174 Ries et al.: Impact of Statewide Urban Forestry Programs Table 6. Measurement of ODF U&CF program impact, 1992 to 2004. Indicator Cities with tree planting and care programs Cities with tree ordinances or codes Cities with tree inventories Cities receiving Tree City USA award Total local U&CF expenditures zNot adjusted for inflation. 2004 1992 37% 26% 62% 46% 56% 46% 15% 8% $7.8 $1.2 Million Millionz Percent change +9% +14% +10% +7% +550% lieve they need a program shows continued demand for basic technical services. • Cities that have received ODF assistance have achieved more urban forestry accomplishments and are more ac- tively engaged in managing their urban forest than those that have not received assistance. • Based on a comparison between 1992 and 2004, there is a direct correlation between receiving ODF U&CF as- sistance and an improvement in the extent of local urban forest management over this time period. This is a direct measure of the effectiveness of state urban forestry as- sistance. management of urban forest resources in cities that have re- ceived state assistance. CONCLUSIONS This study could easily be replicated in other states, providing a basis for comparative analysis and also providing proof of the impact of state urban forestry programs as they strive to compete for limited funding. For Oregon, the results of this 2004 survey have some significant implications for ODF’s U&CF program in terms of the appropriate strategic program emphasis and delivery. As the primary clients for the ODF U&CF program, cities can provide a valuable feedback mechanism to program efficiency and effectiveness. Re- source data from city agencies and opinions of city decision- makers are useful information elements in planning future program direction at the state level. When compared with the 1992 responses, the 2004 data reveal the impact of ODF’s three full-time-equivalent staff. As a result of ODF’s efforts, there have been measurable increases in the number of cities with urban forestry programs and with program components such as inventories and ordi- nances and an increase in the amount of local investment in the health of urban forests. It is clear that the investment of federal assistance through the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service has been leveraged many times over to help increase the livability of Oregon cities. Some conclusions that can be drawn about the ODF U&CF program as a result of this survey include: • Hazard tree management should remain a strong pro- gram focus, both from an operational and a policy per- spective. • A large percentage of Oregon cities, mostly smaller ones, do not have urban forestry programs and still need to be convinced of the benefits of managing their urban forest. The fact that over half the cities without programs be- ©2007 International Society of Arboriculture The 2004 Oregon Urban Forestry Survey provides a wealth of insights into local urban forestry programs, the needs of mu- nicipalities, and potential ODF program delivery methods and strategies. It is evident that ODF has achieved some significant accomplishments in helping cities pursue active management of their urban forests and also has a clearer picture of the challenges before the agency as a result of conducting the 2004 survey. Oregon’s 1992 survey report concluded with this observation: “The challenge faced by the Oregon Department of Forestry is to motivate communities to action.” Based on the 2004 survey results, Oregon has made great strides in stimulating local investment in urban forestry, but much work remains to be done. LITERATURE CITED Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ. Dillman, D. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Elemdorf, W.F., V.J. Cotrone, and J.T. Mullen. 2003. Trends in urban forestry practices, programs and sustainability: Contrasting a Pennsylvania, U.S., study. Journal of Arbo- riculture 29:237–247. Gartner, J.T., T. Treiman, and T. Frevert. 2002. Missouri urban forest—A ten-year comparison. Journal of Arbori- culture 28:76–83. Independent Sector. 2003. Value of Volunteer Time. http:// www.independentsector.org/programs/research/ volunteer_time.html (accessed 11/03/04). Reeder, E.C., and H.D. Gerhold. 1993. Municipal tree pro- grams in Pennsylvania. Journal of Arboriculture 19: 12–19. Reichenbach, M.R. 1992. Urban and Community Forestry in Oregon: An Assessment With Recommendations For Ini- tiating Action. Oregon Department of Forestry. 62 pp. Schroeder, H.W., T.L. Green, and T.J. Howe. 2003. Commu- nity tree programs in Illinois, U.S.: A statewide survey and assessment. Journal of Arboriculture 29:218–225.
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
