Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 39(4): July 2013 Table 6. Percentage of Mississippi community leaders aware of funding sources for urban and community forestry projects or programs as indicated by community size during 2004 (n = 159)z and 2011 (n = 163)y <2,000 16.1 19.6 10.3 4.3 12.6 16.3 3.4 2.2 2.3 1.1 . Inhabitants 2,000–10,000 45.0 28.2 35.0 17.9 17.5 7.7 2.5 2.6 2.5 0.0 >10,000 Total Transportation Enhancement Tree Planting Program (T-21) 2004 2011 Federal Cooperative Forestry Assistance Grants 2004 2011 Partnership Enhancement Monetary Grants 2004 2011 Other funding 2004 2011 78.1 53.1 Urban and Community Forestry Assistance Challenge Grants 2004 2011 71.9 37.5 25.0 12.5 9.4 6.3 6.3 3.1 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. munities, regardless of size, were aware of other programs, such as the Partnership Enhancement Monetary Grants at 3.1% (versus 4.4%). In addition, tallied responses across all communities indicated little awareness of other exist- ing funding sources, coming in at 1.2% (versus 3.1%) for adopting urban and community forestry programs (Table 6). Categorization of Current Versus Past Urban Forestry Programs The top five urban and community forestry projects or activities in which communities previously participated were similar to 2004 with the exception of mulching programs, which supplanted Christmas tree disposal activities. It was indicated that 44.8% of surveyed communities (versus 43.4% in 2004) participated in tree-planting activities. Thirty-eight percent participated in city and community park preservation (versus 35.8%), 24.5% in Arbor Day or Earth Day promo- tions or celebrations (versus 23.9%), 21.5% in tree protec- tion or maintenance (versus 21.4%), and 19.6% in a mulch- ing program (versus 17.6%). When examining the responses by community size, large communities had greater partici- pation in these programs compared to small communities. Medium-sized municipalities were closer in their responses to small communities. Similar results were found in 2004. Communications Media The most preferred media in which communities would like to receive information about urban and community forestry were e-mail (44.2%), workshops (40.5%), websites (39.9%), newsletters (37.4%), and pamphlets or brochures (33.7%). This list varied somewhat versus 2004 when workshops (41.5%), pamphlets or brochures (38.4%), educational kits (37.1%), newsletters (33.3%), and County Forestry Agent contacts (32.7%) were the top categories. 35.8 28.2 28.9 14.1 16.4 13.5 4.4 3.1 3.1 1.2 DISCUSSION Based on a similar response rate to 2004 and similarity of responses by community size, the study authors felt that the survey effort has garnered the highest response possible from this population group. Similar to 2004, this rate was higher than that of Watson (2004) with 22%, Schroeder et al. (2003) with 49%, and Ries et al. (2007) with 51%, but lower than that of Treiman and Gartner (2004) with 60%, Elmendorf et al. (2003) with 71%, Stevenson et al. (2008) with 76%, and Hauer et al. (2011) with 84%. In 2011, the survey asked for the position title of the individual completing the survey. Results showed the majority of respondents to be mayors. Since this question was not asked in 2004, it cannot be assumed that the same individuals, by position title, were responding to this survey; however, personal communication with many of the cities showed more often mayors were filling out the survey. Similar to the 2004 study, there may be a number of con- tributing reasons for a lack of a greater response or interest on the part of some communities. Large cities in Mississippi pos- sessed the resources to conduct urban and community forest- ry programs. Small cities or communities with smaller fiscal budgets usually do not have the needed monetary or technical resources. This result was consistent with studies by Gron- inger et al. (2002), Elmendorf et al. (2003), Ries et al. (2007), and Stevenson et al. (2008). Groninger et al. (2002) found that many rural communities in Illinois, U.S., lack techni- cal expertise in tree maintenance, inventorying of existing tree resources, and were less likely to participate in state and federal urban and community forestry programs. Elmendorf et al. (2003) reviewed several studies and provided ample evi- dence that smaller communities in Pennsylvania, spent far less than larger communities and employ limited or no urban and community forestry programs. Ries et al. (2007) found that only 26% of small Oregon cities had access to ISA Certified Arborists, compared to 100% of larger cities with access to them. Stevenson et al. (2008) indicated that lack of technical assistance was more important to smaller municipalities than larger ones. The downturn in the economy, which occurred in 2008, may have impacted this survey research, as well as many of the study results. This may account, in part, for the lower response rate from smaller communities, as they could not see urban and community forestry as a priority, given other constraints. In addition, some communities may have chosen not to participate because it seemed as though their constitu- ents were not interested in urban and community forestry. Simi- lar to 2004, among all communities that submitted responses, few community leaders felt that the majority of their commu- nity thought urban and community forestry was important. In general, the survey sample of Mississippi’s communi- ties indicated an increase in the number of community leaders with a level of awareness or interest in urban and community forestry. Also, when queried on the five highest categories of familiarity, wildlife habitat, erosion reduction, and recreation were all ranked during both survey periods. This survey has es- tablished these categories and their association with urban and community forestry among community leaders in Mississippi. There were Mississippi communities that did want to establish urban and community forestry programs, but they lacked the fund- ing resources. Similar to 2004, community officials indicated that ©2013 International Society of Arboriculture 153
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
