Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(1): January 2006 29 T-21, Federal Cooperative grants, and Challenge grants. Few communities, regardless of size, were aware of other pro- grams such as Partnership Enhancement Monetary Grant program. Nevertheless, tallied responses across all communi- ties indicated little awareness of existing funding sources for adopting urban and community forestry programs (Table 4). Current Urban Forestry Programs This study also asked surveyed communities to describe the kinds of urban and community forestry projects or activities they have participated in the past. It was found that 43.4% (n = 69) of surveyed communities participated in tree planting activities. Others participated in city and commu- nity park preservation (35.8%, n = 57), Arbor Day or Earth Day promotions or celebrations (23.9%, n = 38), and tree protection or maintenance (21.4%, n = 34), while others took part in Christmas tree disposal (20.1%, n = 32). When examining the responses by community size, communities with populations more than 10,000 had greater participation in these programs compared to smaller communities. Mid-sized municipalities were closer in their responses to smaller communities. Preferred Communications Media The dissemination of information about urban and commu- nity forestry is paramount for informing communities about urban and community forestry and updating those partici- pating in activities. This study asked communities how they would like to receive information and other communica- tions about urban and community forestry (Table 5). Workshops (41.5%), pamphlets or brochures (38.4%), educational kits (37.1%), newsletters (33.3%), and county forestry agent contacts (32.7%) were the top categories picked. Communities with more than 10,000 people preferred workshops, pamphlets, newsletters, and access to county forestry agents. Mid-sized communities preferred newsletters, and smaller communities were less sure of their preferences. DISCUSSION Table 5. Preferred forms of communication media for receiving information on urban and community forestry issues, as indicated by community leaders in Mississippi by community size during 2004 (n = 159). < 2,000 Inhabitants Workshops Prefer Do not prefer Do not prefer Educational kits Prefer Do not prefer Newsletters Prefer Do not prefer Do not prefer count (%) 30 (34.5) 57 (65.5) Pamphlets or brochures Prefer 30 (34.5) 57 (65.5) 30 (34.5) 57 (65.5) 26 (29.9) 61 (70.1) County forestry agent Prefer 20 (23.0) 67 (77.0) 2,000–10,000 > 10,000 Total count (%) 19 (47.5) 21 (52.5) 16 (40.0) 24 (60.0) 17 (42.5) 23 (57.5) 16 (40.0) 24 (60.0) 17 (42.5) 23 (57.5) 17 (53.1) 15 (46.9) 15 (46.9) 17 (53.1) 12 (37.5) 11 (34.4) 15 (46.9) count (%) count (%) 66 (41.5) 93 (58.5) 61 (38.4) 98 (61.6) 59 (37.1) 53 (33.3) 52 (32.7) 20 (62.5) 100 (62.9) 21 (65.6) 106 (66.7) 17 (53.1) 107 (67.3) The 53.7% response rate for this survey was higher than that of Watson (2004) with 22%, Schroeder et al. (2003) with 49%, and Ries (2004) with 51%, but lower than that of Thompson and Ahern (2000) with 55%, Treiman and Gartner (2004) with 60%, and Elmendorf et al. (2003) with 71%. However, there may be a number of reasons contrib- uting to a lower response or interest on the part of some communities. Large cities in Mississippi possess the re- sources to conduct urban and community forestry pro- grams. Small communities, with small budgets, usually do not have the monetary or technical resources. This result was consistent with studies by Groninger et al. (2002) and Elmendorf et al. (2003). Groninger et al. (2002) found that many rural communities in Illinois lack technical expertise in tree maintenance, do not have an inventory of existing tree resources, and were less likely to participate in state and federal urban and community forestry programs. Elmendorf et al. (2003) reviewed several studies that provided ample evidence that smaller communities in Pennsylvania spent far less than larger commu- nities and have limited or no urban and commu- nity forestry programs. This finding may account, in part, for the lower response rate from smaller communities because they did not see urban and community forestry in their purview. In addition, some communities may have felt as though their constituents were not interested in urban and community forestry so they chose not to participate. After all, among all communities that submitted responses, only 13.2% of community leaders felt that over 60% of their community thought urban and commu- nity forestry was important. In general, the survey sample of Mississippi’s communities indicated that a sizeable number of officials might have a very low or nonexistent level of awareness or interest in urban and community forestry. Thirty-six percent were not aware of the topic of urban and community ©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
