Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(4): July 2011 located to states that was strongly correlated with money subse- quently accounted for and transferred to local U&CF programs through technical assists (0.473, p = 0.002) which was one of four predictors in the final a priori model. Finally, federal money ac- counts for 60% of state U&CF program funding and it is used to support staff which conduct technical assistance which was a significant attribute with building local urban forestry (Hauer and Johnson 2008). This study found moderate to strong correlations between federal and state funding sources and the number of tech- nical and financial assists in a state. Thus, even though the federal money attribute was not directly significant in explaining a change in the multiple regression model, it was presumably captured in other ways with the overall increase in local U&CF activity. A strong correlation exits between perception of the strength of state U&CF program continuation (0.666, p = 0.000) and state- level government funding (Hauer 2005). Interestingly, no rela- tionship existed between this perception and the level of federal funding (0.168, p = 0.293). A significant correlation (data not shown) was found in this study with the amount of state govern- ment funding of state U&CF programs and the year the state pro- gram was initiated (-0.352, p = 0.024), number of full-time equiv- alent state U&CF employees (0.468, p = 0.002), perception of adequacy with state government funding of the program (0.307, p = 0.017), and percentage of full-time employment the state U&CF coordinator would be at today if the federal U&CF program was not expanded in 1991 (0.460, p = 0.002). Correlation evidence suggests that elimination of federal funding would have less ef- fect on the state U&CF programs (-0.607, p = 0.000) that have taken an active role to use state funds above the base provided by the USFS. Thus, state U&CF programs that have been around longer and have a greater input of state government financing, have a tendency to have greater capacity to be self sufficient and led to greater local U&CF activity during the study time period. CONCLUSION In summary, this study found strong evidence that techni- cal assistance from state U&CF programs translates into in- creased local U&CF activity. It was determined there is less certainty with state money allocations to the state U&CF pro- gram or the use of grants and their relationship with increased local activity. The ten-year period of this study may impact discovery of a relationship between some indicators and the increased activity detected over the study period. This offers a model to study the outcome of state and federal U&CF pro- grams on local urban forestry activity in the future and over a longer period of time. Regardless, a link to increased local ac- tivity through activities from state U&CF programs was found. LITERATURE CITED Baughman, M.J. 1980. The role of government in urban forestry. In: Pro- ceedings of the 1979 Convention of the Society of American Forest- ers. Society of American Foresters. Washington, D.C. pp. 302–306. Bird, J. 2002. Pass-through Grants from Federal Sources to State Agen- cies as an Effective Tool to Develop Sustainable Community Forestry Programs at the Local Level. Unpublished manuscript. North Dakota State Forest Service, Bismarck, ND. 42 pp. Casey, C.J., and R.W. Miller. 1988. State government involvement in community forestry: A survey. Journal of Arboriculture 14:141–144. 157 Clark, J.R., N.P. Matheny, G. Cross, and V. Wake. 1997. A model of ur- ban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23:17–30. Cubbage, F.W., B.D. New, and R.J. Moulton. 1996. Evaluations of tech- nical assistance programs for nonindustrial private forest land own- ers. In: M.J. Baughman (Ed.), Proceedings for Symposium on Non- industrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Extension Special Programs. pp. 367–376. Davis, R.L. 1993. Street tree trends in Kansas and the influence of com- munity factors. Journal of Arboriculture 19:201–208. Dillman, D.A. 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method Second Edition 2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 523 pp. Dwyer, J.F., D.J. Nowak, and M.H. Noble. 2003. Sustaining urban for- ests. Journal of Arboriculture 29:49–55. Elmendorf, W.F., V.J. Cotrone, and J.T. Mullen. 2003. Trends in urban forestry practices, programs, and sustainability: Contrasting a Penn- sylvania, U.S., study. Journal of Arboriculture 29:237–248. Gaddis, D.A., B.D. New, F.W. Cubbage, R.C. Abt, and R.J. Moulton. 1995. Accomplishments and economic evaluations of the forestry in- centives program: A review. Southeastern Center for Forest Econom- ics Research Working Paper No. 78. 53 pp. Haines, T. 1995. Federal and state forestry cost-share assistance pro- grams: Structure, accomplishments, and future outlook. United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Southern Forest Experi- ment Station, New Orleans, LA. Research Paper SO-295, 18 pp. Ac- cessed December 31, 2010. Hauer, R.J. 2005. Urban Forest and Urban Forestry Capacity: Defining Capacity and Models of Capacity Building. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota. Accessed December 31, 2010. Hauer, R.J. 2006. Urban forestry capacity building and models. In: V.D. Phillips and R. Tschida (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Environmental Management for Sustainable Universi- ties, June 26–30, 2006. Global Environmental Management Educa- tion Center, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin- Stevens Point, WI. pp. 1–24. Hauer, R.J. 2007. State and federal development of local urban forest- ry activities. Proceedings of the 2007 Convention of the Society of American Foresters. Sustaining America’s Forests, Portland, OR. October 23–27, 2007. Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, MD. pp. 1–12. Hauer, R.J., and G.R. Johnson. 2008. State urban and community forestry program funding, technical assistance, and financial assistance within the 50 United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:280–289. Hauer, R.J., C.J. Casey, R.W. Miller. 2008. Advancement in state govern- ment involvement in urban and community forestry in the 50 United States: Changes in program status from 1986 to 2002. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:5–12. Hortscience and Aslan Group. 2004. Assessment of the USDA Forest Service Urban & Community Forestry Program. Prepared for the Na- tional Urban & Community Forestry Advisory Council, USDA Forest Service. Hortscience, Pleasanton, CA. 47 pp. Accessed December 31, 2010. Kielbaso, J.J. 1990. Trends and issues in city forests. Journal of Arbori- culture 16:69–76. Kilgore, M.A., and C.R. Blinn. 2003. Policy tools to encourage the appli- cation of sustainable timber harvesting practices in the United States and Canada. Forest Policy and Economics 6:111–127. ©2011 International Society of Arboriculture
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
