156 Hauer et al.: Local Outcomes of Federal and State Urban & Community Forestry Programs and increased local U&CF activity. Staffing levels scaled to the number of communities in a state were negatively related to in- creased activity in the regression model. An interpretation of this may be that states with more communities have proportionally fewer staff, which affects the delivery of technical assistance. Technical assistance was a positive indicator of increased activ- ity and likewise had a strong positive correlation with staffing level. There were other attributes of the state U&CF program, such as coordination with the state urban forestry council and grants, which were not significant in the final a priori models. That does not mean these or other attributes measured, or not quantified in this study are unimportant, but may in fact be ac- counted for in other significant variables. For example, staff is needed to carry out technical and financial assistance. There was a strong positive correlation between FTE (scaled to commu- nity) and the number of technical assists, federal money, and state money. Federal and state money sources also had a sig- nificant positive relationship with the number of technical and financial assists to local urban forestry programs. Alternatively, a decrease in staff and funding could correspond to a reduc- tion in local urban forestry activity. State U&CF councils help set state U&CF program policy, which is reflected in how state U&CF programs conduct their assistance programs (Hauer 2007; Hauer and Johnson 2008). Key study outcomes and their relationship related to local urban forestry development follow. Technical and Financial Assistance Effects Financial assistance and technical assistance are two specific means used to build local U&CF capacity measured through great- er local activity in U&CF programs (Dwyer et al. 2003; Elmendorf et al. 2003; Hauer and Johnson 2008; Hauer et al. 2008). This is the first study to quantify the effects of technical and financial as- sistance together on building local U&CF activity at the national level. Others studies have looked at financial assistance programs within an individual state, but empirical findings of the effects of technical assistance on change in local U&CF activity are not known to exist (Still et al. 1996; Vitosh and Thompson 2000; Bird 2002). There was no attempt to quantify and determine if differ- ent types of assistance forms (e.g., management plan develop- ment, inventory systems, tree planting, ordinance development) are better or worse than one another. Other studies have found financial assistance leads to increased tree management plans, Arbor Day celebrations, Tree City USA designations, tree ordi- nances, urban forest management plans, tree plantings, and tree inventories which seem primarily oriented with public lands (Still et al. 1996; Vitosh and Thompson 2000; Bird 2002; Hauer 2005). The study authors found technical assistance played an im- portant role with increased local U&CF activity. Standardized beta coefficients are one way to provide a consistent mechanism for similarly comparing the net effect of model attributes. The standardized beta coefficients suggest the number of community contacts through technical assistance has a 2.9 times greater ef- fect on local U&CF change than state government money allo- cated to the U&CF program. Technical assistance contacts are an important way to build local U&CF activity and programs and for every technical assistance contact, a 0.743 change in activ- ity occurred. Thus, more than 70% of the time assistance results in increased activity. State U&CF coordinators also believe that technical assistance is slightly more effective at increasing lo- ©2011 International Society of Arboriculture cal U&CF capacity than financial assistance which is consis- tent with the a priori model results (Hauer 2005; Hauer 2007). Less certainty with financial assistance was found in this study for explaining increased local U&CF activity. Financial assistance, often through grants, provides money to fund activi- ties such as tree inventories, storm response planning, manage- ment plans, tree risk assessment, and others (Still et al. 1996; Vitosh and Thompson 2000; Bird 2002; Hauer et al. 2008). Fed- eral Challenge Grants or state money allocated through grants did not significantly explain a change in local U&CF activity in the regression model. This might reflect that only 39% of states used state money for grants, compared to 83% of states using federal money for grants (Hauer and Johnson 2008). Also, it is possible the time-period of this study did not allow outcomes of grants to fully materialize. The study authors also found a strong correlation with state government funding and its eventual distri- bution through grants (0.389, p = 0.012) and states that use state grants on activity (0.322, p = 0.040), suggesting importance of state money used for grants to ideally build local U&CF activity. These results compare with other studies from rural forests that found both technical and financial assistance mechanisms led to improved private forest management (Gaddis et al. 1995; Haines 1995; Cubbage et al. 1996; Kilgore and Blinn 2003). Studies of nonindustrial private forest owners of rural forests conclude technical assistance, financial assistance, and education led to positive outcomes in many but not all cases (e.g., increased number of planted trees, increased timber stand improvement, in- creased stumpage value, and greater residual remaining timber). When developing technical and financial assistance pro- grams, understanding the perceptions and beliefs of seekers of, providers for, assistance is useful. Recipients often believe financial assistance is the most important way to increase local U&CF capacity (Wray and Prestemon 1983; Bird 2002; Hort- science and Aslan Group 2004; Straka et al. 2005). However, state foresters and state U&CF coordinators believe that tech- nical assistance is more important when the state agency plays the provider role to local recipients. Thus, both financial and technical assistance are perceived important; however, contrary to recipient perceptions or desires, this study found technical assistance had a greater impact with increased local activity. Importance of Money Allocations for U&CF Program Outcomes Money is important to fund the state U&CF program. Money sourc- es for state U&CF programs come from many sources with federal and state money combined accounting for over 90% of monies that fund state U&CF programs (Hauer and Johnson 2008). The amount of program money allocated by state government to the state U&CF program was important and positively related to technical assistance, financial assistance, and staffing levels. Approximately 40% of states do not directly fund their state U&CF program, which instead relies on federal or other funding sources (Hauer and Johnson 2008). No relationship was found for federal money allocated to state U&CF programs and local activity change within the multiple re- gression models. This does not mean that federal money alloca- tions are unimportant. Hauer (2005) did find a moderate correla- tion (0.394, p = 0.011) between change in local activity and federal money allocated to states. The effect of federal money on increased local U&CF activity could be reflected through federal money al-
July 2011
| 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
