152 Hauer et al.: Local Outcomes of Federal and State Urban & Community Forestry Programs Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2011. 37(4): 152–159 Local Outcomes of Federal and State Urban & Community Forestry Programs Richard J. Hauer, Gary R. Johnson, and Michael A. Kilgore Abstract. Increasing local urban and community forestry (U&CF) programs and activities in the United States is a goal of state and fed- eral U&CF programs. This study found local U&CF programs within the 50 United States increased in activity between 1997 and 2002 at a 2.1% annual rate of increase. Several attributes of state U&CF forestry programs from a multiple regression model and correla- tion analysis partially explain the increase in local U&CF program activity. The number of technical assists in a state were a strong pre- dictor for increased local activity. Less certainty was found with state money used to fund the state U&CF program or the use of cost-share as- sistance (Federal Cooperative Forestry Assistance Challenge Cost-share Grants) and this increase. Study findings provide evidence that state and federal U&CF programs within the United States are furthering the building of capacity and development of local U&CF programs. Key Words. Building Capacity; Financial and Technical Assistance; Urban and Community Forestry. Urban forestry exists at local, state, and federal levels with- in the United States. Each level has roles with the outcome of growing and maintaining an urban tree population. Local ur- ban forestry programs are focused on planting, maintaining, and removing trees as needed (Elmendorf et al. 2003); Trei- man and Gartner 2004; Kuhns et al. 2005). State urban and community forestry (U&CF) programs were created to assist urban forestry efforts at local levels (Casey and Miller 1988), while federal U&CF programs assist states and local entities to ultimately grow urban tree populations (Hauer et al. 2008). An important need for enhancing urban forestry activities ex- ists at the local level. The majority (58%) of communities within the United States currently do little or nothing to manage their tree populations (Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004; Hauer 2005; Hauer and Johnson 2008). Several reasons (e.g., commu- nity members championing an urban forestry cause, funding, community size, technical ability and experience of staff, politi- cal support, program cost, and/or equipment) explain the ability or inability of local urban forestry programs to implement sys- tematic efforts to manage urban tree populations (Kielbaso 1990; Tschantz and Sacamano 1994; Elmendorf et al. 2003; Schroeder et al. 2003; Treiman and Gartner 2004; Kuhns et al. 2005; Wall et al. 2006; Stevenson et al. 2008). Even though only 42% of communities are known to demonstrate urban forestry activity, this is an increase from 28% in 1997 and 7% in 1987 (Hanson et al. 1987, as cited in Davis 1993; Hauer 2005). Activity can range from rudimentary efforts such as tree planting only, to programs with sufficient inputs to sustain the urban forest at a desired level (Clark et al. 1997; Hauer 2006; Hauer and Johnson 2008). In the United States, state and federal U&CF programs were first created in the late 1960s and early 1970s to provide tech- nical and financial assistance to local urban forestry programs ©2011 International Society of Arboriculture (Hauer et al. 2008). The Federal Farm Bill of 1990 (P.L. 101- 513) substantially increased U&CF funding for the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). This resulted in state programs increasing technical and financial assistance to local urban forestry programs (Casey and Miller 1988; Hort- science and Aslan Group 2004; Hauer 2005; Hauer and John- son 2008; Hauer et al. 2008). State and federal investments in local UF programs undertook to enhance local program capac- ity, foster development and enhancements of program structure and inputs, and move communities toward a sustainable urban forest (Clark et al. 1997; Dwyer et al. 2003; Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004; U.S. House of Representatives 2004; Koni- jnendijk et al. 2004; Hauer 2006). For example, The USFS, through the U&CF program, has as a stated role to “increase the capacity of State forestry agencies, local governments, and the private sector to create and implement local programs that will sustain and improve urban and community natural resources.” State and federal U&CF program cooperation occurs through federal technical and financial support of state U&CF programs and regular federal assessments of state U&CF program out- comes (Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004; Hauer et al. 2008). These assessments or program reviews are used, along with an- nual reporting, to retain, modify, and create future assistance mechanisms to support increasing local U&CF activity. Fi- nancial and technical assistance are two common mechanisms used to ideally lead to increased local U&CF program activi- ties. This federal and state cooperative effort has expanded from pilot and rudimentary efforts in the late 1960s and early 1970s to all states now having a state U&CF coordinator and often re- gional staff who deliver state U&CF program activities (Hauer and Johnson 2008; Hauer et al. 2008). But have federal and state U&CF programs led to a change in local U&CF activity?
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition: