24 Grado et al.: Status, Needs, and Knowledge About Urban Forestry STATUS, NEEDS, AND KNOWLEDGE LEVELS OF MISSISSIPPI’S COMMUNITIES RELATIVE TO URBAN FORESTRY Stephen C. Grado, Donald L. Grebner, Marcus K. Measells, and Amanda L. Husak Abstract. There is a need to determine levels of knowledge about and participation in urban and community forestry programs by local elected officials and other community planners. This project’s goals were to identify the past and current involvement and future interest levels among Mississippi’s small to large communities for urban forestry programs and assistance. A mail survey was sent to 296 Mississippi, U.S., communities. There were 159 surveys returned for a response rate of 53.7%. In general, the survey sample of Mississippi’s communities indicated that a sizable number of officials have little or no awareness or interest in urban and community forestry. Among the Mississippi communities that wanted to establish urban and community forestry programs, most cited a lack of funding as the reason for not initiating projects or sustaining existing programs. Greater effort in disseminating information on funding opportunities is necessary, given that most Mississippi communities were aware of only a few national programs. Participation in statewide or local programs was minimal. Without good information and reliable funding, commu- nities are limited in undertaking systematic planning and associated programs for tree resources in their community. In addition, effectively delivering information to communities to broaden public appreciation of urban forest resources is critical. Key Words. Community planners; governmental agencies; large communities; Mississippi; program assessment; small communities; survey research; urban and community forestry. Implementing urban and community forestry activities is an important consideration for any community. In a well- managed program, a community can derive many social and economic benefits from the urban forest. Some of the more commonly known benefits are improved aesthetics, in- creased real estate values, noise pollution reduction, and improved air and water quality (Dwyer et al. 1992). A healthy urban forest can be more cost effective than many of the other fuel-saving methods available in managing energy consumption levels and reducing carbon dioxide (Dwyer et al. 1992). Monetary benefits can be achieved by strategically placing trees around a building to reduce air- conditioning use during summer (McPherson 1996). Other lesser known but equally important benefits are increased life expectancy of pavement and control of stormwater runoff (yielding a decrease in flooding and erosion problems within the community) (Maco and McPherson 2002). ©2006 International Society of Arboriculture Not all community or government leaders, however, have a clear and thorough understanding of urban and commu- nity forestry. Reasons for this lack of understanding may be traced to an information gap on the subject or absence of educational resources. Information that is well understood and correctly carried forth can lead to a successful tree care program that is continually cost effective. However, if little is known about tree care, then the lack of a program, or mistakes generated in implementing one, can incur greater costs and reduce benefits (Dwyer et al. 1992). A study in Wisconsin found a strong correlation between the presence of a university or college and an urban forestry program in the same town or city (Miller and Bate 1978). This finding was attributed to the assumption that informa- tion and other educational materials on tree care were readily available for the community and public from these institutions (Miller and Bate 1978). There are communities familiar with many of the options that urban and community forestry can provide, but not all are actively managing their urban forest resources. Even when they are managing their resources, ineffectiveness can sometimes be caused by an idle or improperly managed program (Grey 1978). Population size, which influences the amount of taxes available to a community, can also influence the potential for instituting urban forestry activities (Miller and Bate 1978). In a 12-city case study in the United States, an unsuccessful urban forestry program was attributed to a lack of funding and city budgeting (Johnson 1982). Urban forestry programs continually compete for funding from the city budget and are often ignored in favor of more essential services (e.g., police protection or fire control) (Tate 1982). In a Wisconsin study, government leaders felt that more developmental activities in urban forestry programs would have occurred if outside governmental assistance had been provided to their city or town (Miller and Bate 1978). In these cases, government funding in the form of grants was needed; however, finding available grants was the issue. Tate (1982) found that two-thirds of communities surveyed within the United States felt they had insufficient informa- tion to apply for grants, and a portion of these communities did not know of any potential sources of funding. Almost all surveyed communities claimed they would apply for funding
January 2006
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
