Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 39(4): July 2013 or hindrance to adopting and implementing these programs was the lack of adequate funding. Budgetary constraints have limited urban and community forestry programs throughout the state, especially for the small and medium communities. This was espe- cially acute given the downturn in the economy starting in 2008. Potentially, many communities have failed to adopt urban and community forestry programs because they lack the necessary expertise on their staff to address existing situations and prob- lems with program administration. Smaller budgets provide few- er resources to reach out to “experts.” However, an organization such as the MUFC will provide no-cost or low-cost programs for any community in the state. MSU Extension Service also pro- vides free services that individuals and communities need to take advantage of. Despite these obstacles to program adoption, com- munities have expressed their desire for information on technical issues and fund raising opportunities to be provided to them in a variety of venues. Future research should look at case studies in relevant Mississippi communities to document lessons learned from various programs as a guide for communities interested in establishing urban and community forestry programs. In addi- tion, geographic and demographic patterns should be analyzed to determine differences among communities. Other issues in need of further study are the public’s knowledge and attitudes toward town and/or city ordinances, land-use zoning relative to urban and community forestry, and the social or psychological aspects and benefits tied to urban and community forestry. Finally, ac- quiring the type of information gleaned from this study should encourage any state, desiring to promote urban and community forestry, to undertake a similar assessment of their communities. LITERATURE CITED Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Second edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, U.S. 464 pp. Dwyer, J.F., E.G. McPherson, R.A. Rowntree, and H.W. Schroeder. 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5):227–234. Elmendorf, W.F., V.J. Cotrone, and J.T. Mullen. 2003. Trends in urban forestry practices, programs, and sustainability: Contrasting a Penn- sylvania, U.S., study. Journal of Arboriculture 29(4):237–248. Grado, S.C., D.L. Grebner, M.K. Measells, and A.L. Husak. 2006. Status, needs, and knowledge levels of Mississippi’s communities relative to urban forestry. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(1):24–32. Grey, G.W. 1978. What should be the role of state government in munici- pal arboriculture-urban forestry. Journal of Arboriculture 4(3):71–72. Groninger, J.W., D.D. Close, and C.M. Basman. 2002. Can small, rural communities practice urban forestry? Journal of Forestry 100(1):23–28. Hauer, R.J., and G.R. Johnson. 2008. State urban and community forestry program funding, technical assistance, and financial assistance within the 50 United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(5):280–289. Hauer, R.J., G.R. Johnson, and M.A. Kilgore. 2011. Local outcomes of federal and state urban and community forestry programs. Arboricul- ture & Urban Forestry 37(4):152–159. Johnson, C. 1982. Political and administrative factors in urban-forestry programs. Journal of Arboriculture 8(6):160–163. Miller, R.W. and T.R. Bate. 1978. National implications of an urban forestry survey in Wisconsin. Journal of Arboriculture 4(6):125–127. 155 Nowak, D.J., and J.F. Dwyer. 2007. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: J.E. Kuser (Ed.). Urban and community forestry in the northeast. New York, New York, U.S. Springer, pp. 25–46. Ries, P.D., A.S. Reed, and S.J. Kresse. 2007. The impact of statewide urban forestry programs: A survey of cities in Oregon, U.S. Arbori- culture & Urban Forestry 33(3)168–175. Schroeder, H.W., T.L. Green, and T.J. Howe. 2003. Community tree pro- grams in Illinois, U.S.: A statewide survey and assessment. Journal of Arboriculture 29(4):218–225. Stevenson, T.R., H.D. Gerhold, and W.F. Elmendorf. 2008. Attitudes of municipal officials toward street tree programs in Pennsylvania, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 34(3):144–151. Tate, R.L. 1982. Applying for federal funding grants for urban tree man- agement activities. Journal of Arboriculture 8(4):107–109. Treiman, T., and J. Gartner. 2004. Community forestry in Missouri, U.S.: Attitudes and knowledge of local officials. Journal of Arboriculture 30(4):205–213. Watson, W.T. 2004. Status of urban forestry in the south, final report. Wolf, K.L. 2005. Civic nature valuation: Assessments of human func- tioning and well-being in cities. In: Forging Solutions: Applying Ecological Economics to Current Problems, Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics (July 20–23, 2005). Tacoma, Washington: Earth Economics. Stephen C. Grado (corresponding author) Box 9681 Department of Forestry Forest and Wildlife Research Center Mississippi State University Mississippi, U.S. 39762 Marcus K. Measells Department of Forestry Forest and Wildlife Research Center Mississippi State University Mississippi, U.S. 39762 Donald L. Grebner Department of Forestry Forest and Wildlife Research Center Mississippi State University Mississippi, U.S. 39762 ©2013 International Society of Arboriculture
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
