10 fined as a function of historical precedent, public demand and support, funding, legislation, vision of leadership, and domi- nance of personalities. Examples of early programs in states by starting year include Georgia (1967), Missouri (1967), Florida (1971), Kansas (1971), California (1978), and Ohio (1979). However, these were the exception with many states providing limited or no U&CF assistance (Casey and Miller 1988; NASF 1988). An assessment by Casey and Miller (1988) found most states (93.9%) were conducting some form of U&CF programs by the late 1980s. An interesting difference between results from Casey and Miller (1988) and this study occurred with the year that respon- dents considered the program started. Differences could be ex- plained in different wording used in the two studies, incomplete respondent knowledge of past efforts within a state, or percep- tion of what comprises a U&CF program. Presumably, some states were conducting urban forestry activities (reflective in 1986 results and published reports) before the date given in this study but at levels typically lower than at present and with ac- tivities at a staff rather than functional organizational level. For example, the state of Maine responded the start of their current U&CF program as 1991; however, the agency was providing cost-share assistance to communities for Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi) control before 1973 (Archibald 1973). The state of Ohio dated the start of their U&CF program at 1979 in this and in the Casey and Miller (1988) work; however, staff appointment of an urban forester was documented as early as 1973 for the Columbus, Ohio, area (Ryan 1973). In addition, the state of Vermont U&CF program considered their start in 1991, yet the state hired a U&CF specialist in 1971. The position was terminated in 1978 as a result of budget concerns, reestablished later that year through a federal grant, to be eliminated again in 1981 until 1991 when it was reestablished a second time. Finally, respondents may have indicated what they perceived as a pro- gram of systematic efforts rather than an activity or nonsystem- atic approach taken before 1990. The levels of U&CF assistance through state programs varied with 70% of states implementing a more formalized approach. The remaining states provided informal assistance defined as use of nonspecialized forestry personnel, received limited or no state funding, and often consisted of nothing more than administration of Federal Cooperative Forestry Assistance. In most states, as- sistance to local urban forestry programs was limited, even in states with more formal approaches. The National Association of State Foresters in the late 1980s found similar results with state U&CF programs ranging from a full-time coordinator to no U&CF program (NASF 1988). State U&CF programs provided financial assistance through grants to support local capacity building through activities such as tree inventories, strategic planning, tree risk assessment, edu- cation, tree planting, tree removal, equipment, and other urban forestry activities (Hauer and Johnson 2007). Technical assis- tance was found by Hauer (unpublished data) to have the stron- gest effect (2.4 to 3.5 times greater) followed by financial assis- tance on influencing an increase in local U&CF activity. State U&CF coordinators believe as a whole that technical assistance has the greatest effect at increasing local U&CF capacity. This study found a 164% increase in the number of states that offer technical assistance since 1986 and more states were offering technical assistance in all 17 indicators. We also found an in- crease in the percent of states offering Cooperative Forestry ©2008 International Society of Arboriculture Hauer et al.: State Government Involvement in Forestry Assistance (154%) and state (254%) grants. Other U&CF studies (Still et al. 1996; Vitosh and Thompson 2000; Bird 2002) and rural forestry studies (Henly et al. 1988; Gaddis et al. 1995; Haines 1995; Cubbage et al. 1996; Kilgore and Blinn 2003) have found technical and financial assistance leads to greater activity and effective outcomes. Finally, even with the increases discussed here, this study suggests state U&CF programs were still reliant on federal fund- ing from several indicators. Although the percentage of states receiving federal funding increased from 85.7% to 100%, the percentage of state programs receiving state funding was con- stant between 1986 (63.3%) and 2002 (61.0%). Furthermore, real federal funding increased more than tenfold; however, state funding of programs only experienced just over a onefold in- crease. State U&CF coordinators also responded similarly that only 40% of programs were given adequate attention by their agency. Overall, however, state U&CF programs continue to advance toward becoming sustainable programs. Older state U&CF programs also tend to be more advanced. LITERATURE CITED Andersen, F., C.C. Konijnendijk, and T.B. Randrup. 2002. Higher edu- cation on urban forestry in Europe: An overview. Forestry 75: 501–511. Andresen, J.W. 1978. Urban forestry today, pp. 3–8. In McBride, J., and R. Beatty (Eds.). Proceedings of the California Symposium on Urban Forestry, 19–20 May 1978, Berkeley, CA. Archibald, P.L. 1973. Urban and community forestry—Past and present, pp. 4–9. In Miller, H.C. (Ed.). Proceedings Urban Forestry Confer- ence, 12–15 March 1973. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY. Biles, L.E., and F.J. Deneke. 1982. Urban forestry programs begins fifth year. Journal of Arboriculture 8:154–156. Bird, J. 2002. Pass-through grants from federal sources to state agencies as an effective tool to develop sustainable community forestry pro- grams at the local level. Unpublished manuscript. North Dakota State Forest Service, Bismarck, ND. 42 pp. Campana, R.J. 1999. Arboriculture: History and Development in North America. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI. 443 pp. Casey, C.J. 1988. State government involvement in community forestry: A survey and a proposal for development of a state urban forestry assistance program in Wisconsin. MS Thesis, University of Wiscon- sin–Stevens Point, WI. 134 pp. Casey, C.J., and R.W. Miller. 1988. State government involvement in community forestry: A survey. Journal of Arboriculture 14:141–144. Clark, J.R., N.P. Matheny, G. Cross, and V. Wake. 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23:17–30. Cubbage, F.W., B.D. New, and R.J. Moulton. 1996. Evaluations of technical assistance programs for nonindustrial private forest land owners, pp. 367–376. In Baughman, M.J. (Ed.). Proceedings: Sym- posium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future. University of Minnesota, Minnesota Exten- sion Service, Extension Special Programs, St. Paul, MN. Davis, R.L. 1993. Street tree trends in Kansas and the influence of community factors. Journal of Arboriculture 19:201–208. Deneke, F. 1983. Urban and community forestry: Where are we going? Journal of Arboriculture 9:99–101. Deneke, F.J. 1992. A history of federal funding, pp. 188–189. In Rod- bell, P.D. (Ed). Proceedings of the Fifth National Urban Forest Con- ference, Los Angeles, November 1991. American Forestry Associa- tion, Washington, DC. Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 464 pp.
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
