Revisiting the Status, Needs, and Knowledge Levels of Mississippi’s Governmental Entities Relative to Urban Forestry

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Dillman, D.A.

   2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Second edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, U.S. 464 pp.
2. ↵
   1. Dwyer, J.F.,
   2. E.G. McPherson,
   3. R.A. Rowntree, and
   4. H.W. Schroeder

   . 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5):227–234.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   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(4):237–248.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Grado, S.C.,
   2. D.L. Grebner,
   3. M.K. Measells, and
   4. A.L. Husak

   . 2006. Status, needs, and knowledge levels of Mississippi’s communities relative to urban forestry. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(1):24–32.

   OpenUrl
5. ↵
   1. Grey, G.W.

   1978. What should be the role of state government in municipal arboriculture-urban forestry. Journal of Arboriculture 4(3):71–72.

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   1. Groninger, J.W.,
   2. D.D. Close, and
   3. C.M. Basman

   . 2002. Can small, rural communities practice urban forestry? Journal of Forestry 100(1):23–28.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Hauer, R.J., and
   2. G.R. Johnson

   . 2008. State urban and community forestry program funding, technical assistance, and financial assistance within the 50 United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(5):280–289.

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Hauer, R.J.,
   2. G.R. Johnson, and
   3. M.A. Kilgore

   . 2011. Local outcomes of federal and state urban and community forestry programs. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(4):152–159.

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   1. Johnson, C.

   1982. Political and administrative factors in urban-forestry programs. Journal of Arboriculture 8(6):160–163.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Miller, R.W. and
    2. T.R. Bate

    . 1978. National implications of an urban forestry survey in Wisconsin. Journal of Arboriculture 4(6):125–127.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. J.E. Kuser

    1. Nowak, D.J., and
    2. J.F. Dwyer

    . 2007. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: J.E. Kuser (Ed.). Urban and community forestry in the northeast. New York, New York, U.S. Springer, pp. 25–46.
12. ↵
    1. Ries, P.D.,
    2. A.S. Reed, and
    3. S.J. Kresse

    . 2007. The impact of statewide urban forestry programs: A survey of cities in Oregon, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(3)168–175.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Schroeder, H.W.,
    2. T.L. Green, and
    3. T.J. Howe

    . 2003. Community tree programs in Illinois, U.S.: A statewide survey and assessment. Journal of Arboriculture 29(4):218–225.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Stevenson, T.R.,
    2. H.D. Gerhold, and
    3. W.F. Elmendorf

    . 2008. Attitudes of municipal officials toward street tree programs in Pennsylvania, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 34(3):144–151.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Tate, R.L.

    1982. Applying for federal funding grants for urban tree management activities. Journal of Arboriculture 8(4):107–109.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Treiman, T., and
    2. J. Gartner

    . 2004. Community forestry in Missouri, U.S.: Attitudes and knowledge of local officials. Journal of Arboriculture 30(4):205–213.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Watson, W.T.

    2004. Status of urban forestry in the south, final report. <www.urbanforestrysouth.org/Resources/Library/TTResource.2005-01-26.0438/view>
18. ↵
    1. Wolf, K.L.

    2005. Civic nature valuation: Assessments of human functioning and well-being in cities. In: Forging Solutions: Applying Ecological Economics to Current Problems, Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics (July 20–23, 2005). Tacoma, Washington: Earth Economics.