/beautification and increase property values	47	77.0%
Provide wildlife habitat and increase biodiversity	43	70.5%
Reduce flooding/mitigate stormwater runoff, supply water, and improve water quality	37	60.7%
Provide educational and recreational opportunities	37	60.7%
Remove air pollutants and clean air	35	57.4%
Sequester carbon and contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation	21	34.4%
Provide a community meeting place, enhance social cohesion, and improve human health and well-being	21	34.4%
Create jobs and improve the economy	8	13.1%
Produce food	2	3.3%

).

The interest in urban forestry is high, with 98.3% of respondents having some level of interest in urban forestry (26.7% very interested, 38.3% moderately interested, and 33.3% slightly interested) (Figure 3). Sixty percent of respondents (n = 60) have tried learning about urban forestry, and most of them (n = 36) have learned about urban forestry through factsheets/bulletins, attending webinars, workshops, tours, or training, asking experts/specialists, attending conferences/meetings, or internet (86.1%, 77.8%, 75.0% 63.9% and 58.3%, respectively) (

Table 3. The approaches that respondents have used to learn about urban forestry (n = 36).

	Count (n)	Percent (%)
Factsheets/bulletins	31	86.1%
Attending webinars, workshops, tours, or training	28	77.8%
Asking experts/specialists	27	75.0%
Attending conferences/meetings	23	63.9%
Internet	21	58.3%
Newsletter and magazines	17	47.2%
Books	9	25.0%
Social media	6	16.7%
Television	3	8.3%
Radio	3	8.3%
Other	3	8.3%
Asking friends/family	1	2.8%

). However, over 50% of them reported that they were either slightly knowledgeable (46.7%) or not knowledgeable at all (8.3%) about urban forestry, while only 6.7% thought that they were very knowledgeable, and 38.3% thought that they were moderately knowledgeable about the topic (Figure 4). It is worth noting that respondents have different levels of knowledge on different urban forestry-related topics. For example, most of them believe that they are very knowledgeable or knowledgeable about tree planting (75.0%), tree care (73.3%), and tree pruning (70.0%). However, the majority feel that they are only somewhat knowledgeable or not knowledgeable at all on topics like urban forest management plan (90.0%), urban forestry policy (91.5%), and environmental justice/tree equity (95.0%) (

Table 4. The respondents’ knowledge level of different urban forestry-related topics.

Urban Forestry-Related Topics	Knowledge Level
	Very Knowledgeable		Knowledgeable		Somewhat Knowledgeable		Not Knowledgeable at All
	Count (n)	Percent (%)	Count (n)	Percent (%)	Count (n)	Percent (%)	Count (n)	Percent (%)
Tree species selection (n = 60)	8	13.3%	22	36.7%	22	36.7%	8	13.3%
Tree planting (n = 60)	20	33.3%	25	41.7%	13	21.7%	2	3.3%
Tree care (e.g., watering) (n = 60)	17	28.3%	27	45.0%	15	25.0%	1	1.7%
Tree pruning/removal (n = 60)	13	21.7%	29	48.3%	15	25.0%	3	5.0%
Pest and disease management (n = 60)	6	10.0%	30	50.0%	20	33.3%	4	6.7%
Tree replacement/transplanting (n = 60)	11	18.3%	25	41.7%	19	31.7%	5	8.3%
Tree protection/preservation (n = 60)	4	6.7%	22	36.7%	24	40.0%	10	16.7%
Tree canopy assessment (n = 60)	4	6.7%	14	23.3%	28	46.7%	14	23.3%
Tree inventory (n = 59)	3	5.1%	15	25.4%	24	40.7%	17	28.8%
Urban forest management plan (n = 60)	2	3.3%	4	6.7%	27	45.0%	27	45.0%
Urban forestry policy (e.g., tree protection ordinances) (n = 59)	1	1.7%	4	6.8%	17	28.8%	37	62.7%
Environmental justice/tree equity (n = 60)	0	0.0%	3	5.0%	15	25.0%	42	70.0%
Community engagement (n = 60)	5	8.3%	10	16.7%	26	43.3%	19	31.7%

).

3.3. Extension Agents’ Current Practices, Challenges, and Training Needs Related to Urban Forestry Extension

The main clientele of respondents includes homeowners (86.7%), farmers (76.7%), and landowners (71.7%) (

Table 5. The main clientele of respondents (n = 60).

Main Clientele	Count (n)	Percent (%)
Homeowners	52	86.7%
Farmers	46	76.7%
Landowners/land managers	43	71.7%
Master gardeners	23	38.3%
Forest owners/managers	21	35.0%
Youth	14	23.3%
Government agencies	10	16.7%
Urban foresters/arborists	9	15.0%
Non-profit organizations	9	15.0%
Other (please describe)	1	1.7%

). Most of the respondents (63.3%; n = 60) reported that they had received urban forestry-related requests. The main topics of concern raised by the clientele include pest and disease management, tree pruning/removal, tree care, and tree species selection (86.8%, 84.2%, 76.3%, and 71.1%, respectively) (

Table 6. The topics of concern raised by respondents’ clientele (n = 38).

Urban Forestry-Related Topics	Count (n)	Percent (%)
Pest and disease management	33	86.8%
Tree pruning/removal	32	84.2%
Tree care (e.g., watering)	29	76.3%
Tree species selection	27	71.1%
Tree protection/preservation	18	47.4%
Tree planting	17	44.7%
Tree replacement/transplanting	15	39.5%
Tree canopy assessment	7	18.4%
Tree inventory	4	10.5%
Urban forest management plan	4	10.5%
Urban forestry policy (e.g., tree protection ordinances)	4	10.5%
Community engagement	4	10.5%
Environmental justice/tree equity	3	7.9%
Other (please describe)	1	2.6%

). However, less than 50% of respondents feel comfortable addressing those requests. Most respondents usually address those requests either by seeking support from experts/specialists (78.9%), addressing them directly (68.4%), searching the internet (50.0%), or asking other extension agents (50.0%).

Currently, only a few respondents (16.9%) said that they conducted urban forestry-related outreach, and most of them (70.0%) had conducted urban forestry-related extension activities in the past 6 months. The top three activities/products that they have conducted/produced were webinars/workshops/tours/field trips/training (70.0%), addressing inquiries via email/phone (70.0%), and factsheets/bulletins (50.0%). Few of them have created social media posts, conferences/meetings/symposia, videos, newsletters, or one-pagers/infographics (30.0%, 30.0%, 20.0%, 10.0%, 10.0%, and 10.0%, respectively). It is worth noting that none of them have used blogs or podcasts. Furthermore, 58.3% of the respondents believe that their clientele would be interested in learning more about urban forestry in the future. They are also of the opinion that the top three best approaches to communicating with their clientele about urban forestry information are factsheets/bulletins (63.3%), webinars/workshops/tours/field trips/training (55.0%), and social media (50.0%) (

Table 7. The best approaches that extension agents believe to communicate with their clientele about urban forestry information (n = 60).

Urban Forestry-Related Extension Activities/Products	Count (n)	Percent (%)
Factsheets/bulletins	38	63.3%
Webinars/workshops/tours/field trips/training	33	55.0%
Social media	30	50.0%
Emails	27	45.0%
One-pagers/infographics	23	38.3%
Newsletters	21	35.0%
Videos	20	33.3%
Conferences/meetings/symposia	19	31.7%
Phone calls	19	31.7%
Other (please specify)	4	6.7%
Podcasts	3	5.0%
Blogs	2	3.3%

).

For future training needs, most of the respondents are very interested or interested in tree species selection (91.4%), pest and disease management (86.0%), tree protection/preservation (82.1%), tree pruning/removal (80.7%), and tree canopy assessment (75.9%). Meanwhile, respondents are only somewhat interested or not interested at all in the following topics: environmental justice/tree equity; urban forest management plan; community engagement; urban forestry policy; and tree planting (50.0%, 38.6%, 37.0%, 34.5%, and 29.9%, respectively) (

Table 8. The respondents’ interest level in learning more about different urban forestry-related topics in the future.

Urban Forestry-Related Topics	Interest Level
	Very Interested		Interested		Somewhat Interested		Not Interested at All
	Count (n)	Percent (%)	Count (n)	Percent (%)	Count (n)	Percent (%)	Count (n)	Percent (%)
Tree species selection (n = 58)	27	46.6%	26	44.8%	5	8.6%	0	0.0%
Tree planting (n = 57)	14	24.6%	26	45.6%	12	21.1%	5	8.8%
Tree care (e.g., watering) (n = 57)	16	28.1%	25	43.9%	11	19.3%	5	8.8%
Tree pruning/removal (n = 57)	21	36.8%	25	43.9%	6	10.5%	5	8.8%
Pest and disease management (n = 57)	24	42.1%	25	43.9%	8	14.0%	0	0.0%
Tree replacement/transplanting (n = 56)	15	26.8%	28	50.0%	11	19.6%	2	3.6%
Tree protection/preservation (n = 56)	18	32.1%	28	50.0%	8	14.3%	2	3.6%
Tree canopy assessment (n = 58)	16	27.6%	28	48.3%	13	22.4%	1	1.7%
Tree inventory (n = 56)	17	30.4%	23	41.1%	12	21.4%	4	7.1%
Urban forest management plan (n = 57)	14	24.6%	21	36.8%	15	26.3%	7	12.3%
Urban forestry policy (e.g., tree protection ordinances) (n = 58)	13	22.4%	25	43.1%	13	22.4%	7	12.1%
Environmental justice/tree equity (n = 56)	8	14.3%	20	35.7%	17	30.4%	11	19.6%
Community engagement (n = 54)	9	16.7%	25	46.3%	14	25.9%	6	11.1%

).

3.4. The COVID-19 Impacts on Urban Forestry-Related Extension Activities

Although visiting urban green spaces generally changed from non-essential to essential and were visited more during the COVID-19 pandemic globally [22,23], most respondents (81.7%; n = 60) in our study do not believe that the recent COVID-19 pandemic changed their beliefs and extension activities around urban forestry. Those who believe that it has changed their beliefs and extension activities reported that they are either conducting more urban forestry-related extension activities or receiving more inquiries about urban forestry-related issues, or they think it is becoming more difficult to conduct urban forestry-related extension activities. Some challenges reported by the respondents include being unable to host in-person events pertaining to urban forestry and having a smaller number of groups coming to learn about forestry.

4. Discussion

4.1. Extension Agents’ Perceptions vs. Residents’ Perceptions, Expertise Effects, and Years of Services Influence

In this study, we found that the top three benefits of urban forests rated by extension agents are providing shade and cooling and saving energy, providing aesthetic values/beautification and increasing property values, and providing wildlife habitat and increasing biodiversity. This finding is consistent with previous studies with residents. For example, shade and cooling provided by urban forests were rated highly in a nationwide survey in the continental United States conducted by Lohr et al. [9]. Other studies also found that residents valued aesthetics over ecosystem services in tree planting [24,25].

In general, the importance/value of urban forests was not statistically different across gender, age, ethnicity, years of service, regions, education, and areas of expertise (

Table 9. The ANOVA analysis results: the covariances in importance/value, knowledge, and interest across gender, age groups, ethnicity, years of service, regions, education, and areas of expertise.

		Df	Sum Sq	Mean Sq	F Value	p-Value
Importance	Gender	1	0.634	0.634	2.483	0.125
	Age	4	0.088	0.022	0.086	0.986
	Ethnicity	1	0.802	0.802	3.143	0.086
	Years of Service	4	1.733	0.433	1.697	0.176
	Region	2	0.273	0.136	0.534	0.592
	Education	2	0.092	0.046	0.181	0.835
	Expertise	6	0.899	0.150	0.587	0.738
Knowledge	Gender	1	1.080	1.080	4.045	0.053
	Age	4	2.758	0.690	2.583	0.056
	Ethnicity	1	0.023	0.023	0.088	0.769
	Years of Service	4	2.242	0.561	2.099	0.104
	Region	2	0.638	0.319	1.195	0.316
	Education	2	1.258	0.629	2.356	0.111
	Expertise	6	7.429	1.238	4.637	0.002 **
Interest	Gender	1	1.657	1.657	4.820	0.036
	Age	4	0.566	0.142	0.412	0.799
	Ethnicity	1	0.425	0.425	1.235	0.275
	Years of Service	4	3.889	0.972	2.828	0.041 *
	Region	2	0.577	0.289	0.839	0.441
	Education	2	1.765	0.883	2.567	0.093
	Expertise	6	8.703	1.450	4.218	0.003 **

Note: *: p-value < 0.05; **: p-value < 0.01.

). Our findings are different from previous studies that showed that the public’s perceptions of urban forestry were affected by gender, age, and education [13,26,27]. However, we observed significantly different urban forestry knowledge levels varied by areas of expertise (p-value = 0.002). For example, the respondents who have urban forestry/forestry expertise have higher self-reported urban forestry knowledge levels. Similarly, the interest in learning more about urban forestry was highly varied by expertise areas (p-value = 0.003). The respondents who have urban forestry/forestry expertise are much more interested in learning more about urban forestry than others. Interestingly, the interest levels also varied among different years of services (p-value = 0.041).

4.2. Implications for Future Urban Forestry Communications, Education, and Extension Programs

The results of this study can help guide future urban forestry communications and future education, extension, and training programs. For example, both clientele and extension agents may be interested in urban forestry-related topics like pest and disease management, tree pruning/removal, tree species selection, and tree protection/preservation. Pests and diseases were also identified by a climate change survey conducted by de Koff and Broyles [28] with extension agents in Tennessee. Additionally, tree pruning was found to be a topic valued by traditional arboriculture and urban forestry educators in the United States [29]. For future programs, those topics/areas should be prioritized in urban forestry education, extension, and training. Interestingly, extension agents reported that they were not or only slightly knowledgeable about such topics as urban forest management plans, urban forestry policy, and environmental justice/tree equity. However, most of them are somewhat/not interested in learning more about those topics in the future.

Communication is critical for urban forestry, especially for extension-related work. The results of this study have provided some insights for future urban forestry communication strategies. The best ways to engage the public and train extension agents are through factsheets/bulletins, webinars, workshops, tours, field trips, or training. Lastly, it is worth noting that social media has been listed among the top three best approaches to communicating urban forestry-related information to clientele. The findings are consistent with a study conducted in Europe, which also suggested considering emerging communication technologies and practical activities in future urban forestry knowledge transfer between different stakeholders [30]. For future communications and extension programs, those are factors that need to be considered and incorporated to ensure that information is communicated via the desired channels/platforms/formats. This could involve specialists creating social media templates or graphics that agents could use easily to convey information to their clientele. The interactions between urban forestry experts/specialists and extension agents should also be strengthened. In this way, extension agents can obtain the support needed when they work with clientele on the ground. Also, the experts/specialists can design their research/extension programs to better meet community needs.

4.3. Limitations and Future Directions

As this is a case study from Tennessee, the limitations of this study include the following: (1) the limited study areas and sample size, which may impact the generalizability of the results to other states/regions; (2) the fact that the structure of the cooperative extension system in Tennessee might be different from other states; consequently, the clientele and responsibilities of extension agents and their interactions with urban forestry experts/specialists, other extension agents, and their clientele could vary; and (3) since we conducted the survey near the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings could be different due to timing, especially for COVID-19-related questions. Moving forward, the following areas need to be further studied: (1) study extension agents in other states to compare the findings with this study; (2) expand study groups to other non-traditional urban forestry educator groups (e.g., master gardeners) to explore how we can better work with them to meet community needs; (3) test different communication technologies/tools (e.g., social media) to explore their effectiveness for urban forestry communications, education, and extension.

5. Conclusions

Extension agents in Tennessee value urban forests; in particular, they value shade, cooling, energy saving, aesthetic values/beautification, increased property values, and wildlife habitat and biodiversity benefits provided by urban forests. Currently, they mainly serve homeowners, farmers, and landowners, and most of them have received urban forestry-related requests from their clientele. The topics of concern raised by their clientele are mainly focusing on pest and disease management, tree pruning/removal, tree care, tree species selection, tree protection/preservation, tree planting, and tree replacement/transplanting. However, less than half of them feel comfortable addressing those requests, and over half of them reported that they are either slightly or not knowledgeable at all about urban forestry. Additionally, the interest in urban forestry is high, with most respondents having some level of interest in urban forestry and most of them believing that their clientele is interested in learning more about urban forestry as well. In terms of future communication and training, they believed that factsheets/bulletins, webinars/workshops/tours/field trips/training, and social media are the top three best approaches to communicating with their clientele about urban forestry information. This suggests great potential for future urban forestry education, extension, and training in the region and beyond, especially working with non-traditional educators like extension agents. Given that this study was conducted only in the state of Tennessee, the findings have regional limitations. Future studies are needed in other regions that might have different climates, urban forest resources, extension systems, and/or community needs.