Research ArticleArticles

Advancement in State Government Involvement in Urban and Community Forestry in the 50 United States: Changes in Program Status From 1986 to 2002

Richard J. Hauer, Cynthia J. Casey and Robert W. Miller
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) January 2008, 34 (1) 5-12; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2008.002

Abstract

This study investigated changes in state urban and community forestry (U&CF) programs since expansion of the federal U&CF program in 1990. Baseline data from 1986 compared with state U&CF program data in 2002 demonstrated significant expansion in state U&CF program capacity and assistance to local urban forestry efforts within the 50 United States. Use of Federal Cooperative Forestry Assistance Grants more than doubled, two additional state U&CF staff were employed within the program, time allocated to statewide coordination and regional implementation of the U&CF program approximately doubled, and a 111% national increase in the amount of state money used to finance the program occurred. In contrast, a similar minority of state coordinators in 1986 (40%) and 2002 (42%) believed adequate attention was given by the state agency housing the U&CF program. State coordinators in 2002 also had a similar outlook on the long-term future through expansion, reduction, or elimination of the state U&CF program reported in 1986 with slightly over 60% in both years believing expansion will occur. A significantly similar percentage of state U&CF program coordinators in 2002 (68%) compared with 1986 (77%) thought the state U&CF program would continue if federal funding was eliminated, however with a reduction in local assistance. Study findings suggest many positive changes in state U&CF program capacity occurred between 1986 and 2002 with various indicators suggesting dependence within some states on federal funding to maintain their current capacity.

Key Words

The urban forest is a vital component of built environments and includes the present and potential vegetation that provides benefits within a land area associated and influenced by urban populations (Miller 1997; Dwyer et al. 2000; Kuser 2000; Konijnendijk and Randrup 2004; McPherson 2004). Urban forestry is the management of the urban forest and as a discipline continues to move forward at many levels (Miller 1997; Konijnendijk et al. 2006). Advances in basic and applied research and practical application of science-based knowledge continue to occur (Campana 1999; Dwyer et al. 2002; Konijnendijk and Randrup 2004). Educational opportunities at workshops, conferences, and university settings have greatly increased since the 1970s (Andresen 1978; Andersen et al. 2002; Elmendorf et al. 2005). Even with these advances, in many United States locales, adequate urban forestry efforts were lacking and federal and state programs were created to help foster local urban forestry efforts and the urban forest (Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004; U.S. House of Representatives 2004; Hauer and Johnson 2007).

A significant expansion in funding and activities within state and federal urban and community forestry (U&CF) programs occurred since the U.S. Federal Farm Bill of 1990 (P.L. 101–513) and an enhanced federal role with U&CF (Deneke 1992; Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004; Hauer 2005). The federal assistance role was created with the understanding that the general health of the urban forest was declining, urban tree populations improve quality of life and economic value of urban land, and a mission to encourage tree planting and develop an ability or capacity within states to undertake U&CF programs was desirable (Biles and Deneke 1982; USDA-FS 2002). Urban forestry funding at the federal level has increased (tripled when adjusted for inflation) from $3.5 million in 1978 to $31.95 million in 2005 (Grey 1978; Biles and Deneke 1982; Deneke 1983, 1992; Hauer 2005). Of this, approximately 50% to 60% in a given year moves directly to state U&CF programs (U.S. House of Representatives 2004; Hauer 2005; Hauer and Johnson 2007). As a result, this provides financial resources for state programs to increase technical and financial assistance to local urban forestry programs (Andresen 1978; Casey and Miller 1988; Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004; Hauer 2005; Hauer and Johnson 2007). State and federal U&CF programs use their existing capacity to increase the ability or capacity locally to develop and expand urban forestry programs and activities (Hauer 2006). Ideally, sustainable local programs result (Clark et al. 1997; Dwyer et al. 2003; Elmendorf et al. 2003; USDA-FS 2004a; Hauer 2005; Hauer and Johnson 2007).

