Projects

Many kinds of users compete for Missouri’s public trails and managers are challenged to balance human users’ needs with those of wildlife. To improve our knowledge of Missourian’s equestrians, their preferences, and habits, the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) conducted a scientific survey of over 5,000 randomly selected horse owners in Missouri between February and June, 2008. The response rate (after removing invalid addresses) was 48.1% (2,286/4,750).

Survey Results

• Missourians took a total of 181,500 riding trips on public land in 2007. These included over 68,000 trips at MDC areas (38% of the total).
• Sixty percent of equestrian trail users indicated they would be willing to help maintain trails.
• Five MDC areas were in the top 10 most heavily used riding areas in 2007, with the US Forest Service (USFS) managing the most used area.
• Total spending on trips is estimated at $27 million (with a total economic impact of $48 million).
• About 38% of riders rode on public lands in 2007.
• The average ride was about a half day.
• The availability of water for horses and parking were the most important factors when survey respondents were deciding where to ride.
• Respondents felt that ATVs (but not hikers) caused problems for horses.
• Respondents wanted more trails, better signage, and consistent policies and rules.

To promote the Missouri Department of Conservation’s (MDC) Community Forestry Program and help communities foresters need to help community decision-makers visualize forest resources as an infrastructure asset. The Community Forestry Program targets city and county governments, arborists, non-profit organizations, regional planning councils, the nursery industry, homeowners and other groups with an interest in managing community trees. Forestry Division annually spends ~ $440,000 in cost-share programs such as Tree Resource Improvements and Maintenance (TRIM). Understanding barriers to active management will allow MDC to target TRIM dollars to gain the greatest return.

In 2010 statewide measurement of community-owned street trees in Missouri collected physical tree attributes which can characterize their economic value. Community tree values are “public goods;” they do not come with a price tag attached but they benefit the entire community. Economists have many methods for estimating a dollar value of such public goods. The Forest Service has created software called “i-Tree,” a peer-reviewed package that provides urban and community forestry analysis and benefits assessment. i-Tree helps communities understand the environmental services trees provide. i-Tree has been used by communities, non-profit organizations and consultants to report on the urban forest at various scales from individual trees to entire states.

MDC’s Community Forestry Program advises, coordinates and facilitates efforts by many entities that own and affect the state’s community-owned trees. Assistance targeted at local governments, arborists, non-profit organizations and planning councils. MDC urban foresters and staff need a clearer picture of what trees occur along streets and how they change over time. Better management will improve the environmental, social and economic well being of each community and ultimately the entire state of Missouri.

In 2010, a third statewide survey of trees along streets in 44 Missouri communities was conducted by MDC. This follows measurements in 1989 and in 1999. The objective was to depict whether and how Missouri’s urban forests are changing over time. Communities were stratified into analysis classes by population and location with the number of randomly located plots in each community based on miles of road. 

A survey was administered in 2012 including asking respondents how they would vote on two hypothetical ballot questions: would they be willing to pay a tax (of varying level) to fund tree care and maintenance, and would they support establishing a new law to protect trees during development. Based on pre-tests, the survey was printed in 10 different versions, each with a different tax level ($X) in the hypothetical ballot issue. This method, referred to in economic literature as the contingent valuation method, allows the calculation of the population’s mean willingness-to-pay for public tree care and maintenance.

• When asked “How would you vote to establish a tree fund costing each homeowner $X?” over 53% of respondents said they would vote for the fund (across all monetary amounts), 23% against, and 23% undecided.
• The top reasons listed for respondents’ decision on the hypothetical ballot issue were cost (72%), the wording of the referendum (65%), the condition of community trees (62%), and other competing community needs (54%).
• Missourian’s willingness-to-pay for a tree fund in their community varied from a low of $4.47 per household in smaller communities (population less than 5,000) to over $60 in St. Louis and its suburbs.
• When deciding whether to vote for more taxes to pay for tree care, about 80% say trees help with property values is an important factor while only 11% say it would not be important.
• Trees are part of a community’s infrastructure. Eighty-three percent agree or strongly agree that community trees are part of a community’s assets like streets, utilities, and parks.
• There is strong support for tree protection during development and construction, with 84.6% that think protecting trees from development is important and 65% thinking too many trees are lost during development, and 80% think a community should protect trees from construction. Over 53% responded that it is very important or important to have a tree law which defines the communities’ responsibilities in these areas.
• In questions about topped trees, 56% of people said topped trees are not healthy, over 90% said topped trees are not attractive but just 16% said they see topped trees frequently.
• About 72% responded it is either very or somewhat important for cities to manage trees to minimum standards.
• Almost 85% think it is important to prune trees and 90% think it is important to manage trees for safety.

List of MOFEP bird project publications.

List of MOFEP Ground Flora publications

List of publications resulting from the MOFEP Herp project

MOFEP publication list sorted by year. Project specific publications can additionally be found within their project page.