Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(1): January 2006 27 the question concerning years of involvement with urban and community forestry projects or programs. Their involvement ranged from 1 to 25 years, with a fairly uniform distribution. Twelve communities provided a variety of reasons for having discontinued projects or programs. Reasons for program termination included lack of funding and resources, waning local interest, and project completion. Another question queried communities about whether they employed an urban or community forester, firm, or similar specialist. Of communities responding to the survey, 50.9% said no, 8.2% indicated they had one, and 10.1% did not respond to this question. Forty-nine communities skipped this question, perhaps because they had never initiated any projects or programs. Among the 13 communi- ties (14 replied) with an urban or community forester, several had cooperative partnerships with other communi- ties to handle their urban forest, or they employed a landscape architect. Only one community stated that they employed a full-time urban forester. When communities were asked whether they intended to hire an urban or community forester, firm, or similar specialist in the future, only 12.2% indicated an intent to do so, while 53.7% had no intention. Twenty-eight communities were still debating the issue; however, 77 communities did not respond or indicated the question was not applicable. Of communities that intended to hire in the future, there was a wide array of responses as to the type of employee they would hire. For instance, communities expressed interest in hiring a part- or full-time urban forester, land- scape architect, land-use planner, or arborist to meet their urban and community forestry needs. Although several communities did not have existing urban or community forestry programs, several (34.6%) indicated a desire to implement one in the future (Table 3). However, 15.7% did not intend to implement a program, while 48.4% of communities were still considering the option. Only 1.3% did not respond to this question. Examination of responses by community size indicated that 62.5% of larger communities, those with more than 10,000 inhabitants, intended to initiate urban and commu- nity forestry projects compared to only 19.5% of communi- ties with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants. For moderately sized communities (2,000 to 10,000 inhabitants), 45% intended to initiate these types of projects. Implementing and Maintaining Urban Forestry Programs Table 2. Interest in promoting local urban and community forestry projects and programs (n = 159) as indicated by community leaders in Mississippi by community size during 2004, where 1 indicates least interest and 5 most interest. < 2,000 Inhabitants 1 (least interest) 2 3 4 5 (most interest) Did not answer 10 (11.5) 32 (36.8) 12 (13.8) 22 (25.3) 3 (3.4) 2,000–10,000 > 10,000 Total count (%) count (%) 8 (9.2) 1 (2.5) 1 (2.5) 12 (30.0) 13 (32.5) 13 (32.5) 0 (0.0) count (%) count (%) 0 (0.0) 9 (5.7) 0 (0.0) 11 (6.9) 6 (18.8) 50 (31.4) 7 (21.9) 32 (20.1) 18 (56.3) 53 (33.3) 1 (3.1) 4 (2.5) Table 3. Intentions to initiate any future urban and community forestry projects or programs in the near future as indicated by community leaders in Mississippi by community size during 2004 (n = 159). < 2,000 Inhabitants Yes No Undecided Did not answer count (%) 17 (19.5) 17 (19.5) 52 (59.8) 1 (1.1) 2,000–10,000 > 10,000 Total count (%) 18 (45.0) 6 (15.0) 16 (40.0) 0 (0.0) count (%) count (%) 20 (62.5) 55 (34.6) 2 (6.3) 25 (15.7) 9 (28.1) 77 (48.4) 1 (3.1) 2 (1.3) One concern was to examine the factors that communities considered a hindrance in adopting an urban or community forestry program. These factors were information, funding, technical expertise, budget restrictions, staffing limitations, administrative support, community support, and logistical issues. Surveyed communities considered the impact of each factor on adopting an urban and community forestry program by ranking each on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating the greatest hindrance and 5 indicating the least hindrance. In addition, this study also asked communities—whether they had a program or not—to identify which of the same factors were most important. Lack of funding from outside sources for program development was a major hindrance to 44.7% (n = 71) of surveyed communities. Few respondents (0.6%, n = 1) considered it somewhat of an obstacle in implementing a project, while 4.4% (n = 7) did not. However, 15.1% (n = 24) did not respond to this question. Almost 75% (n = 119) of communities felt that funding was somewhat or the most important factor in addressing urban and community forestry program needs, whereas only 6.3% (n = 10) did not. Approximately 14.0% (n = 22) did not respond to this question. Budgetary restrictions (i.e., internal budgeting from general funds) were considered an important factor in urban and community forestry program adoption. Almost half of the communities (39.6%, n = 63) felt that this was the greatest hindrance to program adoption, whereas only 3.8% (n = 6) felt it was the least hindrance. Almost 18.0% (n = 28) did not respond to this question. Approximately half of ©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
