Journal of Arboriculture 31(6): November 2005 285 CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAMS IN UTAH, U.S. By Michael R. Kuhns1 , Brook Lee2 Abstract. Urban/community forestry programs in Utah, U.S., were studied; a questionnaire was sent to community forestry contacts in every incorporated community in the state in summer 2002. Respondents reported on program support, budget, management authority and practices, strengths and weaknesses, and training and information needs. Program support from residents, town officials, and employees was fairly strong, with 80% indicating some support. One-quarter of towns have a tree board and celebrate Arbor Day. Towns obtain assistance from nurseries or tree care businesses, Extension, and state forestry, in that order. Two-thirds of communities have a tree-related budget, with a mean budget of US$44,000 and a median budget of $3,000, averaging $2.58 per resident and $25.16 per tree. Total budget generally increased with population, but the smallest towns had the largest per capita and per tree budgets. Most towns spend enough to qualify for Tree City USA’s requirement of $2 per capita. The ratio of spending for maintenance versus planting increased from 0.6 for small towns to 4.1 for larger cities. Just under two-thirds of communities have forestry programs. The average number of public trees per town is about 2,300 (median 150), with numbers of trees increasing as population increased, but with trees per capita generally decreasing as population increased, ranging from 0.21 to 0.43 trees per person. Key Words. Urban forestry; community forestry; program; Utah; arboriculture; characteristics; volunteer. , and Douglas K. Reiter3 enhanced funding and staffing of U&CF programs, and the availability of better-trained arborists. Several comprehensive or multi-state studies have examined community forestry programs in the United States. Tschantz and Sacamano (1995) studied urban forestry policies, budgets, and program activities throughout the United States in 1994 and made comparisons with results from a 1986 study by Kielbaso and others (Kielbaso et al. 1988; Kielbaso 1990). Kielbaso and others also conducted two earlier comprehensive municipal forestry studies in 1974 (Ottman and Kielbaso 1976) and 1982 (Giedraitis and Kielbaso 1982). Watson conducted a study of urban forestry programs throughout the U.S. South, described in Watson (2003) and detailed in an on-line report (Watson 2004). Carroll (2003) reported results of a study of urban forestry programs in six large northeastern cities. Several single-state assessments also have been done, including Oregon in 1992 (Reichenbach et al. 1992), three in California with the most recent in 1997–1999 (Thompson and Ahern 2000), north- eastern Pennsylvania in 2000 (Elmendorf et al. 2003), Missouri in 2001 (Treiman and Gartner 2004), and Washing- ton in 2002 (Studer 2003). Unfortunately, dissemination of results of many of these and other studies suffers from a lack of publication in the refereed literature. In Utah, much is known about U&CF programs anecdot- Utah, similar to much of the noncoastal western United States, is a difficult place to grow and care for urban trees. Site factors, such as a dry, near-desert climate, cold winters, hot summers, and poor soils, combine with social and economic factors such as tight budgets and rapid population growth, leading to stressed urban forests that need, but often do not get, attention. Kuhns’ (1998) study of urban and community forestry (U&CF) in the Intermountain West described a region with relatively low population living in cities and towns scattered over a large area, major population growth, lack of native trees in the valleys where most people live, harsh conditions for growing trees, poorly funded and staffed U&CF programs, and lack of community and citizen awareness and knowledge, especially regarding tree selection and landscape design and care. Even so, these experts predicted an improving future for U&CF in the region, due to population growth and demographic change causing in- creased citizen interest and awareness, possibilities for ally, but little detailed information is available, and many communities are never heard from. A study was conducted by the Utah state forestry agency in the early 1990s, but its usefulness was limited by low survey return rates. Other studies of community forestry in Utah include Kuhns’ (1998) study of U&CF in the Intermountain West (including Utah) and studies of two unusual Utah communities, Hill Air Force Base (Adkins et al. 1997) and the Camp Williams Utah National Guard headquarters near Draper, Utah. Also, McPherson and Rowntree’s (1989) study of urban forestry inventory data from 22 U.S. cities included one Utah city, Murray. This paper reports results of a study of U&CF programs in Utah towns and cities. The study’s purpose was to characterize U&CF management in Utah and to provide information to improve management. Only Utah communi- ties were studied, so the extent to which these findings are indicative of the experiences of other states and communi- ties in the region is unclear. ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture
November 2005
| 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
