150 Grado et al.: Mississippi’s Governmental Entities Relative to Urban Forestry government leaders felt that more developmental activities in urban forestry programs would have occurred if outside gov- ernmental assistance was provided to their city or town (Miller and Bate 1978). In these cases, government funding via grants was needed; however, finding information about available grants was the issue facing many city leaders. Tate (1982) found that two-thirds of those communities surveyed within the United States felt they had insufficient information (in regard to grants) to make application. Also, a portion did not know of any poten- tial sources to obtain funding. Almost all surveyed communities claimed they would apply for the necessary funding if informa- tion were available about the application process (Tate 1982). Hauer and Johnson (2008) indicated that nearly 60% of urban and community forestry program coordinators claimed that funding for their state programs was inadequate and that if federal funding was eliminated, their programs would decline. However, Hauer et al. (2011) also found strong evi- dence that technical assistance, more so than financial assis- tance, translated into increased local urban and community forestry activities. In this case, it appeared that providing local communities the necessary training on technical aspects will generate greater implementation of urban forestry programs. The study’s main objective was to understand and identify how community needs and issues, relative to urban forestry and the knowledge level of community leaders (e.g., urban forestry pro- gram identification, funding sources), have changed since 2004 (Grado et al. 2006). Since the previous study divided communi- ties into small, medium, and large, the same approach was taken in this study. This included assessing knowledge levels about opportunities to gain information and take advantage of outreach programs relating to urban and community forestry as well as finding funding sources. The study also focused on programs already in place, documenting success levels and the vehicles used to obtain funding for existing programs and for their imple- mentation; the study would see if these have changed since 2004. METHODS Discovery and documentation of pertinent information and data relat- ed to urban and community forestry issues cannot occur without con- tacting key elected officials. The study authors received a complete listing of all community mayors in Mississippi from the Mississippi Municipal League. All survey questions were reexamined for the purpose of determining the success of existing community programs and intentions directed toward future programs and opportunities. Surveys were accompanied by a cover letter, explain- ing confidentiality, project goals, and end-products. The formal survey process (Dillman 2000) consisted of mail- ing the survey on March 25, 2011, and then one week later sending a thank-you/reminder postcard. Approximately three weeks after mailing the initial survey, a second sur- vey was mailed on April 19, 2011. Finally, a third survey was mailed three weeks later on May 12, 2011. Survey responses were tabulated and analyzed using bivari- ate analysis during the remainder of 2011. Specific findings from the 2011 survey process were sum- marized and compared to the 2004 survey results. In some cases, results were disaggregated for those issues related to community size. Similar to 2004, the communi- ties were divided between small (population <2,000), medium (2,000–10,000), and large (>10,000). The survey questionnaire ©2013 International Society of Arboriculture used was almost identical to that used in 2004 by Mississippi State University (MSU) researchers (some items within questions were updated) with the exception that one question asking for the job title of the person completing the survey was added (Grado et al. 2006). Questions relating to job title, years of involvement with urban and community forestry projects or programs, and why projects or programs were discontinued had open-ended responses. Respondents could select ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on questions regarding the following: familiarity with urban and community forestry; if they felt there was a need for urban and community forestry projects or programs; if their community previously had urban and community forestry projects or programs; whether they employed an urban or community forester, similar special- ist, or firm; if they intended to hire an urban or community for- ester, similar specialist, or firm; and if they planned to initiate any future urban and community forestry projects or programs. Respondents could select among multiple responses for ques- tions concerning topics of urban and community forestry they were familiar with; types of urban and community forestry per- sonnel they currently employed or planned to hire; the urban and community forestry resources they were aware of, types of funding sources available, types of current projects they have; and preferred communication methods for receiving informa- tion on urban and community forestry. Respondents could rank their level of interest for establishing projects and programs on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 indicated not very interested and 5 indicated very interested. They could rank factors considered the greatest hindrance to program adoption in their community on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 indicated greatest hindrance and 5 indicated least hindrance. Likewise, they ranked the factors they considered most important for their community on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 indicated least important and 5 indicated most important. RESULTS A total of 293 communities were represented on the mailing list (versus 296 in 2004). Of these 293, there were 188 small (versus 186 in 2004), 64 medium (versus 73 in 2004), and 41 large communities (versus 37 in 2004). All surveys were deliverable. One hundred sixty-three surveys were returned (versus 159 in 2004) for an overall response rate of 55.6% (versus 53.7% in 2004). The response rate was 48.9%, 60.9%, and 78.1% for small, medium, and large communities, respec- tively (versus 46.7%, 54.8%, and 89.5%, respectively, in 2004). In 2011, the survey asked for the position title of the indi- vidual completing the survey. Results showed that 62.6% of respondents were mayors. The next two highest positions completing the survey were city clerk (11.0%) followed by city planner (3.7%). This question was not asked in 2004. Familiarity or Awareness with Urban and Community Forestry In 2004, 62.3% of respondents were aware of urban and com- munity forestry. However, in this study, the awareness level grew to 77.9% (Table 1). Overall, 71.7% of small communi- ties (versus 48.3% in 2004) indicated awareness with the term urban and community forestry. For medium-sized communi- ties, 76.9% were familiar (versus 72.5%), while in large com- munities, 96.9% were familiar (versus 87.5%). The five high- est categories of familiarity pertained to drainage, 56.4%
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