State U&CF forestry programs use technical assistance, financial assistance, and technology transfer to assist local urban forestry programs (Hauer 2005; Hauer and Johnson 2007). Financial assistance provides money for activities to inventory tree and natural resources, develop management plans, purchase trees, conduct tree risk assessment, develop and implement urban forest health activities, and develop and conduct workshops to train community members. Technical assistance ideally develops a skill or ability to conduct an urban forestry activity at a local level. Potential areas involve pest identification and management methodologies, tree selection based on site characteristics, selecting tree and natural resource techniques best suited for a question or need at hand, developing management plans, and others. Technology transfer uses demonstration projects, printed and electronic media, conferences and workshops, and tree celebrations such as Arbor Day. These assistance mechanisms from higher levels of government and other outside assistance sources (e.g., nonprofits, universities, extension service, consulting foresters/arborists, professional organizations, U&CF advisory councils) ideally provide the assistance recipient with the means to overcome a limitation(s) (Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004; U.S. House of Representatives 2004; USDA-FS 2004b).

Many states had emerging U&CF programs with few strong state programs by the mid-1970s (Andresen 1978; Davis 1993). Casey and Miller (1988) documented that many state U&CF programs took a variety of approaches to provide technical and financial assistance in the 1980s. They further established many states had rudimentary and developing, rather than well-established, urban forestry program capacity before the 1990 expansion of the federal U&CF program. A building body of knowledge suggests that technical assistance and financial assistance to local urban forestry programs were associated with greater local capacity and U&CF activity (Still et al. 1996; Vitosh and Thompson 2000; Bird 2002).

This study investigated areas of change within state U&CF programs between 1986 and 2002. A set of indicators of state U&CF programs were derived through state U&CF program staff responses depicting programs in 1986. These same program indicators in 2002 were reevaluated through information supplied by state U&CF coordinators. We used these to document changes in state U&CF programs after expansion of the federal U&CF program since 1990 and subsequent greater monetary support for state U&CF programs. We also asked if state capacity and agency support for state U&CF programs has significantly changed between 1986 and 2002 using these indicators as measures of program sustainability.

METHODS

Study Questions

Study questions were created a priori to the design of this study. Self-reported data from state U&CF program coordinators through a questionnaire were used to answer research questions. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:

  1. Has financial assistance through state U&CF programs increased in the United States between 1986 and 2002? (Ho: No difference in financial assistance exists between 1986 and 2002.)

  2. Has technical assistance through state U&CF programs increased in the United States between 1986 and 2002? (Ho: No difference in technical assistance exists between 1986 and 2002.)

  3. Have state government or federal government funding of state U&CF programs increased? (Ho: No increase occurred for actual and inflationary adjusted federal or state monies.)

  4. Has greater overall sustainability of state U&CF programs occurred as detected through coordinator perception of agency support, program direction, and decreased reliance on federal funding suggesting greater capacity to conduct state U&CF program? (Ho: No increase in agency support, program direction, or nonreliance on federal funding is detected suggesting no change in sustainability of state U&CF programs.)

  5. Have indicators of program background capacity changed since 1986? (Ho: No difference exists between the two time periods.)

Data Collection

Data used in this study were collected for 1986 through a questionnaire sent to the state forester who typically delegated the task to those who were most familiar with the state U&CF program (Casey 1988; Casey and Miller 1988). In brief, 49 of 50 states responded to that questionnaire found in Casey (1988). These questions were included within a larger study of state U&CF program capacity in 2002 (Hauer 2005). A complete accounting of methods used to acquire state U&CF program data from the recent questionnaire is described elsewhere (Hauer 2005; Hauer and Johnson 2007). In brief, 42 of 50 (84%) state U&CF coordinators responded. All but one questionnaire was included in this study because one state returned a questionnaire with no data. The questionnaire was delivered using methods consistent with the tailored design method (Dillman 2000). The high response rate and comparative t tests revealed no significant differences between responding and nonresponding states for all data elements within the USDA–Forest Service Performance Management and Accountability System database for the year 2002; thus, we assume there is no nonresponse error. Conclusions from this study were representative of all 50 state U&CF programs within the United States (Hauer 2005; Hauer and Johnson 2007). In addition, non-response error (response to a question) was very low with 100% or near response to each question in both questionnaires.

