Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(2): March 2008 ning documents was found. This creates difficulties with inte- gration of the urban forest resource with the rural forest resource and the overall state and national development of policies, plan- ning, and monitoring for sustainable forest resources regardless of location. This study also found that state U&CF programs reside in a variety of departments nationally, which may create challenges for coordination (Kilgore et al. 2005). State forestry councils are used to foster coordination and development of forestry policies, goals, and objectives within a state. Nearly 60% of councils were rated as good or excellent with overall state-level U&CF coordination. The federal require- ment for councils coincides with the increase from approxi- mately 10% of states before 1990 to 100% now having one. This suggests that the Federal Farm Bill of 1990 was an important part that led to the vast development of councils. Ideally, coun- cils meet regularly, provide a means for participatory input with U&CF programming and direction within a state, and provide strategic advice for the direction of U&CF programs within the state. We found that state councils were active in providing advice to the state forester for state U&CF program implemen- tation, met regularly, and include a broad representation of con- stituents as part of the state council. One area that respondents felt improvement could be made was addressing diverse popu- lations through U&CF efforts. National strategic plans and ma- terials have been formulated to address this issue (McDonough et al. 2003; USDA-FS 2003). State U&CF councils are one way but not the only way to address U&CF coordination needs. The approaches taken are varied and future research on the effective- ness of different approaches is needed. Coordination is important considering that programs and organizations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests are found in many agencies among states nationally (Konijnendijk et al. 2000; Ellefson et al. 2002). Coordination is used by organizations to achieve shared goals and objectives through methods that arrange, match, or harmonize policies and programs (Kilgore and Ellefson 1992). Coordination fur- ther serves to facilitate management across a regional context and jurisdiction with the different owners and managers of the urban forest (Dwyer et al. 2003). The National Urban and Com- munity Forestry Advisory Committee (NUCFAC) serves as a national U&CF coordination mechanism (USDA-FS 2002). The NUCFAC functions to develop a national U&CF action plan; evaluate the implementation of that plan; and develop criteria for and submit recommendations with respect to the U&CF chal- lenge cost-share program under the Cooperative Forestry Assis- tance Act (NUCFAC 1998). Likewise, state U&CF councils serve as a coordination mechanism for state-level U&CF needs and most commonly in over 70% of states have both executive level and general member level organization. General U&CF council membership is largest with a mean of 62 members (range, 0 to 310). More formal executive U&CF council mem- bership varies between zero and 40 members with a mean of nine members. This is consistent with Kilgore and Ellefson (1992) who found formal forestry coordinating mechanisms averaged 11 members (range, 5 to 30 members). They further suggest defining what coordination needs exist, developing membership in formal mechanisms to a workable number of members (e.g., 10) with individual and organization interests, and defining the authority of a formal group to make recommendations. States use a variety of U&CF coordinator mechanisms that vary from a dedicated person, to regional U&CF staff conducting 81 the role, or contracting volunteer coordination to outside sources such as nonprofit organizations. Volunteer partnerships are used to entice and involve local citizens in the development and man- agement of urban forests (Nichnadowicz 2000; Ricard 2005). Volunteer partnerships, if done right, can lead to sustainable urban forest projects (Jones et al. 2005). At a minimum, they can raise public awareness and appreciation for the urban forest (Van Herzele et al. 2005). They have also been found to foster change in local urban forests and urban forestry programs (Vitosh and Thompson 2000). Whether any of the different for- mats taken by volunteer programs vary in effectiveness and ef- ficiency was not addressed in this study. From this study and anecdotal reports from state and federal U&CF personnel, it is speculated that allowing states latitude in development of vol- unteer coordination mechanisms has fostered creative and pro- gram appropriate strategies. With the apparent success with developing state U&CF pro- grams since the 1990 Federal Farm Bill, several suggestions were provided by coordinators on areas that are less than posi- tive. In many instances, this study found increases in the capacity of state U&CF programs to provide local U&CF assistance. Not all states were as successful, and those in general who had less state financial support had lower relative U&CF capacity (Hauer et al. 2008; Hauer and Johnson 2008). In these states, assistance to local urban forestry programs and staffing are lower. In gen- eral, the U&CF program was perceived as receiving less agency attention support than more traditional forestry efforts such as rural forestry management and fire control. This study also sup- ports this perception with staff time of dedicated U&CF person- nel being partially allocated to these traditional forestry prac- tices. Likely the allocation of time in these areas is beneficial to rural forest management; however, it reduces the capacity to support identified urban forestry needs. Formal incorporation of urban forestry into the statewide forestry planning is important for holistic forest management. This study suggests most urban forestry planning is developed independent of the statewide for- est planning process. The increasing migration of people and built environments within rural forests necessitates inclusion of urban forestry planning as part of the statewide planning process (Dwyer and Childs 2004). Coordination among urban forestry stakeholders is occurring nicely. Coordination among urban and rural forestry planning where lacking should increase linking the forest resource regardless of geography or population density. CONCLUSION This article reports on responses taken by state U&CF programs to meet four USFS program capacity areas that included the state U&CF program coordinator, volunteer coordination, state U&CF council, and program strategic plan. State U&CF pro- grams are meeting USFS requirements set for receiving Coop- erative Forestry Assistance. Each state now has a U&CF pro- gram coordinator, they used varying volunteer coordination ap- proaches, involve a state U&CF council for program guidance, and regularly update the strategic plan as needed. State U&CF programs were found to vary in ways taken to meet USFS guide- lines. Federal and state U&CF program managers can use these findings to continue building state and federal U&CF programs to meet the goal of increasing local urban forestry programs and the urban forest. ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture
March 2008
| 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
