Individual Characteristics Affecting Participation in Urban and Community Forestry Programs in South Carolina, U.S.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Participant and nonparticipant characteristics can be seen in Tables 1 through 6. Some of the tables represent descriptive data that did not lend itself to statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is included where appropriate, and key differences are analyzed. All chi-square test statistics relate to significant differences between participants and nonparticipants, unless otherwise stated. The majority of the respondents were male (66%). Participants tended to be younger than nonparticipants. Forty-eight percent of the participants were between the ages of 30 and 49 years old, while 43% of the nonparticipants were between 50 and 65 years of age. The majority of both groups were married (80% and 78%, respectively). Many (42%) of the participants were from South Carolina’s lower coastal plain region, likely due to the dramatic role played by tourism in the Charleston area.

At the 0.05 level of significance, only age showed a significant difference between participants and nonparticipants, suggesting the two populations are very similar in the other categories surveyed. Close observation of age groups (Table 1) suggests that participants were much more likely than nonparticipants to be 30 to 49 years old. Therefore we tested the 30- to 49-year age group against all other ages and found participants to be significantly more likely to be 30 to 49 years old (sample size = 191, chi-square = 8.22, P = 0.04, DF = 3). Table 1 data also suggest that participants are much more likely to come from upstate and the lower coastal plain than the upper coastal plain. However, we did not find a significant relationship concerning geography (sample size = 189, chi-square = 2.22, P = 0.33, DF = 2).

Educational level was high (Table 2). The majority of both groups graduated from college, and over one-third of each group earned a graduate-level degree. Only 22% of the participants worked as arborists, horticulturist, or foresters (Table 3). Given that this occupation group is likely to be heavily involved in U&CF projects, this is an encouraging statistic. Certainly, information and education programs are least effective when “preaching to the choir.” The audience of these programs appears to be people newly introduced to U&CF concepts. Only 14% of nonparticipants belonged to the arborist/horticulturist/forester occupational group. Both groups tended to be “middle-income” families (Table 4). Educational level, occupation group, and income level did not produce significant differences between the two groups. However, a related question is whether the arborist/horticulturist/forester is more likely to be a participant than other occupation groups. No significant difference was found to exist between that group and the other occupational groups.

One aspect of the survey questioned whether there would be a difference in participation based on the environment where a person was raised, as compared to the environment where they now lived (Table 5). Just over half of both participants and nonparticipants were raised in an urban or suburban area, and nearly two-thirds of both groups now lived in the urban or suburban area. Because likely participants of U&CF programs were surveyed, this geography is not surprising. Table 6 shows that the majority of both groups were represented by people living in family households (roughly 80%). Significant differences between the two groups did not exist due to early environment, current residence, or household environment.

Why people did or did not participate in these programs is of interest to program managers and administrators. Participants were asked about their primary and secondary reasons for participating (Table 7). Twenty-one percent described their primary reason for participation as a job requirement (i.e., they were paid to participate), and nearly half described their motivation as a professional or job-related interest. Forty-three percent stated their secondary reason as a personal interest. Nonparticipants were also questioned as to why they have not participated (Table 8). Seventy-one percent stated that they did not know of these programs. Only 33% of nonparticipants stated that they would likely participate in the future. But over half stated they simply did not know about future participation. These results were expected due to the selection criteria.

Does knowledge of the U&CF program affect respondents’ expectations of future participation? We compared future intentions of participation of nonparticipants who originally did not know about the program. Awareness of the program created a significant difference between those who would definitely or probably participate in U&CF programs in the future and those who did not know or would definitely or probably not participate in the future (sample size = 84, chi-square = 2.89, P = 0.089, DF = 1).

When asked for feelings about future participation, 64% of participants said they would definitely be involved in more programs (Table 9). Seventy-seven percent felt that these programs were very important. Time of participation in U&CF programs was important (Table 10). Fifty-two percent have participated on a weekday, when they were paid to do so. Twenty-one percent have participated on weekdays that were unpaid.

Three of the questions were open-ended and designed to address issues related to what participants felt the best aspects of the programs were and what could be done in the future to make the programs more appealing (Tables 11 through 13). This provided an opportunity for ideas to surface that may not have been covered by the earlier questions. The most popular aspect of the program was the opportunity for grant funding (Table 11). However, other common responses were education, community involvement, and tree preservation. To get a better idea about the types of programs that people have participated in, we asked them to describe their activities. Activities such as tree plantings/inventories, Arbor Day events, and landscape beautification projects were the most common responses (Table 12).

Another very important consideration for the future of urban and community forestry programs is what needs to be done to make these programs better. All respondents were asked what could be done to increase program appeal (Table 13). The most common response was the need for more awareness. This directly relates to Table 8, which shows that 71% of people who have never participated in U&CF programs simply did not know of their existence. This is a major concern for the future of these programs. Other responses include the need for more networking, increased community involvement, and more flexibility in the use of grant money. The networking/community involvement comments seem to suggest a recommendation for increased interaction with other community leaders and organizations. Urban and community forestry programs could be a more integral part of the community, rather than a grant-supported interest group.

Responses to these questions reveal a few key facts. People recognize the value of these programs. The majority of participants (77%) stated that these programs were very important (Table 9). The opportunity for grant funding, along with community involvement and education, ranked highest on the list of best aspects of U&CF programs. The level of participation and interest in urban and community forestry programs shows that they are considered valuable to communities. There is a need for community involvement in regard to making these programs successful and a key to gaining increased involvement is awareness. Respondents made it clear that there is not enough information available to the public concerning these programs and that the lack of grants was a limiting factor. Table 9 shows that 64% of participants will definitely participate in the future, while Table 8 shows that 59% of nonparticipants do not know whether they will ever participate. Awareness is a major factor influencing participation and the main area that can produce immediate increases in U&CF program activity.

One consideration for this project was the possibility that some people identified as nonparticipants may have actually participated in U&CF programs in the past. Because we obtained a list from the South Carolina Forestry Commission that identified all known individuals across the state who have participated, we feel that there should be minimal chance of any mixing between the two populations.