Statistical Procedure

Descriptive statistics, t tests, Pearson’s correlation, and χ2 analyses used SPSS version 14.0. A paired t test was used to test for differences in parametric data indicators of state U&CF program capacity between 1986 and 2002. A nonparametric two-sided χ2 test of independence was used to test for differences within categorical data. Significance for all tests, except where noted, was set at α ≤ 0.05 significance level as evidence to reject a null hypothesis. Program money sources and financial assistance used the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) to adjust for inflation. All adjustments occurred from 1986 to 2002 as a base year using nonseasonally adjusted values with a 1.64 CPI adjustment occurring between 1 January 1987 and 1 January 2002.

RESULTS

Technical and Financial Assistance

State U&CF programs provided significantly more technical and financial assistance in 2002 than in 1986 (Table 1). A 161% increase in the mean number of community assists occurred during that time. These assists could be either technical and/or financially related. A mean of 70 (range, 0 to 300) assists were reported in 1986 compared with a mean of 183 (range, 16 to 689) reported in 2002.

View this table:
Table 1.

Comparison between state urban and community forestry program attributes from 1986 and 2002 within the 50 United States.

States significantly increased financial assistance to local urban forestry programs. State U&CF programs that used Federal Cooperative Forestry Assistance Grants significantly increased (154% greater) from 32.7% of states in 1986 to 82.9% in 2002. 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.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

State urban and community forestry (U&CF) program technical assistance to local U&CF programs in 1986 and 2002 within the 50 United States.

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 commissions, tree inventories, and information on funding sources. No technical assistance area had 100% of states providing it in 1986. Arbor Day activities, public information and education, and insect and disease assistance were commonly provided in 1986 and also in 2002 with significant, albeit small, increases from 11% to 17%. Species selection, special projects, training, establishing tree commissions, tree inventories, information on funding sources, and shade tree ordinances were offered by states in 1986 with 32% to 75% increases to the present in states offering these assistance forms. Comprehensive program planning, master street tree planning, wood utilization, landscaping, providing nursery stock, and establishing nursery facilities were offered in a minority of states in 1986 but were offered by the majority of states in 2002. The significant increase for these ranged from 61% to 355%.

Other agencies besides the lead agency for U&CF in a state provide assistance to local programs. Similar to 1986, both cooperative extension and the state agriculture agency provided a significantly similar level of assistance in 2002 within a state. However, a trend suggests both of these two were increasing the assistance offered with cooperative extension increasing from 78.3% of states in 1986 to 89.5% in 2002 and state agriculture agency increasing from 21.7% of states in 1986 to 30.3% in 2002. However, caution is needed with interpreting this statistical difference because the 1986 study did not explicitly ask for agencies beyond extension and agriculture and the 2002 study specified additional choices (e.g., resource conservation and development council, soil and water conservation districts, nonprofit organizations, state land grant university, state department of transportation). These explicitly stated choices in 2002 were regarded as “other” in comparison to 1986 study findings.

Funding Sources

Most states (85.7%) received federal funding in 1986 (Table 1). Now, all states receive federal assistance, which was significantly greater than in 1986. The level of federal funding received (nonadjusted and adjusted by CPI) by states was also significantly greater in 2002 (mean, $370,000; range, $180,000 to $1,082,000) than 1986 (mean, $31,000; range, $0 to $164,000). Federal funding of state U&CF programs increased greatly after 1990 (Figure 2). The number of states that use state government funding to partially support the state U&CF program was not significantly different between 1986 and 2002. Slightly more than 60% of states used state money in 1986 (63.3%) and 2002 (61.0%). Overall 39% of states funded their program in both 1986 and 2002 with state funds, 22% had no state funding in either time period, 22% used state funding in only 2002, and 17% used state funding in 1986 only. States that use state government funding to support the U&CF programs, however, had significantly greater funding (adjusted by CPI) in 2002 (mean, $204,000; range, $0 to $1,330,000) than in 1986 (mean, $96,000; range, $0 to $756,000). Total money (adjusted by CPI) per state used by the U&CF program was also different between the two dates. The 1986 total mean of $139,000 (range, $0 to $805,000) increased to a mean of $574,000 (range, $180,000 to $2,223,000) in 2002.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Nominal and real funding of the USDA–Forest Service (USDA-FS) urban and community forestry program (U&CF) in 1978 to 2006, National Association of State Foresters (NASF)-proposed U&CF funding, and National Alliance for Community Trees (NACT)-proposed U&CF funding. Real funding inflationary adjustment used Consumer Price Index for base year 2002.

