URBAN FORESTS

Ecosystem Services
and Management
URBAN FORESTS
Ecosystem Services
and Management

Edited by
J. Blum, PhD
CRC Press Apple Academic Press, Inc.
Taylor & Francis Group 3333 Mistwell Crescent
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Oakville, ON L6L 0A2
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 Canada

©2017 by Apple Academic Press, Inc.

Exclusive worldwide distribution by CRC Press, an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa
business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20160517

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-77188-426-6 (eBook - PDF)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher
cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The
authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in
this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not
been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know
so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted,
reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access
www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
(CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit
organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that
have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been
arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,

and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at http://www.crcpress.com

For information about Apple Academic Press products:

http://www.appleacademicpress.com
ABOUT THE EDITOR

J. BLUM, PhD
J. Blum, PhD, has a background in biology as well as urban and envi-
ronmental policy and planning. Her experience in education, field work,
research, evaluation, and project coordination is diverse, and includes bio-
technology, food systems and urban agriculture, affordable housing pol-
icy, and small-scale economic development. She has studied or worked in
educational, non-profit and for-profit environments in the USA, Europe,
and Asia.
CONTENTS

Acknowledgment and How to Cite.............................................................. ix

List of Contributors..................................................................................... xi
Introduction.................................................................................................xv
Part I: The Benefits of Urban Forests
1. Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality and
Climate Change Mitigation Policies: The Case of Urban Forests
in Barcelona, Spain...................................................................................... 3
Francesc Baró, Lydia Chaparro, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Johannes Langemeyer,
David J. Nowak, and Jaume Terradas
2. Modelling Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban
Carbon Management—A Citywide Analysis.......................................... 37
Nicola McHugh, Jill L. Edmondson, Kevin J. Gaston, Jonathan R. Leake,
and Odhran S. O'Sullivan
3. Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center........ 59
Omid Kardan, Peter Gozdyra, Bratislav Misic, Faisal Moola, Lyle J. Palmer,
Tomáš Paus, and Marc G. Berman
Part II: Expanding the Urban Tree Canopy
4. Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting ........................................ 93
Ruth A. Rae, Gabriel Simon, and Jessie Braden
5. It’s Not Easy Going Green: Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs
in East Baltimore......................................................................................... 125
Michael Battaglia, Geoffrey L. Buckley, Michael Galvin, and Morgan Grove
Part III: Managing Urban Forests
6. A Protocol for Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted
Urban Trees.............................................................................................. 153
Jessica M. Vogt and Burnell C. Fischer
Part IV: Improving Our Understanding of Urban Forests
7. 110 Years of Change in Urban Tree Stocks and Associated
Carbon Storage............................................................................................ 189
Daniel F. Díaz-Porras, Kevin J. Gaston, and Karl L. Evans
viii Contents

8. Biological, Social, and Urban Design Factors Affecting Young Street

Tree Mortality in New York City............................................................ 211
Jacqueline W.T. Lu, Erika S. Svendsen, Lindsay K. Campbell, Jennifer Greenfeld,
Jessie Braden, Kristen L. King, and Nancy Falxa-Raymond
9. Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest: The Interacting
Roles of Social and Environmental Variables....................................... 233
Meghan L. Avolio, Diane E. Pataki, Thomas W. Gillespie, G. Darrel Jenerette,
Heather R. McCarthy, Stephanie Pincetl, and Lorraine Weller Clarke
10. Assessing the Effects of the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of
MillionTreesNYC on the Structure and Functioning of
New York City Ecosystems..................................................................... 265
P. Timon McPhearson, Michael Feller, Alexander Felson, Richard Karty,
Jacqueline W.T. Lu, Matthew I. Palmer, and Tim Wenskus
Author Notes..................................................................................................... 287
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND
HOW TO CITE

The editor and publisher thank each of the authors who contributed to this
book. The chapters in this book were previously published elsewhere. To
cite the work contained in this book and to view the individual permis-
sions, please refer to the citation at the beginning of each chapter. Each
chapter was read individually and carefully selected by the editor; the re-
sult is a book that provides a multi-perspective look at research into many
elements of urban forests. The chapters included are organized into four
sections as follows:

The first section focuses on the various benefits of urban forests.

• Chapter 1 models urban air quality and climate regulation to examine the
complex relationship between municipal forests, ecosystem services, and
urban space, emphasizing the need for integrated green strategies.
• Chapter 2 demonstrates that well managed urban tree cover can contribute
to urban sustainability through fossil fuel replacement, as well through car-
bon storage.
• Chapter 3 studies connections between tree cover and human health to
suggest cost-effective strategies to improve well-being in certain urban
populations.

The second section explores the issues surrounding urban tree planting.
• Chapters 4 and 5 explore the multifaceted response of urban residents to
trees and tree planting, indicating a need for more citizen involvement in
urban greening campaigns.

The third section centers on community-based stewardship of urban

forests.
• Chapter 6 discusses a tool for communities could employ to gather data for
the effective care of local trees.
x Acknowledgment and how to Cite

The final section turns to enhancing knowledge of urban forestry.

• Chapter 7 analyzes urban tree dynamics via historical photography to eval-
uate conditions for preserving trees with high ecosystem value.
• Chapter 8 examines biological, social, and urban design factors that influ-
ence the survival of young urban trees in order to advance management
practices.
• Chapter 9 scrutinizes urban forests patterns to find that socioeconomic fac-
tors strongly influence variations in urban tree cover diversity.
• Chapter 10 focuses on the effects of input management on new urban for-
ests over time, suggesting that biological diversity increases as conditions
favorable to invasive species recede.
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Meghan L. Avolio
Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Francesc Baró
Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona
(UAB)

Michael Battaglia
Michigan Technological University Research Institue

Marc G. Berman
Department of Psychology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA; Grossman Institute for
Neuroscience, Quantitative Biology, and Human Behavior, University of Chicago

Jessie Braden
City of New York, Department of Parks & Recreation, Central Forestry & Horticulture

Geoffrey L. Buckley
Ohio University

Lindsay K. Campbell
USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

Lydia Chaparro
Ecologistas en Acción

Lorraine Weller Clarke

Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA

Daniel F. Díaz-Porras
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, U.K; Escuela de Cien-
cias, Universidad Autónoma ‘Benito Juárez’ de Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico

Karl L. Evans
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, U.K

Jill L. Edmondson
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
xii List of Contributors

Nancy Falxa-Raymond
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University

Michael Feller
New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, Natural Resources Group

Alexander Felson
Yale University School of Architecture, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies

Burnell C. Fischer
The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, and Center for the
Study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change, Indiana University, Bloomington

Michael Galvin
SavATree

Kevin J. Gaston
Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, UK

Thomas W. Gillespie
Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Erik Gómez-Baggethun
Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona
(UAB)

Jennifer Greenfeld
Central Forestry & Horticulture, City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation

Morgan Grove
USDA Forest Service

Peter Gozdyra
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada

G. Darrel Jenerette
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA

Omid Kardan
Department of Psychology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Richard Karty
The New School, Tishman Environment and Design Center

Kristen L. King
Forestry, Horticulture, and Natural Resources, City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation

Jonathan R. Leake
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Johannes Langemeyer
Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona
(UAB)
List of Contributors xiii

Jacqueline W.T. Lu
Forestry, Horticulture and Natural Resources, City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation

Heather R. McCarthy
Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

Nicola McHugh
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

P. Timon McPhearson
The New School, Tishman Environment and Design Center

Bratislav Misic
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Faisal Moola
The David Suzuki Foundation, Toronto, ON, Canada

David J. Nowak
USDA Forest Service, SUNY-ESF

Odhran S. O'Sullivan
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Lyle J. Palmer
Translational Health Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

Matthew I. Palmer
Columbia University, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology

Diane E. Pataki
Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Stephanie Pincetl
Institute of Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA,
USA

Tomáš Paus
Rotman Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Ruth A. Rae
City of New York, Department of Parks & Recreation, Central Forestry & Horticulture Division

Gabriel Simon
City of New York, Department of Parks & Recreation, Central Forestry & Horticulture

Erika S. Svendsen
USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

Jaume Terradas
Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications (CREAF), Autonomous University of Bar-
celona (UAB)
xiv List of Contributors

Jessica M. Vogt
Center for the Study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change, Indiana University,
Bloomington

Tim Wenskus
New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, Natural Resources Group
INTRODUCTION

The term “urban forests” generally refers to all forms of vegetation that
grow naturally, or through human activity, in and around densely settled
human habitats. While this definition includes shrubs, grasses, and other
plants, it is particularly directed at urban trees, both at individual and
group levels, and in private as well as public settings. Much of the research
on urban forests has been conducted in the United States of America and
other highly urbanized areas. This book draws on examples from these
countries to illustrate issues in urban forestry research and management.
Associated quantitative and qualitative analytical tools are found through-
out the volume, with their advantages or drawbacks discussed in the rel-
evant chapters. It is hoped that these studies might afford insights appli-
cable to a more global context.
Urban trees have long been appreciated for their esthetic appeal, but
are increasingly valued as a means of mitigating the considerable human
and environmental health problems associated with rapidly urbanizing ar-
eas. The range of benefits or “ecosystem services” that trees bestow on
city-dwellers includes: air purification, carbon sequestration, temperature
regulation, noise reduction, storm water management, and recreational
opportunities. Thus trees are a part of urban “green infrastructure.” How-
ever, they can also deliver “disservices” such as releasing volatile organic
compounds, triggering pollen allergies, and damaging infrastructure. A
vital part of urban forest research lies in understanding and quantifying
these services and relationships so as to improve them through appropriate
management, which includes both planting and care of urban trees. The
ability of urban forests to provide ecosystem services depends upon leaf
surface area, most pronounced in larger tree species. However, programs
to expand this “leaf canopy” have been constrained by shrinking munici-
pal budgets, resulting in partial devolution of urban forest management
onto local communities, non-profits, and business sectors. Techniques for
minimizing costs, and for collective strategizing, are being developed.
xvi Introduction

Community education and stewardship appear to be the most promising

strategies with respect to promoting healthy urban forests. Identifying
trends in urbanization and the accompanying growth and decline of urban
forests through time will also aid in furthering urban forest management
and green infrastructure planning.
Part 1 discusses four examples of benefits that urban forests provide.
Baró et al. (chapter 1) turn to the much emphasized role of urban for-
ests in reducing air pollution levels and offsetting greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in cities. They demonstrate the complex nature of urban for-
est ecosystem services and disservices through a software application that
models urban air quality and climate regulation in a major European city.
They conclude that to be effective, urban forests and other green infra-
structures must be implemented at broader spatial scales, and in conjunc-
tion with other “greening” strategies. McHugh et al. (chapter 2) go beyond
the wind shielding effects of trees to reduce heating energy needs. Con-
sidering GHG emissions inherent in expanding urban forests, they show
that by partially replacing fossil fuel with local timber, regularly coppiced
urban tree cover can contribute to both climate regulation and energy
conservation and therefore to urban sustainability. Kardan et al (chapter
3) brings in the direct connection of urban forest ecosystem services to
people by studying the correlation between tree cover and health percep-
tion in a large city neighborhood, finding that planting more street trees
could potentially provide a cost-effective way to increase the well-being
of poorer urban residents to much higher levels.
Part 2 then details and analyzes the issues involved in expanding urban
tree cover. Rae et al. (chapter 4) and Battaglia et al. (chapter 5) both un-
earth a complexity in residents’ response to trees and tree planting in two
cities that calls for more citizen involvement in such campaigns.
Part 3 consequently examines the management of urban forests by the
communities involved, including results and tools. Vogt and Fisher (chap-
ter 6) propose a standardized protocol that community members could
employ to gather data necessary to evaluate the survival and growth of
recently-planted urban trees.
Part 4 gives a sampling of research that examines urban forests over
time, from past to future, in order to further better management practices.
Diaz-Porras et al. (chapter 7) use photographs to examine the historical
Introduction xvii

expansion and recession of urban tree cover in the UK in order to deter-

mine conditions under which large trees with high ecosystem value are
preserved. Lu et al. (chapter 8) gained an initial understanding of factors,
including siting, species, and community involvement, which are vital to
the success of young street trees in one city, and that might inform manage-
ment practices in others. Avolio et al. (chapter 9) provides a brief summary
of research into environmental and sociological drivers of urban forests,
finding that socio-economic, rather than biophysical, factors better explain
variations in tree cover diversity in urban contexts. Lastly, McPhearson et
al. (chapter 10) describe a long-term research program focusing on the im-
pact of plant, soil and management interactions on new urban forests over
time, hypothesizing an increase in biological diversity concomitant with a
decrease in invasive species.
This book contains a selection of chapters aimed to provide a better
understanding of urban forests through consideration of major ecosystem
services and management regimes, particularly through a community lens.
Together these underscore some of the challenges researchers and practi-
tioners face to ensure the viability and vitality of urban forests and conse-
quent human wellbeing.
 PART I

THE BENEFITS OF URBAN FORESTS

CHAPTER 1

Contribution of Ecosystem Services

to Air Quality and Climate Change
Mitigation Policies: The Case of Urban
Forests in Barcelona, Spain
FRANCESC BARÓ, LYDIA CHAPARRO,
ERIK GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN, JOHANNES LANGEMEYER,
DAVID J. NOWAK, and JAUME TERRADAS

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Urban forests, encompassing all trees, shrubs, lawns, and other vegetation
in cities, provide a variety of ecosystem services to city-dwellers, such as
air purification, global climate regulation, urban temperature regulation,
noise reduction, runoff mitigation, and recreational opportunities, as well
as ecosystem disservices, such as air quality problems, allergies, and dam-
ages on infrastructure (Escobedo et al. 2011; Gómez-Baggethun and Bar-
ton 2013; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013). Specifically, a significant body
of literature has stressed the contribution of urban forests in reducing air
pollution levels and offsetting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in cities
(e.g., Jo and McPherson 1995; Beckett et al. 1998; McPherson et al. 1998;
Nowak and Crane 2002; Yang et al. 2005; Nowak et al. 2006; Paoletti
2009; Zhao et al. 2010).

© The Author(s) 2014. Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality and Climate Change Mitiga-
tion Policies: The Case of Urban Forests in Barcelona, Spain. AMBIO, May 2014, Volume 43, Issue
4. DOI 10.1007/s13280-014-0507-x. Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/3.0/).
4 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Air quality in cities is a major concern of the European Union (EU).

In the last two decades, various policy instruments have been imple-
mented at the European level to improve air quality in urban areas,
mostly by regulating anthropogenic emissions of air pollutants from
specific sources and sectors. These include the Directive 2010/75/EU on
industrial emissions, the “Euro standards” on road vehicle emissions and
the Directive 94/63/EC on volatile organic compounds emissions from
petrol storage and distribution, among others. Yet, the last annual report
on air quality in Europe (EEA 2013) estimated that many urban inhabit-
ants in the EU are still exposed to air pollutant concentrations above the
EU’s legally binding limits (mainly set in the Directive 2008/50/EC on
ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe). For example, the report
noted that 22–33 % of the urban population within the EU was exposed
to particulate matter (PM10) concentrations above the 24-h average limit
value (50 μg m−3) during the period 2009–2011. This estimation of expo-
sure increases dramatically (85–88 %) if it takes as reference the maxi-
mum levels recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO),
currently set at 20 μg m−3 (annual mean).
As for climate change mitigation policy, the member states of the EU
committed to reduce their GHG emissions by at least 20 % from 1990 lev-
els before the end of 2020 (Climate and Energy Package, EC 2008). In an
attempt to extent this commitment at the local level, the European Com-
mission launched the “Covenant of Mayors” in 2008. This initiative in-
volves local authorities, voluntarily committing themselves to implement
more sustainable energy policies within their territories by reducing GHG
emissions at the local level by at least 20 % until 2020. Such action by lo-
cal authorities is deemed critical to meet global climate change mitigation
targets because some 80 % of worldwide energy consumption and GHG
emissions are associated with urban activities (Hoornweg et al. 2011).
The focus of urban policy-making to meet the EU targets for both air
quality and climate change mitigation largely remains on technical mea-
sures such as the use of the best available technology, fuel composition
requirements, energy efficiency, or renewable energy actions. The poten-
tial of urban green space in contributing to the compliance of these envi-
ronmental targets is broadly neglected by urban policy-makers (Nowak
2006; Escobedo et al. 2011). Yet, a growing number of studies conclude
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 5

that management of urban forests to enhance ecosystem services supply

can be a cost-effective strategy to meet specific environmental standards
or policy targets (e.g., Escobedo et al. 2008, 2010).
This research assesses ecosystem services and disservices provided by
urban forests and it discusses their potential contribution in achieving air
pollution regulation policy targets in cities. The objectives are twofold.
First, we quantify in biophysical accounts and monetary values two eco-
system services (“air purification” and “global climate regulation”) and
one ecosystem disservice (“air pollution” associated with biogenic volatile
organic compounds (BVOC) emissions) generated by the urban forests in
Barcelona, Spain. Second, we evaluate the potential of these ecosystem
services to the achievement of environmental policy targets based on their
actual contribution relative to air pollution and GHG emissions levels at
the city scale. Accounting also the disservice allows having a “net” esti-
mate of this contribution, since BVOC emissions from urban forests can
negatively impact air quality of cities (Nowak et al. 2000).

1.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

1.2.1 CASE STUDY: BARCELONA CITY

We conducted our research within the administrative boundaries of the

municipality of Barcelona, Spain (Fig. 1). With 1.62 million inhabitants in
an area of 101.21 km2 (Barcelona City Council Statistical Yearbook 2012),
Barcelona is the second largest city in Spain and one of the most densely
populated cities in Europe (16 016 inhabitants km−2).
The total green space1 within the municipality of Barcelona amounts to
28.93 km2 representing 28.59 % of the municipal area and a ratio of 17.91
m2 per inhabitant (Barcelona City Council Statistical Yearbook 2012).
Most of this green space, however, corresponds to the peri-urban forest
of Collserola (protected as a natural park). The inner-city of Barcelona
(excluding Collserola) embeds only 10.98 km2 of green space (Barcelona
City Council Statistical Yearbook 2012), which amounts to 10.85 % of
the municipal area and a ratio of 6.80 m2 of green space per inhabitant.
This ratio is very low in contrast to other European cities—especially in
 6

FIGURE 1: Location of Barcelona municipality and main green spaces. Source: Own elaboration based on Natural Earth datasets
(www.​naturalearthdata​.​com) and 3rd edition of the Ecological Map of Barcelona (Burriel et al. 2006)
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 7

northern countries—where green space amounts to up to 300 m2 per in-

habitant (Fuller and Gaston 2009). Nonetheless, these low levels of green
space are partly counterbalanced by the high number of single street trees,
accounting for 158 896 specimens in 2011, a ratio of 98.36 street trees
per 1000 inhabitants. This ratio is relatively high compared to other urban
areas in Europe, which mostly ranges between 50 and 80 street trees per
1000 inhabitants (Pauleit et al. 2002). Two species, Platanus hispanica
(46 779 trees) and Celtis australis (19 426 trees), account for almost one-
third of the street trees in Barcelona (Barcelona City Council Statistical
Yearbook 2012). Thanks to recent research (e.g., Chaparro and Terradas
2009; Terradas et al. 2011), the role of urban forests in the provision of
ecosystem services in Barcelona is starting to be acknowledged by the
City Council as manifested, for example, in the Barcelona Green Infra-
structure and Biodiversity Plan 2020 (2013), a planning instrument that
aims to aid the development of green infrastructure2 (GI) strategies in the
present decade.
As for many other large European cities (EEA 2013), air quality im-
provement stands as one of the major environmental policy challenges
for Barcelona. In the last decade, the city has repeatedly exceeded the EU
limit values for average annual concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
and PM10 pollutants (40 μg m−3 for both pollutants). The measures from
the municipal monitoring stations during the period 2001–2011 show a
steady trend for NO2 values and a minor decrease for PM10 since 2006
(ASPB air quality report 2011). During the same period, ground-level
ozone (O3) levels have frequently exceeded the EU target value for human
health (120 μg m−3 for a daily maximum 8-h mean period), but have never
surpassed the number of allowed exceedances (25 days per year averaged
over three years). Finally, carbon monoxide (CO) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
concentrations have been historically very low in the city of Barcelona,
never exceeding the EU limit values (125 μg m−3 in one day for SO2 and
10 mg m−3 for 8-h average for CO) (ASPB air quality report 2011). Figure
2 synthesizes the EU limit values for air quality and the maximum levels
measured in Barcelona during 2011.
In 2008, Barcelona generated approximately 4.05 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) emissions, mainly due to energy
 8

FIGURE 2: Framework for assessing links between ecosystem services and disservices, urban policy targets, and air pollution
and GHG levels in Barcelona. Notes: air quality policy limits correspond to the most stringent EU values set for the protection of
human health (in brackets the averaging period applicable for each limit). Some limits are subject to a specific number of allowed
exceedances (e.g., PM10 limit can be exceeded 35 days per year at the most). See EEA (2013) for more details. Air pollution levels
in Barcelona show the highest concentration values among all the monitoring stations measuring the corresponding air pollutant
during the year 2011 (in brackets the number of monitoring stations exceeding the air quality limit after considering the number of
allowed exceedances). See ASPB air quality report (2011) for more details. Arrows represent the links between ecosystem services
and disservices, air pollution and GHG levels and urban policy targets in Barcelona (red arrows represent a negative impact towards
policy targets and green arrows a positive impact). Sources: Own elaboration based on EEA (2013), ASPB air quality report (2011)
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

and PECQ (2011)

Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 9

consumption in the transportation, industry, housing, and services sectors

(PECQ 2011). Compared to other cities worldwide, the ratio of Barce-
lona (2.51 t CO2eq per inhabitant) is one of lowest proportions (Dodman
2009; Kennedy et al. 2009). This same year, the City Council of Barcelona
signed the “Covenant of Mayors,” committing to reduce by 23 % GHG
emissions only derived from services and activities directly managed by
the City Council by 2020 (this so-called “municipal” GHG emissions in-
clude emissions from municipal buildings, street lighting, municipal ve-
hicle fleet and waste collection, among others). In 2008 (baseline year for
Barcelona), municipal CO2eq emissions amounted to 84 403 t, a ratio of
0.052 t per inhabitant (PECQ 2011, see Fig. 2).
The Energy, Climate Change and Air Quality Plan of Barcelona (PECQ
2011) provides the framework policy for air quality regulation and climate
change mitigation during the period 2011–2020. Like other policy instru-
ments aimed at improving indicators of environmental quality, the PECQ
does not consider the enhancement of green infrastructure as a potential
strategy to meet the policy targets established for air pollution concentra-
tions and GHG emissions, as it focuses mainly on measures to improve
energy efficiency and other technical fixes.

1.2.2 SAMPLE DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION

The i-Tree Eco model (formerly known as Urban Forests Effects—

UFORE) (Nowak and Crane 2000) was used to quantify ecosystem ser-
vices and disservices in Barcelona. The i-Tree Eco model has been used
in more than 50 cities across the world, especially in the United States, to
assess urban forest structure and ecosystem services (Nowak et al. 2008a).
I-Tree Eco protocols (Nowak and Crane 2000; Nowak et al. 2008a, b;
i-Tree User’s Manual 2008) were followed to collect field data on urban
forest structure within the municipality of Barcelona. Field data were col-
lected within 579 randomly located circular plots (each measuring 404
m2; 11.34 m radius) distributed across the city and pre-stratified among
eight land use classes based on the 3rd edition of the Ecological Map of
Barcelona (Burriel et al. 2006, see Fig. 3). Plot centers were positioned
 10

FIGURE 3: Land use classes and location of sample plots within the municipality of Barcelona. Source: Own elaboration based on
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

the 3rd edition of the Ecological Map of Barcelona (Burriel et al. 2006)
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 11

from a random number generator of x and y coordinates for each land use
class by means of a geographic information system (Miramon software,
see Pons 2006). Prior to fieldwork, plots without vegetation cover were
identified using 1:5000 digital aerial ortho-photographs from the Catalan
Cartographic Institute (year 2004). Only the plots with vegetation cover
(trees, shrubs or herbaceous flora) were then visited for field data collec-
tion (see Table 1 for sample data general figures).
Fieldwork was carried out from May to July 2009. Plots were located
using a GPS device supported by high resolution maps containing the
precise position of the plot center and its perimeter. Inaccessible plots
(due to the steep slope, lack of permission to enter private areas, im-
penetrable vegetation, among others) were relocated in the closest ac-
cessible area with similar land use and vegetation characteristics. The
general information collected from each visited plot included, among
other parameters, date of visit, GPS coordinates, actual land use (and
percent of land uses if the plot fell in more than one land use class), and
percents of tree cover, shrub cover, plantable space, and ground cover.
Main data on shrubs included the identification of species (genus at a
minimum), average height, and percent area relative to total ground
area. These data were collected for shrub masses (same species and
height) and not at the individual level. Main data on trees included the
identification of species, diameter at breast height (DBH), total height,
height to crown base, crown width, percent of canopy missing (relative
to crown volume), percent of impervious soil beneath canopy, percent
of shrub cover beneath the canopy, and light exposure of the crown
(see Nowak et al. 2008a for a complete list of data measures). Require-
ments of data inputs also include hourly air pollution concentrations
and meteorological data (e.g., air temperature, solar radiation, and pre-
cipitation averages) for a complete year. The Public Health Agency of
Barcelona (ASPB) provided concentration data for CO, SO2, O3, NO2,
and PM10 air pollutants from the 13 operational monitoring stations of
the city during the year 2008. Meteorological data of Barcelona was
directly retrieved from the US National Climatic Data Center (year
2008). Thus, the results from the evaluation of ecosystem services and
disservices correspond to the year 2008.
 12

Table 1. Sample data by land use stratification.

Land use Descriptiona Total area Sample data

class (ha)
Sampled No. of plots No. of plots No. of trees No. of shrub
area (ha) with woody massesc
vegetationb
Urban green Urban parks, lawns, 806 2.02 50 50 544 89
allotment gardens,
permanent crops,
flowerbeds
Natural green Woodland, scrubland, 2184 5.05 125 117 1844 329
grassland, riparian
vegetation, bare rock
Low-density 1–2 family dwellings 424 0.81 20 15 174 55
residential (normally with private
garden)
High-density Multi-family dwellings 3666 8.24 204 102 531 79
residential with or without com-
mercial areas
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management
13

Table 1. Continued.
Transportation Parking lots, roads, rails 513 1.21 30 14 69 10
and streets, stations
Institutional Education, health, 776 1.58 39 3 21 0
military, sport and
other public facilities,
cemeteries, port
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality

Commercial/ Factories and other 1185 2.83 70 7 14 0

industrial industrial areas, ware-
houses, large shopping
centers
Intensively Pedestrian areas, vacant 567 1.66 41 24 148 8
used areas areas, areas in transfor-
mation
Total 10 121 23.39 579 332 3345 570
a
Based on land use subclasses from the 3rd edition of the Ecological Map of Barcelona (Burriel et al. 2006)
b
Plots with woody vegetation account for those whether with shrubs or trees, or both
c
Data on shrubs were collected for shrub masses (same species and height) and not at the individual level
14 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

1.2.3 QUANTIFICATION AND VALUATION

OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND DISSERVICES

Field data of urban forest structure, air pollution, and meteorological data
were processed using i-Tree Eco software (www.​itreetools.​org) to quantify
the ecosystem services of air purification and climate regulation, and the
disservice air pollution derived from BVOC emissions in both biophysical
and economic terms. Besides, the model also provided general results on
the urban forest structure of Barcelona, including information on species
composition, species origin and diversity, leaf area index (LAI), and leaf
biomass. The analysis of the urban forest structure of Barcelona is beyond
the scope of this paper; however, we refer to some relevant information in
“Discussion” section.
The air purification service was quantified on the basis of field data,
air pollution concentration, and meteorological data. Fundamentally, the
i-Tree Eco model estimates dry deposition of air pollutants (i.e., pollu-
tion removal during non-precipitation periods), which takes place in urban
trees and shrub masses. The (removed) pollutant flux (F; in g m−2 s−1) is
calculated as the product of deposition velocity (V d; in m s−1) and the pol-
lutant concentration (C; in g m−3). Deposition velocity is a factor computed
from various resistance components (for more details see Baldocchi et
al. 1987; Nowak and Crane 2000; Nowak et al. 2006, 2008a). Monetary
values of the ecosystem service air purification were estimated in i-Tree
Eco from the median externality values for each pollutant established for
the United States (Murray et al. 1994) and adjusted by the producer’s price
index for the year 2007 (U.S. Department of Labor). Externality values
applied to the case study are: NO2 = 9906 USD t−1, PM10 = 6614 USD t−1,
SO2 = 2425 USD t−1, and CO = 1407 USD t−1. Externality values for O3
are set to equal the value for NO2.
The ecosystem service of climate regulation was calculated based on
the modeling results of gross carbon sequestration, net carbon sequestra-
tion (i.e., estimated net carbon effect after accounting for decomposition
emission of carbon from dead trees), and carbon storage. The i-Tree Eco
model calculates the biomass for each measured tree using allometric
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 15

equations from the literature. Biomass estimates are combined with base
growth rates, based on length of growing season, tree condition, and
tree competition, to derive annual biophysical accounts for carbon stor-
age and carbon sequestration. Several assumptions and adjustments are
considered in the modeling process (for more details, see Nowak and
Crane 2000, 2002; Nowak et al. 2008a). To estimate the monetary value
associated with urban tree carbon storage and sequestration, biophysical
accounts were multiplied by 78.5 USD t−1 carbon based on the estimated
social costs of carbon dioxide emissions in the US for the year 2010
(discount rate 3 %, EPA 2010). Additionally, we considered GHG emis-
sions generated by the municipal vehicle fleet dedicated to green space
management (862.50 t CO2eq according to PECQ 2011) as a proxy of
total GHG emissions directly attributable to green space maintenance.
Hence, this measure was subtracted from total net carbon sequestration
estimate provided by urban forests (after applying the conversion factor
1 g C = 3.67 g CO2eq).
The emission of BVOCs from trees and other vegetation can con-
tribute to the formation of ground-level O3 and CO air pollutants (Kes-
selmeier and Staudt 1999), hence counteracting the air purification
that vegetation delivers. BVOC emissions depend on factors such as
tree species, leaf biomass, daylight, and air temperature (Nowak et al.
2008a). The i-Tree Eco model estimates the hourly emission of isoprene
(C5H8), monoterpenes (C10 terpenoids), and other BVOCs by trees and
shrubs species using protocols of the Biogenic Emissions Inventory Sys-
tem (BEIS; see Nowak et al. 2008a for further details). To estimate the
amount of O3 produced by BVOC emissions, the model applies incre-
mental reactivity scales (g O3 produced per g BVOC emitted) based on
Carter (1994). CO formation from BVOC emissions is estimated for an
average conversion factor of 10 % based on empirical evidence (Nowak
et al. 2002a). However, due to the high degree of uncertainty in the ap-
proaches of estimating O3 and CO formation derived from BVOC emis-
sions, no estimates of the total amount of pollution formed by urban
forests are given (neither monetary costs). Only index values can be cal-
culated to compare the relative impact of the different species on O3 and
CO formation (Nowak et al. 2002a).
16 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

1.2.4 CONTRIBUTION OF URBAN FORESTS

TO AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT AND
CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION

The relative contribution of urban forests to air quality improvement

and climate change mitigation in Barcelona for the year 2008 was de-
termined based on data of air pollution levels and GHG emissions.
We considered emissions generated within the municipal area (here-
after city-based pollution) and pollution not directly attributable to
city-based emissions (hereafter background pollution) to determine air
pollution levels in the city. We only accounted for PM10 and NO2 lev-
els since, as described above, these are the two air pollutants whose
concentrations are frequently exceeding EU value limits in the city.
Data for city-based pollution and background pollution were extracted
from PECQ (2011) estimations. PECQ (2011) measures include ag-
gregated and disaggregated city-based emissions from different sectors
(road transport, residential and tertiary, industry and energy genera-
tion, and port activity), which in turn draws on a wide range of pri-
mary data sources (e.g., vehicle population, annual vehicle mileage,
consumption of gas in households and businesses, etc.) and apply vari-
ous quantitative methods (e.g., COPERT/CORINAIR model for road
transport). Background pollution is measured from real pollutant con-
centration values recorded by the monitoring stations in the city and
from one monitoring station located in the area of “Cap de Creus”
(130 km north-east from Barcelona), hence not influenced by polluting
activities within the city. According to PECQ (2011), the annual aver-
age concentration of NO2 for the year 2008 in Barcelona was mainly
determined by emissions from road traffic (65.6 %), while background
pollution only accounted for 18.7 %. In contrast, the annual average
of the PM10 concentration was primarily determined by background
pollution (88.1 %).
The rate of GHG emissions was also extracted from PECQ (2011).
Calculations are based on the various energy sources generating GHG
emissions in the city (mainly electricity, natural gas and vehicle fuels).
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 17

Electricity-related GHG emissions are calculated based on the Catalan

electricity mix.

1.3 RESULTS

1.3.1 AIR PURIFICATION

Total air purification is estimated at 305.6 t of removed pollutants year−1

with an economic value of 2.38 million USD year−1 (Fig. 4). PM10 re-
moval is the highest among the five air pollutants analyzed (i.e., CO,
NO2, PM10, O3, and SO2), accounting for 54 % of the total biophysical
value (166.0 t year−1) and 46 % of the total economic value (1.10 mil-
lion USD year−1). Pollution removal was lower for NO2 and ground-level
O3 (54.6 t, 541 000 USD for NO2; 72.6 t, 719 000 USD for O3), and low-
est for CO and SO2 (5.6 t, 7880 USD for CO; 6.8 t, 16 000 USD for SO2).
Average values for monthly removal of air pollution show a simi-
lar pattern across pollutants. January, November, and December were
clearly the months where the uptake was lowest for all pollutants (per-
centages of uptake during the 3 months were 4.58 for CO, 8.45 for
NO2, 15.15 for PM10, 2.69 for O3, and 6.75 for SO2). Spring and sum-
mer (from April to September) were the seasons with higher removal
rates in average (percent of uptake during the 2 seasons was 60.96 for
CO, 64.25 for NO2, 54.43 for PM10, 78.90 for O3, and 70.46 for SO2),
although in some cases the highest monthly uptake rate corresponded
to other periods (e.g., PM10 removal was highest in February, account-
ing for 10.69 % of total uptake). These patterns in uptake values are
normally correlated with the seasonal variation in air pollutants con-
centrations and the biological cycle of trees (Nowak 1994; Yang et al.
2005). For instance, removal rates of ground-level O3 are highest in
summer, when concentrations are normally higher due to a more ac-
tive process of photochemical reaction forming O3 as a consequence
of warmer temperatures and due to increased leaf surface area and gas
exchange at the leaf surface.
18 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

FIGURE 4: Monthly and annual air pollution removal by air pollutant (urban forests
of the municipality of Barcelona, year 2008).
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 19

1.3.2 CLIMATE REGULATION

The total biophysical value of net carbon sequestration is estimated at

5187 t C year−1 (19 036 t CO2eq year−1) with an economic value of 407
000 USD year−1 (Table 2). This total net carbon sequestration is the only
value including the effect of GHG emissions of green space maintenance,
since disaggregate data by land use was not available. In absolute terms
urban green, natural green, and high-density residential are the land use
strata contributing the most to total net carbon sequestration (19, 39, and
24 %, respectively). However, considering the ratio net carbon sequestra-
tion per land use area, it is the urban green class that shows the highest
values among these three land uses (1.24 t ha−1 urban green, 0.96 t ha−1
natural green, and 0.35 t ha−1 high-density residential). Surprisingly, the
highest ratio among all land use classes is in the low-density residential
stratum (1.33 t ha−1).

1.3.3 AIR POLLUTION DUE

TO BIOGENIC EMISSIONS

The total biophysical value of BVOC emissions is estimated at 183.98

t year−1 (Table 3). Similar to the case of carbon sequestration values,
results for biogenic emissions show a major contribution of urban green,
natural green, and high-density residential land use strata relative to the
overall biophysical value for this ecosystem disservice (17.05, 47.46,
and 15.32 %, respectively). Urban green, natural green, and low-density
residential show to be the strata with the highest relative contribution to
BVOC emissions in the city (39, 40, and 35 kg ha−1, respectively) con-
sidering the ratio BVOC emissions per land use area. Besides, isoprene
is clearly the main BVOC emitted (51.8 % of total emissions) in all land
use classes (except for institutional), followed by other BVOCs (28.6 %)
and monoterpenes (19.6 %).
 20
Table 2. Carbon storage and annual carbon sequestration by land use class (urban forests of the municipality of Barcelona, year
2008).

Land use class Biophysical values Monetary values

Carbon storage Gross carbon sequestra- Net carbon sequestration Net carbon sequestration
tion
t SE t year−1 SE t year−1 SE USD year−1 SE
Urban green 26 876 4083 1088 109 1002 100 78 688 7839
Natural green 42 108 4115 2446 207 2099 181 164 804 14 224
Low-density 9764 2663 613 169 565 155 44 326 12 173
residential
High-density 21 014 2940 1398 157 1282 149 100 630 11 66
residential
Transportation 3876 1213 207 56 196 54 15 366 4250
Institutional 3452 2200 76 43 −64 109 −4995 8518
Commercial/ 328 153 32 15 31 14 2409 1086
industrial
Intensively 6020 1693 328 65 311 62 24 396 4844
used areas
Total 113 437 19 059 6187 819 5422 823 425 625 64 595
5187a 407 177a

a
Net carbon sequestration values taking into account GHG emissions of green space maintenance
SE standard error
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management
21

Table 3. Annual BVOC emissions by land use class (urban forests of the municipality of Barcelona, year 2008).
Land use class Isoprene Monoterpenes Other BVOCs Total BVOC
emissions emissions emissions emissions
(t year−1) (t year−1) (t year−1) (t year−1)
Urban green 16.78 4.94 9.65 31.36
Natural green 38.79 23.65 24.87 87.31
Low-density residential 8.81 1.93 4.06 14.81
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality

High-density residential 17.09 3.20 7.89 28.18

Transportation 4.19 0.57 1.24 6.01
Institutional 0.91 1.18 2.69 4.78
Commercial/industrial 1.13 0.01 0.16 1.29
Intensively used areas 7.66 0.58 2.00 10.24
Total 95.36 36.07 52.56 183.98
22 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

1.3.4 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES CONTRIBUTION TO AIR

QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION

From total biophysical accounts for removal of PM10, NO2, and CO2eq, we
estimated the relative contribution of urban forests ecosystem services to
air quality and climate change mitigation based on air pollution and GHG
emissions levels in the city (Table 4). Our results suggest that the contribu-
tion of urban forests to climate change mitigation is very low, accounting
for 0.47 % of the overall city-based GHG emissions. If we only account
for GHG emissions derived from the sectors that are directly managed
by the City Council (reference emissions to meet “Covenant of Mayors”
23 % reduction target and representing 2.10 % of the total emissions) the
contribution of urban forest is still modest but yet substantial, accounting
for 22.55 % of the emissions. Contributions of urban forests to air quality
based only on city emissions differ notably depending on each air pollut-
ant. While the overall contribution of urban forest to NO2 removal is low
relative to total emissions (0.52 %), its contribution to the removal of PM10
amounts to a significant 22.31 %. However, if we account for background
pollution levels, the contribution of PM10 removal drops to 2.66 % of total
PM10 pollution levels.

1.4 DISCUSSION

1.4.1 URBAN FORESTS POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION

TO MEET AIR QUALITY POLICY TARGETS

Urban forests effects on air quality are still a subject of intensive research.
While positive effects of air purification delivered by vegetation have been
estimated at the city scale in many urban areas (e.g., Nowak et al. 2006),
pollution concentration can be increased at the site scale (e.g., street can-
yons) depending upon vegetation configuration, pollutant emissions, or
meteorology, showing apparently divergent results on the effectiveness of
using urban vegetation for reducing local air pollution hotspots (Pugh et
al. 2012; Vos et al. 2013). Likewise, the ability of urban vegetation to
23

Table 4. Contribution of urban forests on air quality and climate change mitigation (year 2008).
Air pollutant Removal biophysical Removal monetary City-based emis- Background pollu- Ecosystem Service contribution (%)
value (t year−1) value (USD year−1) sions (t year−1) tion influence (%)
City-based City-based emissions
emissions and background pol-
lution
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality

PM10 166.01 1 097 964 743.77 88.10 22.32 2.66

NO 2
54.59 540 745 10 412.94 18.70 0.52 0.43
CO2eq 19 036 407 177 4 053 766 N/A 0.47 N/A
84 403a 22.55a
a
CO2eq emissions from services and activities directly managed by the City Council (“Covenant of Mayors” policy target baseline
emissions)
24 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

remove air pollutants significantly depends on many factors, such as tree

health, soil moisture availability, leaf-period, LAI, meteorology, and pol-
lution concentrations.
Our results show that the overall annual air purification rate by urban
forests in Barcelona (9.3 g m−2 of canopy cover year−1) is very similar
to US cities like Columbus, Kansas City, or Portland (9.2 g m−2 year−1),
although the PM10 removal rate (5.1 g m−2 year−1) is significantly higher
than for these cities (between 3.1 and 3.4 g m−2) and closer to cities like
Salt Lake City (5.2 g m−2), Philadelphia (5.5 g m−2), or San Diego (5.6 g
m−2) (Nowak et al. 2006). The higher removal rates for PM10, NO2, and O3
compared to CO and SO2 should be mainly attributable to the almost linear
relationship between pollution removal and ambient pollution concentra-
tions considered in the model (pollutant flux equation as F = V d × C).
However, very high pollutant concentrations could severely damage veg-
etation or lead to stomatal closure, reducing air pollution removal ability
(Robinson et al. 1998; Escobedo and Nowak 2009). Unfortunately, these
environmental thresholds are not yet factored in the i-Tree Eco model.
Our findings also show that the NO2 removal rate by urban forests in
Barcelona has a meager impact relative to actual city-based emissions
(less than 1 %). Therefore, the potential of urban forests to contribute to
the compliance of the EU limit is expected to be very low. NO2 concentra-
tions in the city derive largely from road transport activity (65.6 % impact
according to PECQ 2011). Hence, actions focused on reduction of road
traffic, technological change toward less-polluting fuels and the promo-
tion of public transport or cycling utilities are expected to contribute more
efficiently to meet policy targets. These actions can also lead to reduc-
tion in O3 concentrations, as NO2 is a precursor chemical to O3 forma-
tion. PM10 removal rate from urban forests is notably higher than NO2
rate, whereas city-based emissions of PM10 are notably lower, resulting
in a substantial impact at the city scale (22.3 % of total city-based emis-
sions). However, the background pollution effect (accounting for 88.1 %
of the average annual PM10 concentration according to PECQ estimations)
drastically reduces the actual impact of the urban forests service (2.7 %
of total PM10 pollution levels). Yet, we claim that there are still important
reasons for which this ecosystem service should be accounted for in local
policy decision-making. First, air pollution from particulate matter is a
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 25

major health problem in Barcelona metropolitan area and recent research

suggests that even moderate improvements in air quality are expected to
report significant health benefits, together with related economic savings
(Pérez et al. 2009). Second, the major role of PM10 background pollution
in Barcelona air quality might compromise the effectiveness of municipal
policies solely based on city emissions abatement. This fact also suggests
that measures focused on air quality regulation should be implemented at
broader spatial scales, particularly at the metropolitan level. To this end,
strong coordination policies between municipal and regional authorities
dealing with environmental quality and urban planning are fundamental.
Third, the implementation of green infrastructure-based strategies to fos-
ter air purification (and other ecosystem services) is a realistic policy op-
tion considering the current urban context of Barcelona. I-Tree Eco results
show that approximately 3.6 % of the municipality area (364 ha) can be
considered as available land for planting. As a complementary alterna-
tive, green roofs and walls, yet to be extensively developed in Barcelona,
could be particularly appropriate in high-density neighborhoods where
ground for planting is extremely scarce. Several studies have quantified
the potential of green roofs for air purification in cities at the street canyon
(Baik et al. 2012), neighborhood (Currie and Bass 2008), and municipal-
ity (Yang et al. 2008) scales, besides their potential to provide many other
services and benefits, such as runoff mitigation, noise reduction, or urban
cooling (Oberndorfer et al. 2007; Rowe 2011). However, the technical
and economic feasibility of green roofs expansion, together with possible
trade-offs concerning their maintenance such as water demand, should
previously be assessed in Barcelona, especially for existing buildings.
Proper management of existing green space can also contribute to air
quality improvement. Yang et al. (2005) lists several factors to consider
in strategies for air quality improvement based on green infrastructure,
including selection of species (e.g., evergreen versus deciduous trees, di-
mension, growth rate, leaf characteristics, or air pollution tolerance) and
management practices (e.g., intensity of pruning). Previous studies in cit-
ies with high levels of air pollution (e.g., Nowak et al. 2006; Escobedo and
Nowak 2009) suggest that meteorological conditions, mixing-layer height
(the atmospheric layer which determines the volume available for the dis-
persion of pollutants, see Seibert et al. 2000 for a complete definition), and
26 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

vegetation characteristics (e.g., proportion of evergreen leaf area, in-leaf

season, and LAI) are important factors defining urban forest effects on
air quality. Further research is needed to advance our understanding of
the role of morphology, function, and ecophysiology of vegetation in air
purification (Manning 2008).
A further critical issue concerns the understanding of trade-offs with
other ecosystem services or disservices. For example, urban parks are con-
sidered very relevant ecosystems for the provision of outdoor recreation
and other cultural services in cities (Chiesura 2004). However, highly
maintained parks might remove less air pollutants and CO2 (due to emis-
sions from maintenance activities, Nowak et al. 2002b) than natural areas
that are not intensively managed, but which can be perceived as unpleas-
ant or even dangerous, hence providing few cultural services (Lyytimäki
and Sipilä 2009; Escobedo et al. 2011). Likewise, urban tree species with
high potential for air purification can be highly invasive as well in certain
cities (Escobedo et al. 2010). More generally, many specific environmen-
tal factors (e.g., soil condition, climate, water availability, or longevity of
the species) should be considered in urban forest management to avoid
conflicts with other municipal sustainability goals (Yang et al. 2005; Esc-
obedo et al. 2011).
The i-Tree Eco model could not provide reliable results on O3 and CO
formation rates associated to the quantified BVOC emissions. However, as
mentioned above, CO levels in Barcelona (2.7 mg m3 for a daily 8-h aver-
age was the highest measure in 2011 according to ASPB air quality report
2011) have been historically far below the EU reference value (10 mg m3
daily 8-h average). Thus, it is unlikely that urban forests may compromise
in any significant form the compliance of air quality relative to CO target.
In contrast, ground-level O3 levels have surpassed the EU reference value
(120 μg m−3 daily 8-h average) at some monitoring stations in the last de-
cade, even if the allowed exceedences have never been reached. Although
O3 concentrations have remained steady in the last decade within the mu-
nicipality of Barcelona, O3 formation due to BVOC emissions might cause
air quality problems in the long term, where BVOC emissions are expected
to increase due to global warming (Peñuelas and Llusià 2003). Neverthe-
less, several studies point out that the selection of low BVOC-emitting
tree species can contribute positively in O3 concentrations in urban areas
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 27

because BVOC emissions are temperature dependent and trees generally

lower air temperatures (Taha 1996; Nowak et al. 2000; Paoletti 2009).
Chaparro and Terradas (2009) identified some of the tree and shrub species
in Barcelona emitting less BVOC per leaf biomass. These include genera
such as Pyrus, Prunus, Ulmus, and Celtis.

1.4.2 URBAN FORESTS POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO MEET

CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION POLICY TARGETS

Some authors suggest that global climate regulation does not stand amongst
the most relevant ecosystem services in the urban context because cities
can benefit from carbon offsets performed by ecosystems located else-
where (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999). However, other authors argue that
urban forests can play an important role in mitigating the impacts of cli-
mate change if compared to other policies at the city level (McHale et al.
2007; Escobedo et al. 2010; Zhao et al. 2010; Liu and Li 2012).
The estimated net annual carbon sequestration per hectare of Barce-
lona (536 kg ha−1 year−1) is very similar to cities such as Baltimore (520
kg ha−1 year−1) or Syracuse (540 kg ha−1 year−1) (Nowak and Crane 2002).
It should be noted that an analysis of the overall contribution of urban
green infrastructure to climate change mitigation should also account for
the effects of vegetation on micro-climate regulation, which can indirectly
avoid CO2 emissions through energy saving in buildings for heating and
cooling (Nowak and Crane 2002). Hence, our quantification likely under-
estimates the total contribution of urban forests to climate change miti-
gation. Analyzing the results by land use, urban green and natural green
strata are relevant for the supply of climate regulation service due to the
high vegetative cover compared to the other land use classes. High-density
residential stratum also showed an important rate in net carbon sequestra-
tion, mainly attributable to its large total area (36 % of the municipality)
and probably, to a lesser extent, to the high presence of street trees in these
neighborhoods. Finally, the high ratio of net carbon sequestration per area
observed in the low-density residential stratum could be attributed to the
high presence of private gardens in these areas, together with low decom-
position emissions due to healthier vegetation.
28 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

In line with the results obtained in other urban studies (Pataki et al.
2009; Liu and Li 2012), our findings show that direct net carbon se-
questration in Barcelona makes a very modest contribution to climate
change mitigation relative to total city-based annual GHG emissions
(0.47 %). Nevertheless, if we only account for the GHG emissions
from services and activities directly management by the City Council
(baseline emissions for the 23 % reduction target from the “Covenant
of Mayors”), the contribution of urban forest is notably higher (22.55
%). Similar green infrastructure-based strategies as specified for air
quality improvement could also improve the contribution of urban for-
ests to offset GHG emissions and meet the urban policy target of 23 %
reduction until 2020.

