Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(1): January 2006 25 if information were available about the application process (Tate 1982). More recent studies, such as Elmendorf et al. (2003) and Treiman and Gartner (2004), found similar trends in Missouri and Pennsylvania. Elmendorf et al. (2003) found that 39% of municipal tree programs were adequately funded from general revenue sources, while only 21% of all communities thought their municipality’s funding was enough to function effectively. Only 23% of these communi- ties conducted external fund-raising to alleviate their budgetary shortfalls. Treiman and Gartner (2004) found that 52% of all Missouri communities provided no budget- ary support for urban and community forestry projects, while 54% of respondents felt that they were not receiving adequate financial resources to manage their programs. To address these issues in Mississippi, further research was necessary to assess current programs across large and small communities. A community was defined as a munici- pality having local self-government. The study’s focus was to identify the existence of current programs and examine communities where no programs exist. For both, knowledge levels about opportunities to gain information or take advantage of outreach programs and finding funding sources were of prominent importance. No previous work of this type has been done in the past. The study’s main objective was to identify community needs and issues relative to urban forestry (specifically, major challenges such as water quality and flooding), the knowledge level of community leaders (e.g., urban forestry program identification, funding sources), future research areas, programs already in place and their success levels, and vehicles used to both obtain funding for existing programs and for their implementation. This type of detailed information is currently unknown to those who are inter- ested in promoting urban and community forestry. In addition, uncovering this information and distributing it to governmental leaders and agencies, communities, profes- sionals (e.g., community planners) and nonprofessionals in urban forestry, and the general public will enable the initiation and/or promotion of urban and community forestry activities, projects, and programs. METHODS A literature review was conducted to synthesize existing applicable materials and information to develop a survey questionnaire. Mississippi State University researchers developed all survey questions to determine the success of existing community programs and intentions directed toward future programs and opportunities. Upon comple- tion of this internal review, a pilot survey was sent to eight Mississippi communities to further determine its effective- ness. All eight communities returned a completed survey. Discovery and documentation of pertinent information and other associated data related to urban and community forestry issues cannot occur without contacting governmen- tal entities and other personnel (e.g., community planners) responsible for initiating, promoting, and implementing urban and community forestry projects in their locales. Therefore, we had to identify potential survey participants by collecting names and addresses that were accessible through the public domain. Specifically, survey respondents consisted of key members of city and town governments, municipal governments, and community planners (e.g., mayors, county clerks, urban foresters, land planners, public works directors, parks and recreation directors, and public safety departments). In all cases, communities were contacted by telephone prior to mailing the survey instru- ment to make sure the appropriate individual would receive the survey. Also, the executive director of the Mississippi Urban Forestry Council (MUFC) sent a letter of introduc- tion announcing the forthcoming survey. Surveys were accompanied by a cover letter explaining confidentiality, project goals, and end products. The formal survey process (Dillman 2000) consisted of mailing out the survey on 14 June 2004, and then 1 week later sending a thank-you or reminder postcard. Three weeks after mailing the initial survey, a second survey was mailed, on 5 July 2004. Finally, a third survey was mailed 3 weeks later, on 28 July 2004. Survey responses were tabulated and analyzed upon return. RESULTS A total of 296 communities were represented on the mailing list. Of these 296, 186 communities had fewer than 2,000 inhabitants, 73 had between 2,000 and 10,000, and 37 had more than 10,000. All surveys were deliverable. There were 159 surveys returned for an overall response rate of 53.7%. The response rate was 46.8% for communities with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants, 54.8% for communities having between 2,000 and 10,000 inhabitants, and 86.5% for communities with more than 10,000 inhabitants. Results from the survey process were summarized and provided information on community familiarity with urban and community forestry, need and interest for local programs, past experiences, problems in implementing and maintaining urban and community forestry programs, awareness of resources and funding opportunities, and categorization of existing programs. As important, this study collected commu- nity preferences for receiving important resource materials. Familiarity with Urban and Community Forestry Mississippi communities were asked whether they were familiar with the term “urban and community forestry.” Of the responding communities, 48.3% (n = 42) of those with ©2006 International Society of Arboriculture
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
