Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(1): January 2008 Table 1. Comparison between state urban and community forestry program attributes from 1986 and 2002 within the 50 United States. Research questions Technical and financial assistance Does your agency administer federal Cooperative Forestry Assistance (CFA) grants to qualifying communities? (percent yes) Amount of federal CFA grants (mean) Does your agency have a program of community forestry assistance in addition to the administering of federal grants? (percent yes) Frequency of offering technical assistance (percent yes) Approximately how many communities do you assist each year? (total number) Does your agency provide financial assistance to communities from state monies? (percent yes) Funding sources How is your program funded? (percent yes, dollars) Federal funding (percent yes) (means of all states, $ CPI adjusted 2002 base) 85.7 31K State funding (percent yes) (means of all states, $ CPI adjusted 2002 base) Federal and state funding combined (% yes) (means of all states, $ CPI adjusted 2002 base) Program background How long has your program been in existence? (mean years, 1986, n 44, 2002 n 41) Does your state have enabling legislation specifically authorizing urban forestry assistance? (percent yes) Approximately how many work hours are spent by your agency on urban and community forestry (U&CF) assistance each year? Does your agency employ an urban forester or similar specialist? (percent yes) Does the U&CF program have a staff of district urban foresters? (percent yes) Approximately what percent of each person’s workload is devoted exclusively to forestry and related administration? State coordinator/urban forester/urban forestry specialist (percent of full-time) 45.7 (n 49) 95.4 (n 41) Full-time urban forestry staff (percent of full-time) Program sustainability Do you feel that the urban forestry program is given adequate attention by your agency? (percent yes) What do you feel is the long-term future of your program? (percent yes, 1986 n 46; 2002 n 25) Expansion Reduction Elimination Uncertain If federal funding were eliminated, would your program be likely to continue? (percent yes) CPI Consumer Price Index, K thousand. The amount of federal money distributed locally through grants increased significantly from an adjusted (CPI) mean $28,510 (range, $0 to $164,000) per state to $160,568 (range, $9000 to $535,000) in 2002. Strong and similar correlations were found for federal money allocated to a state and that subsequently granted to local urban forestry programs in 1986 (0.695) and 2002 (0.704). A significant 251% increase in programs using state monies occurred with only 11.1% of states doing so in 1986 and 39.0% of states in 2002. Most states (94%) provided technical assistance in 1986. This was not significantly different from the 100% of states who did so in 2002. However, a significant increase in the frequency of technical assistance, public education, and technology transfer provided by states occurred in all 17 areas (Figure 1). Overall, state U&CF programs in 1986 offered 57.1% of 17 different technical assistance areas. This significantly rose to a mean 91.9% of these areas being offered in 2002. Thus, although states routinely offered technical assistance, education, and technology transfer mechanisms within a state, the variety of ways was much more limited in 1986 than 2002. All states in 2002 provided assistance in 10 of 17 areas that included Arbor Day activities, public information and education, technical assistance, insect and disease evaluation and/or control, species selection, special projects, training, establishing tree ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture 61.4 2.3 2.3 34.1 64.0 12.0 4.0 20.0 77.3 (n 44) 68.3 (n 41) 2(1) 2.102, P 0.147 2(1) 1.105, P 0.293 2(1) 0.000, P 0.986 2(1) 2.933, P 0.087 2(1) 0.869, P 0.351, n 77, phi −0.106 39.5 (n 43) 42.5 (n 40) 2(1) 0.048, P 0.826, n 75, phi 0.025 37.6 (n 23) 85.4 (n 34) t(25) 3.000, P 0.006 t(15) 3.773, P 0.002 11; range, 0–25 17; range, 10–35 32.6 (n 46) 41.5 (n 41) 4600; range, 80–35,000 8723; range, 2080–24,000 71.7 (n 46) 100.0 (n 41) 37.5 (n 48) 73.2 (n 41) t(32) 3.770, P 0.001 2(1) 1.791, P 0.181, n 78, phi 0.152 t(31) 3.141, P 0.004 2(1) 13.089, P 0.000, n 77, phi 0.412 2(1) 7.833, P 0.005, n 77, phi 0.319 63.3 96K 139K 100.0 370K 61.0 204K 574K X2(1) 8.865, P 0.003 t(39) 10.653, P 0.000 X2(1) 0.201, P 0.654 t(38) 2.052, P 0.047 t(35) 6.343, P 0.000 32.7 (n 49) 82.9 (n 41) 17K 161K 93.9 (n 49) 100.0 (n 41) 57.1 91.9 70, range 0-300 183, range 16-689 11.1 (n 45) 39.0 (n 41) X2(1) 21.139, P 0.000, n 81, phi 0.511 t(34) 5.189, P 0.000 X2(1) 3.193, P 0.074, n 81, phi 0.199 t(31) 9.556, P 0.000 t(27) 3.385, P 0.002 X2(1) 7.768, P 0.005, n 77, phi 0.318 1986 2002 Significance tests 7
January 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
