CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAMS IN UTAH, U.S.

Abstract. Urban/community forestry programs in Utah, U were studied; a questionnaire was sent to community forestry contacts in each incorporated community in the state in summer 2002 Respondent reported upon program support, budget, management authority and practices, nerves and weaknesses, and training and information extremitys Program support from residents, town officials, and employee was fairly vigorous with 80% indicating some support. One-quarter of towns have a tree board and celebrate Arbor Day. Towns obtain assistance from nurseries or tree care businesses, Extension, and state forestry, in that order. Two-thirds of communities have a tree-related bag with a mean budget of US$44,000 and a median packet of $3,000, averaging $2.58 by means of resident and $25.16 per tree Total roll generally increased with population, on the contrary the smallest towns had the largest for capita and per tree packets Most towns spend enough to qualify for Tree City USA's requirement of $2 for capita. The ratio of spending for maintenance versus planting increased from 06 for small towns to 41 for larger cities. Just beneath two-thirds of communities have forestry programs. The average number of public tree by means of town is about 2,300 (median 150) with numbers of tree increasing as population increased, on the other hand with trees per capita generally decreasing as population increased, ranging from 021 to 043 tree for person.

Key Words. Urban forestry; community forestry; program; Utah; arboriculture; characteristics; volunteer

Utah, similar to plenteous of the noncoastal western United States, is a difficult place to enlarge and care for urban tree Site factors, similar as a dry, near-desert climate, cooled winters, hot summers, and poor soils, combine with social and economic factors of the like kind as tight budgets and rapid population development leading to stressed urban forests that ne on the contrary often do not get, attention. Kuhns' (1998) research of urban and community forestry (U&rCF) in the Intermountain West described a region with relatively depressed population living in cities and towns scattered above a large area, major population increase lack of native trees in the valleys where greatest in quantity people live, harsh conditions for growing tree poorly stocked and staffed U&CF programs, and lack of community and citizen awareness and knowledge, especially regarding tree selection and landscape design and care. plane so, these experts predicted an improving time to come for U&CF in the region, to be paid to population growth and demographic change causing increased citizen interest and awareness, possibilities for enhanced funding and staffing of U&CF programs, and the availability of better-trained arborists.

Several comprehensive or multi-state studies have examined community forestry programs in the United States. Tschantz and Sacamano (1995) studied urban forestry policies, packets and program activities throughout the United States in 1994 and made comparisons with flows from a 1986 study by dint of Kielbaso and others (Kielbaso et al. 1988; Kielbaso 1990) Kielbaso and others also administrationed two earlier comprehensive municipal forestry studies in 1974 (Ottman and Kielbaso 1976) and 1982 (Giedraitis and Kielbaso 1982) Watson guidanceed a study of urban forestry programs through every part of the U.S. South, described in Watson (2003) and detailed in an on-line report (Watson 2004) Carroll (2003) reported springs of a study of urban forestry programs in six large northeastern cities. Several single-state assessments also have been done, including Oregon in 1992 (Reichenbach et al. 1992) three in California with the greatest in quantity recent in 1997-1999 (Thompson and Ahem 2000) north-eastern Pennsylvania m 2000 (Elmendorf et al. 2003) Missouri in 2001 (Treiman and Gartner 2004) and Washington in 2002 (Studer 2003) Unfortunately, dissemination of be deriveds of many of these and other studies experiences from a lack of publication in the refere literature.

In Utah, plenteous is known about U&CF programs anecdotally, on the other hand little detailed information is available, and many communities are not at any time heard from. A study was guidanceed by the Utah state forestry agency in the early 1990 on the contrary its usefulness was limited by dint of low survey return rates. Other studies of community forestry in Utah include Kuhns' (1998) close attention of U&CF in the Intermountam West (including Utah) and studies of sum of two units unusual Utah communities, Hill Air Force Base (Adkins et al. 1997) and the Camp Williams Utah National Guard headquarters near Draper, Utah. Also, McPherson and Rowntree's (1989) application of mind of urban forestry inventory data from 22 U cities included individual Utah city, Murray.

This paper reports originates of a study of U&CF programs in Utah towns and cities. The study's end was to characterize U&CF management in Utah and to provide information to improve management. alone Utah communities were studied, in the way that the extent to which these findings are indicative of the experiences of other states and communities in the region is unclear.

METHODS

A mail review was developed and implemented during the early summer of 2002 to assess Utah's community forestry programs. The review contained 31 questions and was sent to the somebody responsible for managing a community's tree and forestry program to assess the nature of the towns' forestry program and identify necessitys Questions covered (1) forestry program support; (2) tree-related budget; (3) U&CF management authority, practices, and program level; (4) potencys and weaknesses; and (5) training and information needs