134 Straka et al.: Participation in Urban and Community Forestry Programs Table 2. Comparison of level of education of partici- pants versus nonparticipants. Education* Elementary school % of participants % of nonparticipants 0 High school or equivalent 4 Associate (2-year) degree 8 Some college College degree Graduate degree 6 38 44 1 6 11 10 35 37 *Sample size = 190, chi-square= 3.914 (P = 0.56, DF = 5). Table 3. Comparison of level of job title of participants versus nonparticipants. % of Job titlez,y participants Arborist/horticulturist/forester 22 Director/coordinator Consultant Educator Superintendent/manager Planner Other z 11 11 19 16 18 3 % of nonparticipants 14 14 2 20 14 12 24 Difference between participants and nonparticipants; sample size = 190, chi-square = 6.9314 (P = 0.33, DF = 6). y Participants more likely to be arborist/horticulturist/forester; sample size = 190, chi-square = 1.7134 (P = 0.19, DF = 1). Table 4. Comparison of level of annual salary (U.S. dollars) of participants versus nonparticipants. Annual salary* $0–$30,000 $30,00–$85,000 >$85,000 % of participants % of nonparticipants 9 7 59 32 56 37 1Sample size = 181, chi-square = 0.5608 (P = 0.76, DF = 2). Table 5. Comparison of participants versus nonpartici- pants based on early environment raised and current residence. Environmentz,y % of participants % of nonparticipants Area Currently raised reside Area Currently raised reside Rural nonfarm 22 Rural farm Suburban Urban z (P = 0.99, DF = 3). y (P = 0.85, DF = 3). Table 6. Comparison of participants versus nonpartici- pants based on household environment. Household environment* % of Family household w/o children 44 Family household w/children ≤18 38 Female householder w/children ≤18 1 Male householder w/children ≤18 1 Householder living alone 16 % of participants nonparticipants 49 30 4 2 15 *Sample size = 188, chi-square = 3.1242 (P = 0.54, DF = 4). 26 38 14 23 15 39 23 21 27 40 12 Area raised sample size = 187, chi-square = 0.1146 Currently reside sample size=190, chi-square = 0.8165 24 11 41 24 Participants were asked about their primary and secondary reasons for participating (Table 7). Twenty-one percent described their primary reason for participation as a job requirement (i.e., they were paid to participate), and nearly half described their motivation as a professional or job- related interest. Forty-three percent stated their secondary reason as a personal interest. Nonparticipants were also questioned as to why they have not participated (Table 8). Seventy-one percent stated that they did not know of these programs. Only 33% of nonparticipants stated that they would likely participate in the future. But over half stated they simply did not know about future participation. These results were expected due to the selection criteria. Does knowledge of the U&CF program affect respon- dents’ expectations of future participation? We compared ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture future intentions of participation of nonparticipants who originally did not know about the program. Awareness of the program created a significant difference between those who would definitely or probably participate in U&CF programs in the future and those who did not know or would definitely or probably not participate in the future (sample size = 84, chi-square = 2.89, P = 0.089, DF = 1). When asked for feelings about future participation, 64% of participants said they would definitely be involved in more programs (Table 9). Seventy-seven percent felt that these programs were very important. Time of participation in U&CF programs was important (Table 10). Fifty-two percent have participated on a weekday, when they were paid to do so. Twenty-one percent have participated on weekdays that were unpaid. Three of the questions were open-ended and designed to address issues related to what participants felt the best aspects of the programs were and what could be done in the future to make the programs more appealing (Tables 11 through 13). This provided an opportunity for ideas to surface that may not have been covered by the earlier questions. The most popular aspect of the program was the opportunity for grant funding (Table 11). However, other common responses were education, community involve- ment, and tree preservation. To get a better idea about the
May 2005
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
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.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
