Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 39(4): July 2013 Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2013. 39(4): 149–156 149 Revisiting the Status, Needs, and Knowledge Levels of Mississippi’s Governmental Entities Relative to Urban Forestry Stephen C. Grado, Marcus K. Measells, and Donald L. Grebner Abstract. In 2004, Mississippi State University researchers determined the status, needs, and knowledge levels of Mississippi’s community leaders and communities relative to urban and community forestry benefits, programs, funding opportunities, and program implementation. As a result, this project’s goals were to build on past research and identify trends for past and current involvement and future interest levels among Missis- sippi’s small (<2,000 people) to large (>10,000 people) communities for urban and community forestry programs and assistance. This current effort revisited these communities, previously surveyed in 2004, and highlighted changes in knowledge levels and various activities and programs undertaken. A mail survey was sent to 293 Mississippi communities with 163 surveys returned for a response rate of 55.6%. In general, communi- ties responding indicated that a sizable number of officials have increased their awareness or interest in urban and community forestry. Communi- ties that wanted to establish programs the most again cited a lack of funding as the reason for not initiating projects or sustaining existing programs. Greater effort in disseminating information on funding opportunities was seen as necessary, given that most Mississippi communities were only aware of a few national programs. Participation in statewide or local urban forestry programs and activities was minimal. The authors’ previ- ous study found that without quality, updated information on urban and community forestry and reliable funding, communities are limited in undertaking systematic planning and associated programs utilizing arboreal resources. Good information distribution, which has improved, and reliable funding are still limiting communities in undertaking systematic planning and associated urban and community forestry programs. Key Words. Large Communities; Medium-sized Communities; Mississippi; Reassessment; Small Communities; Survey Research; Urban and Community Forestry. Implementing urban and community forestry activities is an im- portant consideration for many small, medium, and large com- munities across the United States, as well-managed urban and community forestry programs can derive many economic, en- vironmental, physiological, and sociological benefits from the urban forest. Some commonly known benefits are improved aesthetics, erosion reduction, recreation, increased real estate values, noise pollution reduction, health benefits, and improved air and water quality (Dwyer et al. 1992; Wolf 2005, Grado et al. 2006; Nowak and Dwyer 2007). However, reassessing commu- nity knowledge and activity levels is important to implementing an urban and community forestry program to take advantage of these benefits. In 1992 and 2004, two surveys were performed in Oregon, U.S. for such purposes (Ries et al. 2007). The 2004 survey was designed to gain insight into the scope and extent of Oregon’s urban forest resources, measure local program ac- complishments since 1992, and measure statewide impacts of urban forestry assistance programs. With a similar intent, this type of reassessment has also taken place in Mississippi, U.S. where urban and community forestry is growing in importance. Not all community or government leaders, however, have a clear and thorough understanding of urban and community for- estry. Reasons for this lack of understanding about urban forestry may be traced to an information gap on the subject or absence of educational materials and resources among communities (Grado et al. 2006). Information that is well understood and programs based on this knowledge level that are executed correctly can lead to successes, while achieving continual cost-effectiveness. Lack of a program, or mistakes generated upon implementation, can incur greater costs while reducing benefits (Dwyer et al. 1992; Nowak and Dwyer 2007; Stevenson et al. 2008). Stevenson et al. (2008) found in several Pennsylvania, U.S. municipalities that the con- sequences for local officials with an incomplete understanding of urban forestry benefits and practices resulted in lower public sup- port, along with inadequate funding, personnel, and equipment. There are communities familiar with the benefits of urban and community forestry but are not actively managing their resources (Grado et al. 2006). When managing the resource, ineffective- ness can sometimes be attributed to an idle or improperly man- aged program by government (Grey 1978). Both of these may be attributed to funding or personnel issues. Lack of activity has been attributed to population sizes; a community’s size (e.g., large versus small) may influence available funding and bud- geting for a program (Grado et al. 2006). Population size also influences the available tax base of a community for programs, and thus the potential for instituting activities (Miller and Bate 1978). A 12-city case study in the United States (Johnson 1982) found that unsuccessful urban forestry programs were traced to a lack of funding and city budgeting, since most local govern- ments have been underfunded in favor of more essential servic- es or civic responsibilities (e.g., police protection, fire control) (Tate 1982; Stevenson et al. 2008). In a Wisconsin, U.S. study, ©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
