Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(3): May 2007 169 Arboriculture Research Trust documented the scope of mu- nicipal urban forestry programs, including analysis on pro- gram budgets, expenditures, personnel, and management ac- tivities. At the state level, Pennsylvania’s study (Reeder and Gerhold 1993) was designed to determine the number and scope of local tree programs. A follow-up study in that same state (Elemdorf et al. 2003) looked at trends in urban forestry practices and a measure of sustainability. Missouri conducted a survey of urban forest resource data as a follow up to a previous study 10 years earlier (Gartner et al. 2002). Illinois conducted two surveys to assess program needs specifically in small communities (Schroeder et al. 2003). Many other state urban forestry programs have conducted formal or in- formal unpublished assessments. These assessments all pro- vide a foundation for states to use when conducting their own analysis of urban forestry issues, program needs, and deliv- ery. Studies such as these can also illustrate the cost- effectiveness of investing state and federal funds in urban forestry assistance programs. Because Oregon built a new urban forestry program from scratch, one of the first tasks was to conduct a needs assess- ment (Reichenbach 1992) by surveying the state’s incorpo- rated cities to determine the extent of their urban forest re- sources and the perceived needs for management assistance. This report provided a wealth of data and conclusions to help guide the new program. Within the next 12 years, Oregon developed a high-performing program that averaged nearly 400 technical assists per year. In 2004, another strategic plan- ning effort was developed to examine the efficiency, effec- tiveness, and innovation of the ODF U&CF program deliv- ery. This effort included a new survey of Oregon cities un- dertaken to obtain data, opinions, and perceptions from elected officials or city staff responsible for urban forestry decision-making. The purposes of conducting this survey in- cluded assessing the status of local urban forestry programs, helping ODF determine the most appropriate delivery sys- tems for providing urban forestry services, and helping pro- vide future program direction. The 2004 survey combined questions from the original 1992 survey with new inquiries about the impact of the state U&CF program. This article analyzes the results of the 2004 survey and includes some longitudinal analysis based on the earlier sur- vey. Of particular interest in this analysis are differences among cities of contrasting sizes where such comparisons can be made and measuring the performance of the state program in relation to its primary constituents, the cities it serves. OREGON’S URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SURVEY—METHODOLOGY AND RESPONDENTS Oregon’s 2004 state urban forestry survey was designed to collect demographic information about each of Oregon’s 240 incorporated cities to gather data about each city’s urban forestry program components and to determine each city’s plans and needs related to urban forestry assistance. The ear- lier 1992 survey was used as a guide; many questions were repeated verbatim from that survey, whereas other new ques- tions were developed to gauge other local urban forestry in- formation not previously collected. The surveys used two sociologic methods of design: the Total Survey Design Method (Dillman 1978) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). The survey instruments were tested with a small representative sample of potential respon- dents for the purposes of validity and reliability. To accurately assess the status of municipal urban forestry programs in Oregon, 31 survey questions were organized around key themes of interest to the ODF U&CF staff such as program components present at the local level, current urban forestry issues of concern to cites, and cities’ experi- ence receiving state assistance. Although some questions used an open-ended response, the majority involved a defined list of choices that could provide data for quantitative analy- sis, including some that used a 5- or 7-point rating scale measuring the strength of agreement toward a set of op- tions or statements. An Internet survey site (http://www. surveymonkey.com) was used as the data collection mecha- nism. The analysis of the resulting data involved calculating descriptive statistics for the numerous variables measured in the study. The survey population was identified by developing a list of e-mail addresses for a known key urban forestry contact in each sampled city. For cities that have an existing established working relationship with the ODF U&CF program, the key contact was a city forester, city planner, parks manager, pub- lic works director, or other official known to be the primary decision-maker within that city’s urban forestry program. For cities without an existing relationship with the ODF U&CF program, a key contact was chosen by ODF staff from a list of city officials found on the League of Oregon Cities web site. E-mail addresses were obtained for all but three of the 240 possible respondents. Those three cities were later mailed a printed version of the survey instrument. Key contacts received an e-mail requesting that they com- plete the online survey and were provided a hyperlink directly to the survey instrument. E-mail recipients were given the option to refer the survey request to another city staff or elected official if they believed that they were not the most appropriate respondent for their city. Two follow-up e-mails were later sent to this same contact list in a successful effort to increase the response rate. Descriptive statistics were used to make comparisons be- tween the two studies. The data generated by this study was fairly straightforward—cities reported facts and opinions, which were tallied and compared. This analysis of frequency ©2007 International Society of Arboriculture
May 2007
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
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.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
