Journal of Arboriculture 31(6): November 2005 287 Figure 1. Proportion of communities contacted (light hatched bars) and responding (dark hatched bars), and survey response rate (solid bars) by population class. This was a census (question- naires were mailed to all 237 incorporated Utah communities); therefore, the population distribution of contacted communities is identical to the population distribution of Utah communities. The dashed line is the overall response rate of 58.2%; solid bars below the line indicate lower response in that population class relative to the overall response rate, and bars over the line indicate a greater relative response rate. Level of Support. Active and successful programs need the support of community residents and leaders (Tschantz and Sacamano 1995; Elmendorf et al. 2003). We asked our survey participants to rate the level of support shown for their town’s urban/community forestry program from community residents, city/town government elected officials, and city/town employees or staff. None of the respondents rated any of the groups as being opposed to the forestry program. However, more than 21% indicated that community residents had weak support compared to just over 13% for town officials and employees. About 12% of respondents felt that community residents strongly support the program, while 22% felt strong support from their town’s elected officials and 29% from their town’s employees. Overall support seems fairly strong, with about 80% of respondents feeling that all three groups show at least some support for their community’s forestry program (sum of the support, moderate support, and strong support levels). Local avenues used to foster community support for forestry programs were town/city newsletters (listed by 44% of respondents), the local newspaper (24%), school pro- grams (21%), and the town Web site (18%). Very few respondents indicated local radio (5%) and television (1.5%). Presumably few have access to television stations, though radio should be more widely available. Thompson and Ahern (2000) also found that support was moderately strong from the public and stronger from community officials in California. Tree Board and Arbor Day Celebration. Fewer than one-quarter (23%) of respondents indicated that their community had a tree board or similar committee (e.g., shade tree commission), but half of the those who did not are interested in establishing one. This would likely be a good group to focus on when forestry agencies and educators target their assistance. In contrast, about half of Washington (47%; Studer 2003) and California (50%; Thompson and Ahern 2000) communities had tree boards. About one-quarter (26%) of Utah communities celebrate Arbor Day, and, of those, 66% currently have a tree board, pointing out a possible important relationship between having a public event that generates community support, like an Arbor Day ceremony, and support for a stronger community forestry program. Utah’s Arbor Day participation rate is much lower than the 49% reported nationwide (Kielbaso 1990) or 50% in Pennsylvania (Elmendorf et al. 2003). Our experience is that Arbor Day celebrations also can be good ways to generate support with mayors and others in the political realm. Arbor Day celebrations and the planting of community trees are rarely controver- sial and generally viewed as positive events. They also lead toward Tree City USA status, which promotes good commu- nity forestry programs through building political and public support. Sources for Community Forestry Assistance. When asked who they go to for community forestry assistance (assistance was not defined), only 3% of communities indicated that they did not need assistance. A majority indicated they obtained assistance from a local nursery or tree care business (57%) and from USU/County Extension (53%). More than a third (36%) said they use the state forestry agency (FF&SL). Least used were the citizen tree planting group TreeUtah (19%) and the Utah Community Forest Council/Utah ISA (16%). These data are similar to the findings of FF&SL’s early 1990s study. They differ from figures for Oregon (Reichenbach et al. 1992), where Extension was the top information source (50%), followed by state forestry (46%) and the U.S. Forest Service (37%), with nurseries fourth at 34%. The presence of Extension offices in nearly every county in Utah probably increases use of Extension for community forestry assistance, though relatively few Extension agents in Utah have community forestry expertise. Because Extension and local nurseries play such critical roles in helping community forestry programs in Utah, focusing educational efforts on nursery ©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
