Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(5): September 2008 281 Table 1. Definitions of Performance Measurement Accountability System (PMAS) levels used to rank community urban and community forestry capacity.z PMAS level Project Formative Description of PMAS level Project-level communities are those in which assistance to do projects such as Arbor Day, tree planting, grants, or one-time events are taking place. These communities have not expanded from projects to program with infrastructure for conserving, establishing, or managing trees, forests, greenspace, and related natural resources within their environments. Formative-level communities have recognized that trees, forests, and greenspace are assets to their community and are initiating community-based natural resource programs with the help of the urban and community forestry program technical or financial assistance. Technical assistance activities under this stage include the establishment of citizen organizations and structures with interest in trees, forests, and related natural resources in their community, discussions with community leaders, basic or more comprehensive assessments of natural resources and/or conditions, Arbor Day celebrations, organized community meetings, networking, and coordination. Developmental Developmental communities have initiated community-based forestry and natural resource-related programs and are pursuing additional activities to improve and enhance these resources. Technical assistance activities include assisting citizen organizations and advisory or governing organizations in planning, policy and budget development, meetings, workshops, urban natural resource inventories and ecologic assessments, management plan and/or ordinance development, review of policies related to land use and development, and engaging in partnership development. Sustained Sustained-level communities have a community-based forestry or natural resource program organized well enough such that community-based organizations or municipal agencies are functioning on their own with appropriate support from multiple levels. Annual planning, community leadership, and systematic approach to conservation and management of trees, forests, and related natural resources characterize these communities. Technical assistance enhances existing programs but is more infrequent than previous levels. zAdapted from PMAS Desk Guide Ver. 10/2003 (www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/library/PMAS%20DeskGuide%202004.pdf). criteria. Finally, slightly more than one-third of communities still lack the structure to undertake and implement sustained U&CF programs. They are in some form of activity that increases from the project level (e.g., tree planting celebration or other one-time events), the formative level (e.g., formal recognition of U&CF importance through ordinances, citizen input, and/or technical assistance), and finally the developmental level (e.g., further activities initiated that foster urban forests and other natural re- sources). These activity levels are precursors to a sustainable U&CF program. The USDA-FS and state U&CF programs provide technical and financial assistance to local U&CF programs in the United States (USDA-FS 2002a). This partnership has been evolving since the 1960s and assistance mechanisms have been used with the goal to build local U&CF capacity (Unsoeld 1978; Biles and Deneke 1982; Casey and Miller 1988; Deneke 1992; Hauer 2005). Technical assistance and financial assistance through lo- cal capacity-building grants support local activities such as tree inventories, strategic planning, tree risk assessment, education, tree planting, tree removal, equipment purchases, and others. State and federal technical and financial assistance to local urban forestry programs may enhance U&CF capacity within local programs, foster development of the urban forest, and ul- timately move communities toward a sustainable urban forest (Clark et al. 1997; Dwyer et al. 2003). Technical assistance and financial assistance lead to increased local urban forestry activity and urban forests (Still et al. 1996; Vitosh and Thompson 2000; Bird 2002; Hauer 2005, 2006). However, few studies have quan- tified the structure of state U&CF programs (Andresen 1978; Casey and Miller 1988; Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004; Hauer 2005). This article identifies sources of state U&CF fund- ing and financial assistance and technical assistance to local U&CF programs within the 50 United States. METHODS Urban forestry program capacity within the 50 state U&CF pro- grams in the United States was assessed through a self- administered questionnaire for program year 2002. As a basis for the questionnaire, the study used the model Urban Forestry Pro- gram Capacity—the structure an urban forestry agency, entity, municipality, nonprofit organization, or others have in place to support urban forest development and sustainability at a local, regional, or national level (Hauer 2005; Hauer 2006). The struc- ture for this article was collected through a questionnaire that ascertained enabling legislation for technical and financial assis- tance, types and levels of technical and financial assistance, and funding sources of the 50 state U&CF programs. Results from this study are limited to the 50 state U&CF programs in the United States. The questionnaire was Beta-tested through five state U&CF coordinators and two federal U&CF staff with refinement based on their comments. The self-administered questionnaire was mailed to the entire population of 50 state U&CF coordinators using a mailing list maintained by the USDA-FS. The District of Columbia and the eight territories of American Samoa, the Com- monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands were excluded from this study based on nonresponse to preliminary work associated with this study. Questionnaire de- livery used elements of the Tailored Design Method (Dillman 2000). The delivery method involved: 1) sending a prenotice letter explaining the study purpose 4 business days before send- ing the questionnaire; 2) mailing the instrument with a cover letter explaining the importance of completing the questionnaire; 3) mailing a reminder postcard 10 days after sending the ques- tionnaire; 4) resending the questionnaire to nonrespondents 1 month after the initial mailing; and 5) follow-up contacts to the remaining nonrespondents through an e-mail reminder, a brief message in the state U&CF coordinator newsletter, and a final phone call. Responses from the questionnaire were entered into Microsoft Access 2002 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) and descrip- tive statistics compiled using both SPSS version 11.5 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) and Microsoft Excel 2002. The questionnaire and compiled descriptive summary statistics used in this study are found in Appendix 1 and Hauer (2005). Nonresponse error and differences between responding and nonresponding states were tested using an independent samples t-test at the 0.05 probability level. State-reported data from 2002 ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture
September 2008
| 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