Program Background

State U&CF programs receive enabling legislation from the legislative and executive branches of state government (Table 1). This was not significantly different in 1986 (32.6%) and 2002 (41.5%). Although a minority of states had enabling legislation specifically authorizing U&CF assistance, all states in 2002 provided assistance mechanisms to local urban forestry programs. We found a significant increase in the number of hours spent providing assistance between 1986 (mean, 4600; range, 80 to 35,000) and 2002 (mean, 8723; range, 2080 to 23,920).

All states now have a state U&CF coordinator, which was not surprising considering this is a requirement of receiving federal funding. This was significantly greater than the 71.7% of states in 1986. In states with a state U&CF coordinator, the percentage staffing level significantly increased from 69.9% in 1986 to 95.4% of full-time in 2002. In comparison, if all states were considered, the coordinator position was only 45.7% full-time in 1986. State programs with district/regional urban foresters also nearly doubled, increasing from 37.5% of states in 1986 to 73.2% in 2002. The percentage of time allocated for U&CF duties by full-time U&CF staff also significantly increased from 37.6% in 1986 to 85.4% full-time in 2002. Fire management and rural forestry assistance were both common additional duties performed by the coordinator and full-time staff in 1986. Fire management was also the number one additional duty performed by the coordinator and full-time staff in 2002. Rural forestry management was also an additional duty, but to a much lesser extent in 2002.

State U&CF programs have evolved since the mid-1960s. The reported initiation of programs ranged from 1967 to 1992 for both studies in 1986 and 2002 (Figure 3). The mean start was reported as 1984 (median, 1990) in 2002, which was different from the reported mean of 1977 (median, 1977) program start in 1986. Approximately one-third (34.1%) of respondents in 2002 considered that their state U&CF program started before 1980. Comparatively, nearly 75% in 1986 considered a program start by 1980.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Cumulative percentage of states reporting the start of their urban and community forestry program in 1986 and 2002. (Start of program since 1986 for Casey and Miller study [gray bars] extrapolated from this study [black bars].)

State U&CF program membership in professional organizations significantly increased since 1986 from 80% to 95% of program staff in 2002 a member of the International Society of Arboriculture, the Society of American Foresters, and/or American Forests. Membership in the International Society of Arboriculture increased significantly from 56.5% in 1986 to 85.0% membership in 2002. No significant change was found within American Forests membership in 1986 (67.4%) and 2002 (75.0%) or for membership within the Society of American Foresters in 1986 (54.3%) and in 2002 (42.5%).

Program Sustainability

No indicators of program sustainability were significantly different between 1986 and 2002 (Table 1). A similar majority (60.5% in 1986 and 57.5% in 2002) of state U&CF program managers/coordinators reported that they did not believe the urban forestry program was given adequate attention by their agency. They also were similarly optimistic in 1986 (61.4%) and 2002 (64.0%) that the long-term future of expansion of the state program would occur. Some state U&CF programs were also highly dependent on federal funding. State U&CF coordinators/program staff similarly indicated in 1986 (77.3%) and 2002 (68.3%) that if federal funding were eliminated, the state U&CF programs would still continue, albeit at a reduced level. Budget and staffing limitations were the primary factors described as limiting the state U&CF programs in both 1986 and 2002. Budget and staffing in 20 states were given as the primary factors limiting the state U&CF program in 1986. These factors were also the primary limitations in 2002 with 17 states indicating budget and 13 indicating staffing in 2002. Lack of administrative support or awareness within an agency was similarly reported as limiting the program in 1986 and 2002.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

State U&CF program capacity since 1986, especially since passing the 1990 Federal Farm Bill, has increased. Several indicators of capacity involving technical and financial assistance, including administration and funding of Cooperative Forestry Assistance Grants, state funding of grants, frequency of technical assistance, and number of communities assisted, were significantly greater. States have a U&CF coordinator near one fulltime equivalent (FTE) and an additional mean 3.2 FTEs of staff associated with U&CF activities. Comparatively, states had a mean 2.2 FTEs associated with the state U&CF program with the U&CF coordinator accounting for 0.4 FTE of the total in the late 1980s (Casey and Miller 1988; NASF 1988). Only 20% of states had a full-time U&CF coordinator in 1988 compared with 100% of states currently having a full-time coordinator with most work urban forestry-related (Reichenbach 1988; Hauer and Johnson 2007).

