Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 39(4): July 2013 (versus 33.3%); wildlife habitat 52.1% (versus 43.4%); air quality, 51.5% (versus 42.8%); erosion reduction, 51.5% (ver- sus 46.5%); and recreation, 51.5% (versus 42.8%) (Table 1). For those categories mentioned in Table 1, small com- munities had a range in awareness of 42.4%–55.4% (versus 24.1%–35.6%). For medium-sized communities the range in awareness was 41%–53.8% (versus 35%–55%), whereas large communities demonstrated a range of 65.6%–81.3% (versus 71.9%–81.3%) concerning a familiarity with multiple ben- efits derived from urban and community forestry programs. 151 nity forestry projects. Similar to 2004, there were four com- munities (2.5%) that had projects or programs, but were dis- continued. In some cases, these projects or programs may have been completed rather than dropped. The remaining 30.1% of respondents (versus 22.1%) either did not know if they had projects in the past or they did not respond to this question. Of communities with past experience in urban and com- munity forestry projects, only 32 (versus 45) respond- ed to the question concerning years of involvement with projects or programs. Their involvement ranged from one to Table 1. Percentage of Mississippi community leaders familiar with the term ‘urban and community forestry’ and different aspects of urban and community forestry as indicated by community size during 2004 (n = 159)z and 2011 (n = 163)y <2,000 Urban and community forestry Erosion reduction Wildlife habitat Aesthetics Recreation Air quality Drainage 2004 48.3 35.6 34.5 24.1 31.0 27.6 * 2011 71.7 48.9 48.9 * 45.7 42.4 55.4 Inhabitants 2004 72.5 42.5 35.0 55.0 45.0 50.0 * z In 2004, responses by community size were 87, 40, and 32, respectively. y 2,000–10,000 2011 76.9 41.0 41.0 * 53.8 48.7 41.0 2004 87.5 81.3 78.1 81.3 71.9 75.0 * In 2011, responses by community size were 92, 39, and 32, respectively. Note: Asterisk (*) indicates these terms were not in the top five categories reported during that survey period. Table 2. Mississippi community leaders’ interest in pro- moting local urban and community forestry projects and programs as indicated by community size during 2004 (n = 159) and 2011 (n = 163), where 1 indicates the least inter- est and 5 the most. Inhabitants <2,000 Mean 2004 2011 3.4 3.7 2,000–10,000 Mean 3.9 3.9 >10,000 Mean 4.4 4.3 Total Mean 3.7 3.9 Need and Interest in Promoting an Urban Forestry Program Of the respondents, 66.9% (versus 73.6%) indicated a need for urban and community forestry projects in their municipal- ity. Only 4.9% (versus 6.3%) did not see a need, while 28.2% (versus 20.1%) did not, or were unable to answer the question. When asked about their interest in promoting urban and com- munity forestry projects in their community, the mean response was 3.9 (versus 3.7) indicating most communities (62% versus 53.4%) had an avid interest and enthusiasm for promoting urban forestry projects or programs (Table 2). When disaggregating the interest by community size, the mean response was 3.7 for small communities (versus 3.4), 3.9 for medium-sized communities (flat versus 2004), and 4.3 for large communities (versus 4.4). Past and Present Perspectives on Urban and Community Forestry Experiences Only 27.6% (versus 31.4%) indicated they had initiated an urban and community forestry project or program prior to receiving this survey. Approximately 40% (versus 44%) of communities indicated there were no past urban and commu- 27 years (versus one to 25 years) with a fairly uniform dis- tribution. Twenty communities (versus 12) indicated they had discontinued urban forestry projects or programs. How- ever, responses indicated that a number of projects still existed. There were also a large number of one-time projects, such as tree plantings. Several communities had more than one of these. Responses indicating a discontinuation varied, from a lack of leadership, to the impact of Hurricane Katrina (which occurred in 2005), to a lack of funding and volunteers. Communities were queried on whether they employed an urban or community forester, similar specialist, or firm. Of those communities responding, 85.3% (versus 50.9%) said no, whereas 12.3% (versus 8.2%) indicated they had one, and 2.5% (versus 10.1%) did not respond to this question. Among the 20 communities that stated they had engaged a forester, similar specialist, or firm, most hired several, and this included land- scape architects (n = 8), arborists (n = 7), land-use planners (n = 6), grounds maintenance (n = 5), and a multitude of other entities (n = 14). Only one community stated they were em- ploying a full-time urban forester. In 2011, a total of 40 entities (versus 14 for 2004) were hired by all those indicating they had engaged an urban or community forester, similar specialist, or firm. When communities were asked if they intended to hire an urban or community forester, similar specialist, or firm in the future, only 2.5% (versus 12.2%) indicated so, while 52.8% (versus 53.7%) had no intention. Fifty-five communities (versus 28) were still debating the issues. In 2004, 77 communities did not respond or indicated the question was not applicable. In 2011, 18 commu- nities did not answer the question, while ‘not applicable’ was not given as a response choice. Of communities that intended to hire in the future, there was a narrower set of responses limited to a land- scape architect, horticulturalist, or arborist. This was in contrast to 2004, where there was a wider array of responses focusing on a ©2013 International Society of Arboriculture >10,000 2011 96.9 71.9 75.0 * 65.6 81.3 78.1 2004 62.3 46.5 43.4 43.4 42.8 42.8 * Total 2011 77.9 51.5 52.1 * 51.5 51.5 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
