294 Kuhns et al.: Urban Forestry Programs in Utah Many communities appear ready and willing to take advantage of assistance from agencies, nonprofits, and other groups. However, availability of assistance is limited, and prioritization therefore must occur. The smallest communities (1,000 population and under) have such poorly developed programs that they may not have the capacity to take advan- tage of advanced assistance, while few large cities need much assistance in developing their programs. The best approach to affect a large population might be to spend the greatest effort on elevating program status and activity in mid-sized communi- ties from 1,000 to 10,000 and possibly up to 50,000 popula- tion. These towns may have the most capacity to take advantage of intensive assistance. More elementary assistance, like small project grants and help with establishing a tree board or a simple ordinance, could be directed at smaller communi- ties, while help with larger, more involved project grants and ordinances could be aimed at larger towns and cities. Educa- tion is needed across the board, from the smallest to the largest communities, from city foresters to mayors, city councils, and the citizenry; and with subjects ranging from arboriculture to program development to topping. LITERATURE CITED Adkins, R. van-C., M.R. Kuhns, D.J. Blahna, and M.W. Blood. 1997. Urban forest management at Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah. J. Arboric. 23(4):136–143. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005. Inflation Calculator. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Indexes Web site, www.bls.gov/cpi/ home.htm (accessed 4/4/05). Carroll, P. 2003. Urban Forestry in Large Cities: ‘Cutting Edge’ or ‘Cutting Out’, pp. 18–20. In Proceedings of the 2003 National Urban Forest Conference, 17–20 Sep. 2003, San Antonio, TX. American Forests, Washington, DC. Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Wiley, New York, NY. Elmendorf, W.F., V.J. Cotrone, and J.T. Mullen. 2003. Trends in urban forestry practices, programs, and sustainability: Contrasting a Pennsylvania, U.S., study. J. Arboric. 29(4):237–247. Flatley, T. 2001. Cities demonstrate the importance of the urban forest. City Trees 37(1). www.urban-forestry.com. Giedraitis, J., and J.J. Kielbaso. 1982. Municipal Tree Manage- ment. Urban Data Service Report 14(1). International City Management Association, Washington DC. Kielbaso, J.J., B. Beauchamp, K. Larison, and C. Randall. 1988. Trends in Urban Forestry Management. Baseline Data Report 20(1). International City Management Association, Washington DC. Kielbaso, J.J. 1990. Trends and issues in city forests. J. Arboric. 16(3):69–76. Kuhns, M.R. 1998. Urban/community forestry in the Intermountain West. J. Arboric. 24(5):280–285. ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture McPherson, E.G., and R.A. Rowntree. 1989. Using structural measures to compare twenty-two U.S. street tree populations. Landsc. J. 8:13–23. National Association of State Foresters. 1988. Forestry: A Community Tradition. National Association of State Foresters, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 23 pp. Nowak, D.J., M.H. Noble, S.M. Sisinni, and J.F. Dwyer. 2001. People & trees: Assessing the U.S. urban forest resource. J. For. 99(3):37–42. Ottman, K., and J.J. Kielbaso. 1976. Managing Municipal Trees. Urban Data Service Report 1976, International City Management Association, Washington DC. Reichenbach, M., and Community Planning Workshop. 1992. Urban and Community Forestry in Oregon: An Assessment with Recommendations for Initiating Action. Report prepared for Oregon Department of Forestry, August 1992. 62 pp. Studer, N. 2003. Urban Forest Program Development Washington State Municipalities, pp. 21–23. In Proceedings of the 2003 National Urban Forest Conference, 17–20 Sep. 2003, San Antonio, TX. American Forests, Washington, DC. Thompson, R.P., and J.J. Ahern. 2000. The State of Urban Forestry in California. Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute Technical Report No. 9. San Luis Obispo, CA. Treiman, T., and J. Gartner. 2004. Community forestry in Missouri, U.S.: Attitudes and knowledge of local officials. J. Arboric. 30(4):205–213. Tschantz, B.A., and P.L. Sacamano. 1995. Municipal Tree Management in the United States, pp. 198-201. In Proceedings of the 2003 National Urban Forest Conference, 17–20 Sep. 2003, San Antonio, TX. American Forests, Washington, DC. USDA Forest Service (USDA-FS). 2003. Performance Measurement Accountability System Desk Guide. USDA Forest Service State & Private Forestry, Cooperative Forestry/Urban & Community Forestry. 17 pp. www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/library/PMAS/DeskGuide 2004.pdf. Watson, W.T. 2003. Evolution of Municipal Urban Forestry in the South, pp. 14-17. In Proceedings of the 2003 National Urban Forest Conference, 17–20 Sep. 2003, San Antonio, TX. American Forests, Washington, DC. ———. 2004. State of Urban Forestry in the South: Final Report. 6 pp. www.urbanforestrysouth.org. Acknowledgments. Support for this project came from the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Land, the Institute for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism at Utah State University, and the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Logan, Utah. Approved as journal paper no. 7661.
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