Results from this study suggest that states without a coordinator before 1990 would likely not have a full-time coordinator today without federal financial support. In these states, respondents suggested a 0.25 FTE position would be likely, and this was consistent with the status of state U&CF programs before 1990 (NASF 1988; Reichenbach 1988). Overall, state U&CF coordinators suggested a national 46.6% FTE within the coordinator position would exist in 2002 without additional federal support after the 1990 farm bill (Hauer 2005). This was also consistent with the 45.7% FTE level in the U&CF coordinator position nationally before 1990 (Casey 1988). Interestingly, the national mean of 4.2 FTEs in 2002 matches the staffing level need the NASF (1988) recommended in 1988 for states to implement effective U&CF programs.

State U&CF programs historically have been subject to state and federal funding and agency priorities. For example, some state U&CF programs have experienced episodes of state funding reallocation with U&CF positions eliminated and later reestablished (Harrell 1978; Gornicki and Harrell 1983; Sinclair 1993). In some cases, state U&CF programs were informal before establishing a more developed program. For example, Wisconsin initiated a state U&CF program in 1990; however, an informal role was taken through administrating federal U&CF grants and participation in the DED Federal Demonstration from 1978 to 1982 (Casey 1988). Enabling legislation presumably instills a recognized need for U&CF within a state; however, in 2002, only 42% of states had enabling legislation, which was not significantly different than the 32.6% in 1986. Enabling legislation provides authority for carrying out U&CF activities.

State U&CF programs have progressively increased their capacity to provide local-level U&CF assistance since the 1970s. Andresen (1978) documented state U&CF program capacity in the early 1970s and found most states had emerging U&CF programs. Few state programs were rated as “strong” when defined as a function of historical precedent, public demand and support, funding, legislation, vision of leadership, and dominance 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 respondents considered the program started. Differences could be explained in different wording used in the two studies, incomplete respondent knowledge of past efforts within a state, or perception 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 activities 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 program of systematic efforts rather than an activity or nonsystematic 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, assistance 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, education, tree planting, tree removal, equipment, and other urban forestry activities (Hauer and Johnson 2007). Technical assistance was found by Hauer (unpublished data) to have the strongest effect (2.4 to 3.5 times greater) followed by financial assistance 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 increase in the percent of states offering Cooperative 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 funding 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 constant 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 increase. 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

