154 Grado et al.: Mississippi’s Governmental Entities Relative to Urban Forestry funding was the most important issue for initiating and sustaining projects and/or programs. Stevenson et al. (2008) also indicated that Pennsylvania respondents (86%) cited insufficient fund- ing was a major barrier to starting or improving tree programs. Communities can get their information from a variety of sources. Chief among them is the Mississippi Urban For- est Council (MUFC), which provides no-cost or low-cost programs for any community in the state. The MFC facilitates urban forestry programs and grants. The MSU Extension Service allows individuals and communities to take advantage of assorted, free services. MSU also conducts teaching and research programs in the areas of urban and community forestry. Many communities have tree boards and are designated as Tree City USA communities. It should be noted that while all entities were in operation, the pace of activity had increased from 2004. Given that the dissemination of information about urban and community forestry is paramount for informing com- munities about urban and community forestry and updating those participating in activities, greater efforts in dissemi- nating knowledge of funding opportunities were necessary given the low number of Mississippi communities who were aware of them. This was true across community size. Those that were aware knew only of a few funding opportunities. Communities facing funding obstacles for implementing urban and community forestry programs could potentially pool their limited resources and sponsor active participation by local community groups. Numerous communities en- gaged in tree planting activities through organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, garden clubs, school groups, and volun- teers. Contacting the MUFC is also key to receiving guid- ance and information of various activities and programs. Outreach by MFC, MUFC, and MSU has familiarized com- munities with the wildlife habitat, erosion reduction, and recre- ational aspects of urban and community forestry, but less so for its other benefits, such as in fire protection, water quality, social issues, and carbon sequestration to name a few. Many of these are vitally important issues for communities, and similar to 2004, the lack of association with urban and community forestry continues to present opportunities to initiate and direct outreach activities. It was the intention of this study to acquire information and analyze trends that can further aid in disseminating and publi- cizing results to local communities, the general public, and to professionals and non-professionals in all disciplines related to urban and community forestry. Uncovering this information about Mississippi communities and distributing it will enable professionals, governmental organizations, agencies, and their communities to initiate or better promote their own urban and community forestry programs. This survey was more detailed than previous statewide efforts, was improved over the 2004 effort, and provided an awareness of specific activities and programs being undertaken, or not, by local governments. Using this information and distributing it to governmental leaders and agencies, communities, professionals and non- professionals in urban forestry, and the general public will enable the initiation and/or promotion of urban and com- munity forestry activities, projects, and programs in areas that are not currently implementing them. For example, this information can now be used by the MFC and MUFC to further determine the focus of educational programs and the magnitude of the efforts required. The intent remains ©2013 International Society of Arboriculture that the impact will be widespread in developing more effective programs and providing services where needed. Although some Mississippi communities may be aware of the benefits of implementing forestry programs, future commu- nication efforts need to focus on contacting more communities and employing different venues for transferring urban and com- munity forestry technologies and information. The overall lack of awareness and number of survey questions that went unan- swered indicated that there is an enormous challenge, and yet an exciting opportunity to promote urban and community forestry in Mississippi. In fairness, mayoral offices may not have given the survey to the appropriate person in local government who might have had a higher knowledge level of the forestry activi- ties in a given community. The authors, by chance, uncovered a few instances where key personnel in numerous communities never saw the survey. However, communication efforts need to be ongoing. Preferred venues from 2004 suggested that the top five technology and information transfer methods were, in priority order, workshops, pamphlets/brochures, newsletters, videos, and websites. However, this has slightly changed throughout the current decade with the top five items, in prior- ity order, being e-mails, workshops, websites, newsletters, and pamphlets/brochures. Regardless of the methods used, products and programming can then be disseminated through various orga- nizations such as MFC, MUFC, and Mississippi State University. The impact or effectiveness of this project will be evalu- ated based on the number of respondents that request infor- mation and use said information to facilitate positive changes in their urban and community forestry programs or to initiate programs where they are nonexistent. For example, through this research project, MUFC and other state agencies can monitor the effectiveness, needs, and issues of local govern- ment in developing sound urban and community forestry pro- grams. It will be a tool to develop better, more focused areas in meeting local needs. The fact that awareness increased over the 2004 results and that 44 respondents provided names and addresses desiring more information on urban and com- munity forestry were positive signs that more municipalities are interested in urban and community forestry programs. The survey can also affect change in the pursuit of future funding. Local impacts will be enhanced due to the focus needs uncovered by both surveys. Using the baseline of data for the state, and then surveying seven years later, better enables propo- nents of urban and community forestry to assess improvements in current programs or whether there is a need for new initiatives. CONCLUSIONS This study was a second effort aimed at evaluating knowledge levels and information needs of Mississippi’s small to large mu- nicipalities. In 2004, this information was, in part, previously un- known to those providing urban and community forestry outreach in the state. With the 2011 effort, both positive and negative trends have been identified and can now be used to improve programs and activities. High response rates for both surveys serve as a solid basis for interpreting results collected over time. In general, there was interest in urban and community forestry programs in Mis- sissippi in both large and small communities. However, the gap of interest in promoting urban and community forestry was narrow- ing between the larger and smaller communities. A major obstacle
July 2013
| 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
