286 Kuhns et al.: Urban Forestry Programs in Utah METHODS A mail survey was developed and implemented during the early summer of 2002 to assess Utah’s community forestry programs. The survey contained 31 questions and was sent to the person responsible for managing a community’s tree and forestry program to assess the nature of the towns’ forestry program and identify needs. Questions covered (1) forestry program support; (2) tree-related budget; (3) U&CF manage- ment authority, practices, and program level; (4) strengths and weaknesses; and (5) training and information needs. The mailing list of 237 Utah community contacts was obtained from the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FF&SL). Each incorporated community in Utah was represented by one contact identified as the person respon- sible for managing the community’s trees. The people contacted were municipal employees or public officials and held a variety of positions, including mayors, town clerks, city councilmen, urban foresters, parks managers, and cemetery sextants. Surveys were sent out the first week of June 2002, and the survey mailing design (Dillman 2000) included (1) the initial mailing with a survey form, cover letter, and self-addressed stamped envelope; (2) a reminder postcard to all recipients 2 weeks after the initial mailing; and (3) a second cover letter and another copy of the questionnaire mailed to those who had not returned the survey 2 weeks after the reminder postcard was sent out. In an attempt to obtain more responses, each of the non- respondents was contacted by telephone and encouraged to fill out the survey. Survey recipients were offered an incentive to fill out and return the survey in the form of an interactive CD program, the Utah Tree Browser. Of the 237 questionnaires mailed, 138 were filled out and returned for an overall response rate of 58.2%. Data compilation and statistical analysis was done using SPSS software. Means in the tables and text of this article were derived by calculating the appropriate figure for each community, summing for all communities in a population class or the entire state, and then dividing by the numbers of communities involved. For example, the budget figures in the “Mean total” row in Table 1 were derived by adding the budget for each community in the population class and dividing by the number of communities in that class. The figures in the “All towns” column were derived similarly, by adding the figures for all of the responding communities and dividing by the number of communities. Standard errors of means were calculated as the standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample (or population) size. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Response and Bias A 58.2% response rate is fairly reasonable for a self- administered mail survey using these methods (Dillman 2000). It is lower than the 71% response rate in Pennsylva- ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture nia (Elmendorf et al. 2003), similar to 60% in Missouri (Treiman and Gartner 2004) and 63% in Oregon (Reichenbach et al. 1992), and exceeds the response rates of 22% in the U.S. South (Watson 2004) and 34% (Tschantz and Sacamano 1995) and 38% (Kielbaso 1990) in nation- wide studies. Responding communities represent 62% of Utah’s total population. Population represented by responding commu- nities ranged from 0% in Piute and San Juan counties (there were no responses in those counties) to 76% in Cache County, the latter being where Utah State University (USU) is located and therefore where communities might be most likely to want to respond to a USU-sponsored survey. Responding towns and cities in the state’s four most popu- lous counties of Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber repre- sented, respectively, 61%, 71%, 75%, and 44% of those counties’ population. Though most large towns responded to the survey, several were absent, including five cities with a total population of almost 200,000. Our results likely are biased toward larger communities. Figure 1 shows the population distribution of contacted communities with light hatched bars and responding communities with dark hatched bars. Because all 237 incorporated communities in the state were contacted, the survey is a census, and the light hatched bars also indicate the overall population distribution of Utah communities. The contacted and responding distributions match each other fairly well. When the dark hatched bar is below the light hatched bar, that class is under-represented and vice versa. This also is indicated by the solid bars, which repre- sent the response rate for each population class, with the dashed line the overall response rate of 58.2%. Solid bars above the dashed line indicate over-representation of a population class and below the dashed line indicate under- representation. Response rate increased as community population increased, with the exception of communities from 1,000 to 3,000 population, which also had above- average response rates. It seems likely that towns with active community forestry programs were more likely to respond, especially because such towns would be more likely to have a knowledgeable person to fill out the questionnaire. As will be shown later, the most active programs were in communi- ties above 10,000 population—the communities with the highest response rates. Community Support Characteristics Community support for urban forestry programs was characterized with questions about financial support of the communities’ urban/community forestry programs, status of a tree board or similar committee, celebration of Arbor Day, sources for community forestry assistance, and forestry management information sources that are currently used and preferred.
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