  1. ↵
    1. Andersen, F.,
    2. C.C. Konijnendijk, and
    3. T.B. Randrup
    . 2002. Higher education on urban forestry in Europe: An overview. Forestry 75: 501–511.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. McBride, J., and
    2. R. Beatty
    1. 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.
  3. ↵
    1. Miller, H.C.
    1. Archibald, P.L.
    1973. Urban and community forestry—Past and present, pp. 4–9. In Miller, H.C. (Ed.). Proceedings Urban Forestry Conference, 12–15 March 1973. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.
  4. ↵
    1. Biles, L.E., and
    2. F.J. Deneke
    . 1982. Urban forestry programs begins fifth year. Journal of Arboriculture 8: 154–156.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Bird, J.
    2002. Pass-through grants from federal sources to state agencies as an effective tool to develop sustainable community forestry programs at the local level. Unpublished manuscript. North Dakota State Forest Service, Bismarck, ND. 42 pp.
  6. ↵
    1. Campana, R.J.
    1999. Arboriculture: History and Development in North America. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI. 443 pp.
  7. ↵
    1. 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 Wisconsin–Stevens Point, WI. 134 pp.
  8. ↵
    1. Casey, C.J., and
    2. R.W. Miller
    . 1988. State government involvement in community forestry: A survey. Journal of Arboriculture 14: 141–144.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Clark, J.R.,
    2. N.P. Matheny,
    3. G. Cross, and
    4. V. Wake
    . 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23: 17–30.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Baughman, M.J.
    1. Cubbage, F.W.,
    2. B.D. New, and
    3. R.J. Moulton
    . 1996. Evaluations of technical assistance programs for nonindustrial private forest land owners, pp. 367–376. In Baughman, M.J. (Ed.). Proceedings: Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future. University of Minnesota, Minnesota Extension Service, Extension Special Programs, St. Paul, MN.
  11. ↵
    1. Davis, R.L.
    1993. Street tree trends in Kansas and the influence of community factors. Journal of Arboriculture 19: 201–208.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Deneke, F.
    1983. Urban and community forestry: Where are we going? Journal of Arboriculture 9: 99–101.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Rodbell, P.D.
    1. Deneke, F.J.
    1992. A history of federal funding, pp. 188–189. In Rodbell, P.D. (Ed). Proceedings of the Fifth National Urban Forest Conference, Los Angeles, November 1991. American Forestry Association, Washington, DC.
  14. ↵
    1. Dillman, D.A.
    2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 464 pp.
  15. ↵
    1. Dwyer, J.F.,
    2. D.J. Nowak, and
    3. M.H. Noble
    . 2003. Sustaining urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture 29: 49–55.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Dwyer, J.F.,
    2. D.J. Nowak,
    3. M.H. Noble, and
    4. S.S. Sisinni
    . 2000. Connecting people with ecosystems in the 21st century: An assessment of our nation’s urban forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-490. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/2517 (accessed 2/9/2007).
  17. ↵
    1. Dwyer, J.F.,
    2. D.J. Nowak, and
    3. G.W. Watson
    . 2002. Future directions for urban forestry research in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 28: 231–236.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Elmendorf, W.,
    2. T. Watson, and
    3. S. Lilly
    . 2005. Arboriculture and urban forestry education in the United States: Results of an educators survey. Journal of Arboriculture 31: 138–149.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Elmendorf, W.F.,
    2. V.J. Cotrone, and
    3. J.T. Mullen
    . 2003. Trends in urban forestry practices, programs, and sustainability: Contrasting a Pennsylvania, U.S., study. Journal of Arboriculture 29: 237–248.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Gaddis, D.A.,
    2. B.D. New,
    3. F.W. Cubbage,
    4. R.C. Abt, and
    5. R.J. Moulton
    . 1995. Accomplishments and economic evaluations of the forestry incentives program: A review. Southeastern Center for Forest Economics Research Working Paper No. 78, 53 pp. with unnumbered appendix.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Gornicki, P.P., and
    2. J.B. Harrell
    . 1983. Urban forestry in Florida. Arboricultural Journal 7: 253–258.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Grey, G.W.
    1978. What should be the role of state government in municipal arboriculture–urban forestry. Journal of Arboriculture 4: 71–72.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Haines, T.
    1995. Federal and state forestry cost-share assistance programs: Structure, accomplishments, and future outlook. U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA. Research Paper SO-295. www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/804 (accessed 2/9/2007).
  24. ↵
    1. Harrell, J.B.
    1978. Florida’s urban forestry program. Journal of Arboriculture 4: 202–207.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Hauer, R.J.
