Assessing Municipal Forestry Activity: A Survey of Home-Rule Municipalities in Texas, U.S.

Abstract

Municipal forestry programs in the United States have been the subject of dozens of surveys over the past 40 years that offer valuable insight into what is occurring now and act as a point of reference in the future. Researchers surveyed home-rule municipalities (pop. 5,000 or greater) in Texas, U.S. to assess the commonality of the components of a municipal forestry program, municipal spending on urban forestry, and amount of assistance received from the Texas A&M Forest Service. Spending on urban forestry in Texas cities averaged USD $4.88 per capita overall. Basic tree ordinances, tree boards, non-profit tree advocacy groups, and proactive maintenance cycles were all fairly common. Urban forest management plans and tree inventories were very uncommon. About 70% of municipal forestry programs are housed in their cities’ Parks and Recreation Department, with the majority of the remainder occurring in their Public Works Department. The level of assistance received by municipalities from the Texas A&M Forest Service is consistent with the budget priorities and mission statement of that organization, which focuses on delivering technical and educational assistance over financial assistance. A lack of recent national trends to compare against greatly hampers understanding the efforts of Texas municipalities relative to other states. However, identifying current trends in Texas offers value to the Texas A&M Forest Service to understand the effect of their service delivery strategy. Urban foresters and city managers can also use these results to compare themselves against their peers, a common practice in setting municipal budgets and policy.

Paying for nature‐based solutions: A review of funding and financing mechanisms for ecosystem services and their impacts on social equity

“…As in the ecosystem services literature, environmental justice and equity themes were present in the funding, financing, and partnerships literature. Specifically, associations were made between the financial capacity of a city or community and NbS spending, where cities with less financial capacity allocate less money to NbS operations and maintenance (Leon‐Moreta et al, 2020; O'Herrin & Shields, 2016; Rigolon et al, 2018). Similar associations were found between capital fund availability and local capacity (Rigolon et al, 2018), race (Burdine & Taylor, 2018a), and income (Davies et al, 2019; Joassart‐Marcelli, 2010; Rigolon et al, 2018), both within and between cities.…”

“…For redevelopment projects, a local government may design an agreement where a private partner provides NbS, and then the partner is "repaid" through reduced property taxes (Chiang Hsieh & Noonan, 2018;Crompton, 2020). For operations, funding sources are much more limited (Chen & Bartle, 2022;O'Herrin & Shields, 2016). In most cases, local governments must use revenues they generate (e.g., tax receipts, utility revenue; Barrett et al, 2017;O'Herrin & Shields, 2016;Shi & Cheng, 2021), develop new fiscal arrangements (Cheng et al, 2020), or work with private partners (Shi & Cheng, 2021).…”

“…For operations, funding sources are much more limited (Chen & Bartle, 2022;O'Herrin & Shields, 2016). In most cases, local governments must use revenues they generate (e.g., tax receipts, utility revenue; Barrett et al, 2017;O'Herrin & Shields, 2016;Shi & Cheng, 2021), develop new fiscal arrangements (Cheng et al, 2020), or work with private partners (Shi & Cheng, 2021). Indeed, lack of funding was commonly cited as a barrier to NbS capital and operating expenditures, as parks and recreation departments often compete with essential government services (police, fire, etc.)…”

“…Elected officials prioritize each municipal department differently, and these perceived rankings influence the department's funding level (Hunt & Richardson, 2015). Unfortunately, local government spending on parks and urban forestry remains a small fraction of the total budget, and it is often the first to be cut during budget shortfalls (Barrett et al, 2017; O'Herrin & Shields, 2016). Stormwater fees can support GI installments, but stormwater departments are expected to align fee revenues with stormwater costs, like meeting municipal storm sewer system permit requirements (Matsler et al, 2021).…”

Factors affecting adoption of forestry social services: evidence from major forestry provinces in China

“…Forestry social services (FSS) include a range of offerings, such as forestry technical guidance (Zhang & Mehmood 2001, O'Herrin & Shields 2016, pest and disease control (Ji et al 2011, Bhatia & Yousuf, 2013, forest fire prevention (Stocks & Martell 2016), operational and management support (Boakye-Danquah & Reed 2019), and forest product processing and sales (Munn & Rucker 1994). The provision of these services primarily relies on the collaborative body of four key stakeholders: government agencies, markets, social organizations, and farmers, each with distinct objectives (Szulecka et al 2016).…”