152 Grado et al.: Mississippi’s Governmental Entities Relative to Urban Forestry part- or full-time urban forester, landscape architect, land-use plan- ner, or arborist to meet their urban and community forestry needs. Although several communities did not have existing urban or community forestry programs, 30.7% (versus 34.6%) indicated a desire to implement one in the future (Table 3), while 53.4% (versus 48.4%) were still considering the option. Examination of responses by community size revealed that 65.6% of large communities (versus 62.5%) planned to initiate forestry projects compared to only 17.4% (versus 19.5%) of small communities. For medium-sized communities, 33.3% (versus 45%) planned to initiate these types of projects. Table 3. Percentage of Mississippi community leaders’ inten- tions to initiate future urban and community forestry projects or programs as indicated by community size during 2004 (n = 159)z and 2011 (n = 163)y 2004 2011 <2,000 19.5 17.4 . Inhabitants 2,000–10,000 45.0 33.3 >10,000 62.5 65.6 Total 34.6 30.7 z In 2004, responses by community size were 87, 40, and 32, respectively. y In 2011, responses by community size were 92, 39, and 32, respectively. Program Implementation and Maintenance Similar to 2004, the factors considered the greatest hindrance to program adoption were lack of funding with a mean re- sponse of 1.4 (versus 1.6), budget restrictions at 1.4 (versus 1.7), and staff limitations at 1.7 (same) (Table 4). Medium and large communities felt all three factors were a greater hin- drance in 2011 than they did in 2004, while small communi- ties ranked funding and staff limitations the same and bud- get restrictions as a slightly greater hindrance than in 2004. Likewise, factors considered the most important for com- regard munities in to their urban and community forestry needs were lack of funding with a mean response of 4.3 (ver- sus 4.4), budget restrictions at 4.1 (versus 4.3), and staff limi- tations at 3.8 (versus 4) (Table 5). Small and medium com- munities ranked them similar or slightly less important as compared to 2004. However, large communities ranked funding and budget restrictions as more important than in 2004. Table 4. Mississippi community leaders’ ranking of the top three factors causing greatest hindrance to program adop- tion as indicated by community size during 2004 (n = 159) and 2011 (n = 163) (1 being greatest hindrance; 5 being least hindrance). Inhabitants <2,000 Mean Funding 2004 2011 Budget restrictions 2004 2011 Staff limitations 2004 2011 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.7 2,000–10,000 >10,000 Total Mean Mean Mean Table 5. Mississippi community leaders’ ranking of the top three factors most important to urban and community for- estry needs as indicated by community size during 2004 (n = 159) and 2011 (n = 163) (1 being least important; 5 being most important). Inhabitants <2,000 Mean Funding 2004 2011 Budget restrictions 2004 2011 Staff limitations 2004 2011 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.0 3.6 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.5 4.1 4.3 3.9 3.6 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.8 Awareness of Resources and Funding Opportunities For communities, the most recognizable resource or indus- try contact was the Mississippi Forestry Commission (MFC), with 57.1% of surveyed communities (versus 57.9% in 2004) aware of the agency. The Mississippi State University (MSU) Extension Service was next at 56.4% (not included in 2004 survey), followed by National Arbor Day at 55.2% (versus 67.9%), Earth Day at 50.3% (versus 55.3%), and Tree City USA, which was identified by 39.3% (versus 49.1%) of sur- veyed communities. Other programs or resources, such as the USDA Forest Service at 36.2% (not included in 2004 survey), the National Urban Forestry Council at 19% (ver- sus 11.3%), and the Mississippi Urban Forestry Council at 19% (versus 11.9%) were also noted. Additional programs or resources were identified at lower levels of recognition. When examining responses by community size, large mu- nicipalities had a high recognition level for the MFC at 68.8% (versus 78.1%), MSU Extension Service at 65.6% (not included in 2004), National Arbor Day at 75.0%(versus 78.1%), Earth Day at 75% (versus 62.5%), and Tree City USA at 78.1% (ver- sus 87.5%). For small and medium communities the aware- ness levels were MFC at 50% and 64.1%, respectively (versus 42.5% and 75.0% in 2004, respectively); MSU Ex- tension Service at 51.1% and 61.5%, respectively (not in- cluded in 2004), National Arbor Day at 52.2% and 46.2%, respectively (versus 62.1% and 72.5%, respectively), Earth Day at 45.7% and 41%, respectively (versus 49.4% and 62.5%, respectively), and Tree City USA at 22.8% and 46.2%, respectively (versus 25.3% and 70%, respectively). Regarding awareness of potential funding sources, 28.2% of respondents (versus 35.8%) were aware of funding op- portunities through the Transportation Enhancement Tree Planting Program (T-21 Money), and 14.1% (versus 28.9%) knew of the Urban and Community Forestry Assistance Chal- lenge Grants (Table 6). Disaggregating this data by com- munity size indicated that larger communities were better informed on funding availability for programs, such as the T-21 at 53.1% (versus 78.1%), Challenge Grants at 37.5% (versus 71.9%), and Federal Cooperative Grants at 12.5% (versus 25%), than small or medium communities. Few com- 2,000–10,000 >10,000 Total Mean Mean Mean ©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
