26 Grado et al.: Status, Needs, and Knowledge About Urban Forestry fewer than 2,000 inhabitants indicated an awareness of the terminology, whereas 50.6% (n = 44) did not. For communi- ties with 2,000 to 10,000 inhabitants, 72.5% (n = 29) were familiar with the terminology, while 27.5% (n = 11) were not. For communities with more than 10,000 inhabitants, 87.5% (n = 28) were familiar with the term “urban and community forestry.” Surveyed communities who were aware of urban and community forestry were then asked to make multiple selections from among 31 categories to assess topics of familiarity. There was a wide array of responses. The five highest categories of familiarity pertained to erosion reduc- tion (46.5%), wildlife habitat (43.4%), aesthetic features (43.4%), recreation (42.8%), and air quality (42.8%). Varia- tions in community awareness for the multiple benefits of urban and community forestry by municipality size are shown in Table 1. For those five categories of familiarity, communi- ties with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants had an awareness of the multiple benefits derived from urban and community forestry programs ranging from 24% to 36%, whereas communities with more than 10,000 people demonstrated a 71% to 82% familiarity with those benefits. Need and Interest in Establishing an Urban Forestry Program Information was also collected on the need and interest expressed by municipalities in establishing an urban and community forestry program. Of the respondents, 73.6% indicated a need for urban and community forestry projects in their municipality. Only 6.3% did not see a need, while 20.1% did not or were unable to answer the question. This may be due, in part, to their unfamiliarity with urban and community forestry programs. Table 1. Familiarity with different aspects of urban and community forestry as indicated by community leaders in Mississippi during 2004 by community size (n = 159). < 2,000 Inhabitants Erosion reduction Aware Unaware Not applicable Wildlife habitat Aware Unaware Not applicable Aesthetics Aware Unaware Not applicable Recreation Aware Unaware Not applicable Air quality Aware Unaware Not applicable count (%) 31 (35.6) 12 (13.8) 44 (50.6) 30 (34.5) 13 (14.9) 44 (50.6) 21 (24.1) 22 (25.3) 44 (50.6) 27 (31.0) 16 (18.4) 44 (50.6) 24 (27.6) 19 (21.8) 44 (50.6) 2,000–10,000 > 10,000 count (%) 17 (42.5) 12 (30.0) 11 (27.5) 14 (35.0) 15 (37.5) 11 (27.5) 22 (55.0) 7 (17.5) 11 (27.5) 18 (45.0) 11 (27.5) 11 (27.5) 20 (50.0) 9 (22.5) 11 (27.5) ©2006 International Society of Arboriculture Total count (%) 26 (81.3) 3 (9.4) 3 (9.4) 25 (78.1) 4 (12.5) 3 (9.4) 26 (81.3) 3 (9.4) 3 (9.4) 23 (71.9) 6 (18.8) 3 (9.4) 24 (75.0) 5 (15.6) 3 (9.4) count (%) 74 (46.5) 27 (17.0) 58 (36.5) 69 (43.4) 32 (20.1) 58 (36.5) 69 (43.4) 32 (20.1) 58 (36.5) 68 (42.8) 33 (20.8) 58 (36.5) 68 (42.8) 33 (20.8) 58 (36.5) Urban and Community Forestry Experiences The study also surveyed communities on their past experiences with urban and community forestry programs to form a basis for assessing historical efforts in Mississippi. Of those responding to this question, only 31.4% had initiated an urban and community forestry project or program prior to receiving this survey. Forty-four percent of communities had no experience with urban and community forestry projects. Four communities had projects or programs, but they were discontinued. In some cases, these projects or programs simply may have been completed rather than dropped. The remaining 22.1% either did not know whether they had projects in the past, or they did not respond to this question. Of communities with experience in urban and community forestry projects prior to this survey, only 45 responded to In collecting information on community interest in estab- lishing an urban and community forestry project or program, the survey asked potential respondents to rank their interest on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated not very interested and 5 indicated very interested (Table 2). Of the surveyed communities, 53.4% indicated an avid interest and enthusiasm for starting new projects or programs, whereas 12.6% tended to not be interested. However, 31.4% of responding communi- ties were ambivalent about having an urban and community forestry program started in their locale. When disaggregating the data by community size, there was a clear trend suggesting that larger communities have a stronger interest in promoting urban and community forestry projects. For instance, only 39.1% of communities with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants showed a strong interest in promoting urban forestry projects. Responses from larger communi- ties (78.2%) showed a stronger interest in these projects.
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
