Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(5): September 2008 million federal allocation for U&CF only widens the gap be- tween suggested needs and funding. The program expenditures in this study, however, do not ac- count for money spent by state entities other than the agency that undertakes the lead U&CF role in the state. The magnitude of monetary investments outside of the state U&CF program can be illustrated through introduction of new exotic species and estab- lished exotic species, their impact, and control costs associated with urban forests. Response to emerald ash borer (Agrilus pla- nipennis) to date has exceeded $100 million (USDA 2006). Fed- eral funding for Asian Longhorned (Anoplophora glabripennis) beetle eradication since 1997 was over $200 million with an estimated $300 million cost for complete eradication (Weiner and Maloney 2006). These expenditures are used to protect an ALB-susceptible urban forest resource with a $669 billion com- pensatory value (Nowak et al. 2001). Some of the exotic pest funds are used to support technical and financial assistance at the local level in ways similar to the state U&CF program. The USDA-FS Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry (NA SP&F) unit envisioned that state and local U&CF entities would greatly increase their U&CF capacity through state and local monetary resources within 3 years of resultant funding from the 1990 Farm Bill (USDA-FS 1990). Federal funding would then decrease as states and local entities began to fund a greater proportion of their programs. This ambitious goal has yet to be realized, although federal funding to states has increased in both real and nominal money through federal U&CF allocations. Over the same time period, state funding for U&CF programs (as a percentage of the total forestry budget) in the agency admin- istering the U&CF program declined from 2.8% in 1994 to 2.6% in 1996, 1.8% in 1998, and 1.9% in 2002 (NASF undated). In 2002, nearly 40% of states did not directly match federal funding through state government funding. Rather, the use of consoli- dated payments and leverage from U&CF programs within the state were used as money sources to meet the match criteria. Two respondents also directly noted through an open-ended question that consolidated payments were negatively affecting state level- sponsored funding. Thus, although the USDA-FS NA SP&F believed that the federal role would continue to decline over time, many state U&CF programs rely on federal support. Before 1990, state U&CF programs provided primarily tech- nical assistance. For example, only 39% of states offered finan- cial assistance programs for local U&CF efforts (Casey and Miller 1988). In 2002, 95% of state programs did so. Grant assistance for local U&CF programs was a common use of fed- eral and state U&CF program funds. Few studies have asked whether U&CF grant programs are effective in increasing local capacity for U&CF. Still et al. (1996) in Pennsylvania and Bird (2002) in North Dakota found that cities or towns that applied for grants were more likely to have tree ordinances, inventories, or management plans than nonapplicants. Communities that never applied for state funding either lacked community support for tree programs or rated trees as a lower priority. Communities with funded projects tend to have community support. In Iowa, Vitosh and Thompson (2000) found grants greatly increased community forestry activities and attributes such as volunteer tree planting groups, tree boards, inventories, management plans, shade tree ordinances, and line item funding for tree-related activities. The retention of U&CF activity over time can decrease as priorities change and inputs such as funding and other forms of assistance decline. 285 Have the federal and state U&CF programs resulted in im- proved local urban forestry efforts? The Federal PMAS data from 1997 to 2004 identified a 2.1% increase in local U&CF program activity with a corresponding 2.1% decline annually in communities not conducting U&CF activities (Hauer 2005, 2006). Corresponding increases in project, formative, develop- mental, and sustained communities also occurred, suggesting an increased local capacity within U&CF programs. Hauer (2005, 2006) found federal financial support of the state U&CF pro- gram, technical assistance to local programs, and financial as- sistance to local programs explained 73% (R2 adj) of the increase in urban forestry activity at the local level. Government can influence resource management through pas- sive (e.g., technical assistance, education programs, voluntary guidelines), proactive (e.g., financial incentives, tax incentives), and controlling (e.g., regulatory) roles (Cheng and Ellefson 1993). Baughman (1980) contended that government involve- ment in urban forestry must contribute to social welfare through economic efficiency and stability and be equitable. State U&CF programs have traditionally used passive and proactive roles in attempting to influence U&CF at a more local level (Casey and Miller 1988; Hauer 2005). However, regulatory activities are used in the management of urban forests at federal, state, and local levels. Ordinances, tree protection statutes, zoning, plant protection acts and nursery stock regulation, exotic pest quaran- tines, and tree planting requirements associated with develop- ment and redevelopment are examples. The state U&CF program is not the only entity providing U&CF assistance. This was consistent with findings of Ellefson et al. (2001, 2002) in which programs and organizations affect- ing the use, management, and protection of forests were found in many agencies among states. The cooperative extension service, state land grant universities, professional organizations, and non- profit organizations commonly conduct U&CF programming. Some such as the Cooperative Extension Service have been in- volved in urban forestry through direct and indirect means for several decades (Neuhauser 1973). The connections and partner- ships within U&CF in the United States are extensive with over 1218 different organizations at local, state, and federal levels identified (Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004). Federal agencies beyond the USDA-FS also periodically provide U&CF assis- tance, including the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, Fed- eral Emergency and Management Agency, Small Business Ad- ministration, and Housing and Urban Development (Miller 1997). Finally, findings from this study were extrapolated to account for the funding to 50 state U&CF programs. Results from federal expenditures ($18.5 million) from this study were generally con- sistent with the $18.3 million documented by the U.S. House of Representatives (2004) and $18.2 million documented in PMAS for the 50 states. Temporary federal reallocations in response to wild-fire control caused withholding of money from two state U&CF programs in 2002 with funding actually received in 2003. Comparisons to funding in 2001 and 2003 for these two states suggest a $0.4 million underreporting in PMAS for year 2002 and plausibly an actual $18.6 million. State funding from this study was substantially lower ($10.2 million) than the PMAS- reported $14.5 million. This discrepancy (42.2% more reported in PMAS) is explained by subtracting the reported money from the PMAS amounts for states that reported $0 in this study (e.g., ©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