    2005. Urban forest and urban forestry capacity: Defining capacity and models of capacity building. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota. www.uwsp.edu/cnr/faculty/hauer/Files/Hauer%20Dissertation.pdf (accessed 2/9/2007).
  26. ↵
    1. Phillips, V.D., and
    2. Tschida, R.
    1. Hauer, R.J.
    2006. Urban forestry capacity building and models, pp. 1–24. In Phillips, V.D., and Tschida, R. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities, 26–30 June 2006. Global Environmental Management Education Center, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, WI.
  27. ↵
    1. Hauer, R.J., and
    2. G.R. Johnson
    . 2007. State urban and community forestry program funding, technical assistance, and financial assistance within the 50 United States. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry (in press).
  28. ↵
    1. Henly, R.K.,
    2. P.V. Ellefson, and
    3. M.J. Baughman
    . 1988. Minnesota’s Private Forestry Assistance Program: An Economics Evaluation. University of Minnesota, Agriculture Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Publication 58–1988, St. Paul, MN. 59 pp.
  29. ↵
    1. Hortscience and Aslan Group
    . 2004. Assessment of the USDA Forest Service Urban & Community Forestry Program. Prepared for the National Urban & Community Forestry Advisory Council, USDA Forest Service. Hortscience, Pleasanton, CA, 47 pp. with appendices. www.treelink.org/linx/?navSubCatRef=58 (accessed 2/9/2007).
  30. ↵
    1. Kilgore, M.A., and
    2. C.R. Blinn
    . 2003. Policy tools to encourage the application of sustainable timber harvesting practices in the United States and Canada. Forest Policy and Economics 6: 111–127.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Burley, J.,
    2. J. Evans, and
    3. J.A. Youngquist
    1. Konijnendijk, C.C., and
    2. T.B. Randrup
    . 2004. Urban forestry, pp. 471–478. In Burley, J., J. Evans, and J.A. Youngquist (Eds.). Encyclopedia of forest sciences. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  32. ↵
    1. Konijnendijk, C.C.,
    2. R.M. Ricard,
    3. A. Kenney, and
    4. T.B. Randrup
    . 2006. Defining urban forestry—A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4: 93–103.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Kuser, J.E.
    (Ed.). 2000. Handbook of Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. 444 pp.
  34. ↵
    1. McPherson, E.G.
    2004. Benefits of trees: Watershed, energy, and air. Arborist News 13: 29–36.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Miller, R.W.
    1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. 2nd Ed. Prentice Hall, New York. 502 pp.
  36. ↵
    1. NASF
    . 1988. State Foresters Response to Urban Forestry Questionnaire. National Association of State Foresters, Washington, DC. 52 pp.
  37. ↵
    1. Reichenbach, M.R.
    1988. Perspectives gained from the national urban forestry assessment: Forestry a community tradition, pp. 392–395. In Healthy Forests, Healthy World, Proceedings of the 1988 Society of American Foresters National Convention, Rochester, NY. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD.
  38. ↵
    1. Miller, H.C.
    1. Ryan, M.V.
    1973. Urban forestry in Ohio, pp. 14–17. In Miller, H.C. (Ed.). Proceedings Urban Forestry Conference, 12–15 March 1973. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.
  39. ↵
    1. Sinclair, S.
    1993. Urban and Community Forestry Action Plan. Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, Waterbury, VT. 31 pp.
  40. ↵
    1. Still, D.,
    2. B. Fair, and
    3. H. Gerhold
    . 1996. Community forestry grants in Pennsylvania: How effective are they. Journal of Forestry 94: 26–30.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. U.S. House of Representatives
    . 2004. A report to the committee on appropriations U.S. House of Representatives on the U.S. Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program. Surveys and Investigations Staff, March 2004. www.treelink.org/linx/?navSubCatRef=58 (accessed 2/9/2007).
  42. ↵
    1. USDA-FS
    . 2002. Strengthening forest service and state leadership in the care of urban and community forest resources. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. www.fs.fed.us/ucf/action_plan.htm (accessed 2/9/2007).
  43. ↵
    1. USDA-FS
    . 2004a. Urban and community forestry accomplishment report, FY 2003. U.S. Department of. Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-804. Washington, DC. www.fs.fed.us/ucf/reports/accomplishment/2003/ (accessed 2/9/2007).
  44. ↵
    1. USDA-FS
    . 2004b. USDA forest service urban and community forestry program—Overview, accomplishments and challenges. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. www.treelink.org/linx/?navSubCatRef=58 (accessed 2/9/2007).
  45. ↵
    1. Vitosh, M.A., and
    2. J.R. Thompson
    . 2000. Iowa communities benefit from an externally funded tree-planting program. Journal of Arboriculture 26: 114–119.
    OpenUrl
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Advancement in State Government Involvement in Urban and Community Forestry in the 50 United States: Changes in Program Status From 1986 to 2002
Richard J. Hauer, Cynthia J. Casey, Robert W. Miller
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 2008, 34 (1) 5-12; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2008.002
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords