Divergent approaches to the professional governance of arborists and urban foresters in Canada

Source abstract

The professional governance of arborists and urban foresters has evolved unevenly across North America, Europe, and Australasia, with credentialing, trade designations, and regulatory frameworks developing through different professional and legislative pathways. Positioning Canada as a comparative case within broader debates about professionalization, public-interest regulation, and industry autonomy, this study uses policy review and expert interviews with governance organizations to examine the mechanisms and contemporary challenges of professional governance in Canadian arboriculture and urban forestry. We found that. where urban forestry is governed, it is through a governance with government approach, while arboriculture is governed more often through governance by and without government. Across both fields, the main challenges are limited awareness of legislation and ambiguous scopes of practice, the latter leading to hybrid and contested arrangements. In urban forestry, increased regulation is being shaped by the perceived need to protect the public interest, while in arboriculture, professional associations are championing voluntary trade designations to enhance arboricultural and safety practices, worker pay, and public perception of arborists. While these developments may help resolve ambiguity in the scope of practice of arborists versus urban foresters, increased regulation and credentialing may be counter to the wishes of practitioners and has the potential to decrease market competition and reduce the labour force. These arrangements highlight a tension between professional recognition and industry autonomy and suggest the need for a better understanding of practitioner perceptions of different regulatory mechanisms, especially where jurisdictions are considering a shift from governance without government toward governance by government.