136 Straka et al.: Participation in Urban and Community Forestry Programs made it clear that there is not enough information available to the public concerning these programs and that the lack of grants was a limiting factor. Table 9 shows that 64% of participants will definitely participate in the future, while Table 8 shows that 59% of nonparticipants do not know whether they will ever participate. Awareness is a major factor influencing participation and the main area that can produce immediate increases in U&CF program activity. One consideration for this project was the possibility that some people identified as nonparticipants may have actually participated in U&CF programs in the past. Because we obtained a list from the South Carolina Forestry Com- mission that identified all known individuals across the state who have participated, we feel that there should be minimal chance of any mixing between the two populations. CONCLUSION The opportunity for U&CF programs in South Carolina is increasing with urbanization. The trend of South Carolina’s development of rural lands is showing no signs of slowing anytime soon (Vesterby and Krupa 2001). Therefore, it will be important for individuals, agencies, organizations, and corporations to become involved in these programs. The purpose of this study was to provide a perspective on what drives successful U&CF programs and what aspects of these programs have achieved the greatest impact on program participation rates and satisfaction. The primary concern is that the majority of nonpartici- pants tended to have no knowledge of the U&CF programs available to their communities. This is a likely result of poor publicity. More emphasis needs to be placed on the awareness of these programs in order to draw people who are not directly related to the forest industry or community govern- ment. It is important that once someone has participated in U&CF programs they are more likely to participate again in the future. The majority of participants believed that these programs are very meaningful and would definitely partici- pate again in the future. This facts show that future participa- tion is influenced by making people aware of the programs. There are some considerations for future study. Empha- sis needs to be placed more on the program design. Factors affecting participation as identified by this study need to be included in potential U&CF program designs to evaluate future effectiveness. Lack of awareness of available urban and community forestry programs is a problem. The effectiveness of marketing strategies associated with these programs needs to be evaluated. More efficient methods of raising awareness seem to be essential for the continued success of urban and community forestry programs. The information presented in this paper should serve as a guideline for future development of these programs. ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture LITERATURE CITED Alig, R.J., F. Bedford, R.J. Moulton, and L. Lee. 1999. Long- term projection of urban and developed land area in the United States. In Keep America Growing—Balancing Working Lands and Development: Conference Proceedings (CD-ROM). American Farmland Trust, Washington, DC, Additional information at www.farmland.org (accessed 3/24/05). Alig, R.J., A.J. Plantinga, S. Ahn, and J.D. Kline. 2003. Land use changes involving forestry in the United States 1952 to 1997, with Projections to 2050. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-587. 92 pp. Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 35(4):216–224. Cubbage, F.W., J. O’Laughlin, and C.S. Bullock. 1993. Forest Resource Policy. Wiley, New York, NY. 592 pp. Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY. 325 pp. Florida Division of Forestry. 2004. Urban and Community Forestry Grant Program. Tallahassee, FL. www.fl- dof.com/forest_management/cfa_urban_grants.html (accessed 3/24/05). Heimlich, R.E., and W.D. Anderson. 2001. Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land. Economic Reporting Service Agricultural Economic Report No. 803. Washington, DC. 88 pp. London, J.B., and N.L Hill. 2000. Land Conversion in South Carolina: State Makes the Top 10 List. Jim Self Center on the Future, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. 4 pp. McPherson, E.G. 1994. Benefits and costs of tree planting and care in Chicago, pp. 115–133. In McPherson, E.G., D.J. Nowak, and R.A. Rowntree [Eds.]. Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-186. National Arbor Day Foundation. 2004. Tree City USA. Nebraska City, NE. www.arborday.org/programs/ treecityusa.cfm (accessed 3/24/05). Nowak, D.J. 1994. Air pollution removal by Chicago’s urban forest, pp. 63–81 In McPherson, E.G., D.J. Nowak, and R.A. Rowntree [Eds.]. Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-186. South Carolina Forestry Commission 2003a. Personal communications with statewide program coordinator and foresters about past participants in U&CF programs. ———. 2003b. Awards 2003 Urban & Community Forestry Grants. Columbia, SC. www.state.sc.us/forest/ 03ucfgrant.pdf (accessed 3/24/05).
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
