After researching the Morton Arboretum and MoBotG collections policies, the collections policies for arboretums typically follows a general guideline. First and foremost, the collections policy should start with an introduction that lays out the purpose and legal governance of the arboretum. The collections policies then discusses plant collection guidelines for determining new additions to the collection. Afterwards, the next section details how plants in the collection are maintained and monitored. Finally, the collections policy should briefly touch on tree evaluation and inventory, as well as the protocol for the removal of any dead or living trees. Our primary resource was the Morton Arboretum’s collection policy, as the MoBotG policy included significant irrelevant clauses regarding the protection of non-arboreal vegetation.

Going into each section in further detail, we attempted to do our best to use our knowledge and understanding of the bureaucracy of the arboretum and its perceived goals, missions, and protocols. Additionally, we attempted to closely mirror the language used in the Morton Arboretum CP when applicable. Complete sentences are likely adaptations made by us from the Morton Arboretum CP’s language and styling. The outline below was not created with the intention of providing a definitive collections policy proposal, but a representation of our idea of what a CP for the arboretum we’ve been working in might look like. We hope that if anything, it can serve as a general outline as well as a brainstorming springboard that both shows ambiguities in current arboretum public image as well as our idea of the relationship that the arboretum has with the rest of Wash U’s general administration.

For the more disambiguous and/or potentially legally mandated subclauses, we have bolded the sentences that we feel more confident in proposing as the direct language for the arboretum’s CP. This has been done in an attempt to cut some time out of reviewing the rest of our report. The inclusion of the language directly, however, is not an expectation, but simply one more potential way in which we felt we could assist in the process of drafting a CP. As the language has been written for the purposes of the Sustainability Exchange course, ownership of this document and all of its language belongs to Washington University Facilities Planning and Management.

At the end of the report, you will also find more raw and unprocessed research notes that demonstrate an abridged outline of other arboretum CPs from around the US. As we selected Morton as the most relevant due to its location and specialization in trees (over the MoBotG), the outline we used to report the above-mentioned suggestions and notes follows the Morton Arboretum’s. However, the notes we have provided for other non-Midwest arboretums should demonstrate that similar considerations and concerns were taken into account when devising the following report.

We hope that this is at least marginally useful as the arboretum continues to work towards tier-2 arboretum status. Please let us know if there are any questions or concerns regarding this report, as we would be happy to clear up any confusion in the language or contents of this report.

Sustainability Exchange Campus Arboretum Group, Fall 2019

Olivia Arias

Zinan Chi

Rudy Lawler

Emily Nelson

Ryan Rhee

Publication Date


Document Type

Course Project