1.4.3 LIMITATIONS AND CAVEATS

The main advantages of the i-Tree Eco model stem from the reliance on
locally measured field data and standardized peer-reviewed procedures to
measure urban forest regulating ecosystem services in cities (Nowak et al.
2008a). Favored by its status as an open access model, it has been widely
applied across the world (e.g., Nowak and Crane 2002; Yang et al. 2005;
Nowak et al. 2006; Currie and Bass 2008; Escobedo and Nowak 2009;
Dobbs et al. 2011; Liu and Li 2012).
However, i-Tree Eco has some limitations that should be taken into
account when analyzing its outcomes. First, the model is especially de-
signed for US case studies and its application in other countries is sub-
ject to some restrictions, as stated in the user’s manual. For instance,
although the i-Tree Eco database has over 5000 species, it did not in-
clude some tree and shrub species sampled in Barcelona, which then
needed to be added to the database. Likewise, monetary valuations of air
purification and climate regulation services are based on the literature
(see “Materials and Methods” section) which mainly apply to the US
context and, hence, should be considered a rough estimation for Bar-
celona. However, these values are direct multiplier to the biophysical
accounts, thus they can be easily adjusted to the case study context when
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 29

data will be available. Another important limitation applying to i-Tree

Eco and most dry deposition models is the level of uncertainty involved
in the quantification of the air pollution removal rates due to the com-
plexity of this process (Pataki et al. 2011). For instance, some sources of
uncertainty include non-homogeneity in spatial distribution of air pol-
lutants, particle re-suspension rates, transpiration rates, or soil moisture
status (Manning 2008). Though the model outputs match well with field
measured deposition velocities for urban forests, the model analyzes av-
erage effects across a city, not local variations in removal caused by
local meteorological and pollution differences. However, these local
fine-scale input data are often missing from urban areas and empirical
data on the actual uptake of pollutants by urban vegetation are still lim-
ited (Pataki et al. 2011; Setälä et al. 2013), which makes a more accurate
modeling of this ecosystem service unfeasible at the moment. For a sen-
sitivity analysis of the i-Tree Eco deposition model see Hirabayashi et
al. (2011). Estimation errors in climate regulation service values include
the uncertainty from using biomass equations and conversion factors as
well as measurement errors (Nowak et al. 2008a). For example, there
are limited biomass equations for tropical tree species (e.g., palm trees),
some of them present in Barcelona. Estimates of carbon sequestration
and storage also include uncertainties from factors such as urban forests
maintenance (e.g., intensity of pruning), tree decay, or restricted rooting
volumes, which are not accounted for in the model’s estimations (Nowak
et al. 2008a; Pataki et al. 2011). BVOC emissions are estimated based on
species factors and meteorological conditions (i.e., air temperature and
daylight) but the uncertainty of the estimate is unknown. As mentioned
in previous sections, O3 and CO formation rates from BVOC emissions
cannot be estimated with an acceptable level of reliability.
Therefore, the results presented in this paper should be considered
as an approximate estimation rather than a precise quantification of the
ecosystem services and disservices delivered by the urban forests of
Barcelona. However, these estimates allow one to evaluate the contri-
bution of urban forests in air quality and climate change mitigation in
the city, and also to derive implications and recommendations for urban
decision-making.
30 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

1.5 CONCLUSION

Regulating ecosystem services provided by urban forests have been widely

analyzed in many cities across the world. However, the potential effec-
tiveness of urban forests in air quality improvement and climate change
mitigation is still object of debate, mainly due to the multiple factors and
uncertainties involved in the actual delivery of these ecosystem services in
cities, especially at the patch or site scale. Further, this potential is barely
reflected in terms of its contribution to meet specific policy targets.
Our findings show that the contribution of urban forests regulating ser-
vices to abate pollution is substantial in absolute terms (305.6 t of removed
air pollutants year−1 and 19 036 t CO2eq year−1), yet modest when com-
pared to overall city levels of air pollution and GHG emissions (2.66 % for
PM10, 0.43 % for NO2, and 0.47 % for CO2eq). Our research further shows
that the effectiveness of green infrastructure-based strategies to meet envi-
ronmental policy targets can vary greatly across pollutants. For example,
our results suggest that NO2 removal potential is unlikely to contribute
in any substantial way to the compliance of current EU reference values.
Therefore, for combating air pollution of NO2, synergies between green
infrastructure strategies and NO2 emission curbing strategies (e.g., target-
ing road traffic) need to be searched and implemented in order to effec-
tively deal with air quality regulations. On the other hand, PM10 removal
potential should not be neglected in urban policy-making. Its contribution
to the compliance with the current EU reference value can be substantial
and potentially more effective than other local policies based on emissions
abatement due to the importance of background pollution in Barcelona’s
PM10 levels.
Net carbon sequestration by urban forests has a very low influence
when compared to total annual GHG city emissions, but our results sug-
gest that it can contribute considerably to meet the 23 % GHG emissions
reduction policy target until 2020, which only applies for emissions de-
rived from services and activities directly managed by the City Council
(2.10 % of total emissions).
We determine that the implementation of green infrastructure-based
strategies at the municipal level (as is aimed by the Barcelona Green
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 31

Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan 2020) would have a limited effect on

local air quality levels and GHG emissions offsets, yet they would play a
non-negligible complementary role to other policies intended to meet air
quality (especially for PM10 levels) and climate change mitigation policy
targets in Barcelona, fostering as well the provision of other important
urban ecosystem services (e.g., urban temperature regulation, stormwater
runoff mitigation, and recreational opportunities) at no additional mon-
etary costs. We conclude that, in order to be effective, green infrastruc-
ture-based strategies to abate pollution in cities should be implemented
at broader spatial scales (i.e., metropolitan area). However, it is critical
that policy-makers consider an integrated approach in green infrastructure
management, where possible trade-offs with other ecosystems services,
disservices, and urban sustainability goals are fully acknowledged.

FOOTNOTES

1. Here “green space” corresponds to those areas with vegetation (e.g., urban parks,
gardens, and other green areas) directly managed by the City Council. It includes
also the natural and semi-natural areas of the Collserola Park, but it excludes green
elements such as single street trees or private gardens.
2. “Green infrastructure is a concept addressing the connectivity of ecosystems, their
protection and the provision of ecosystem services, while also addressing mitigation
and adaptation to climate change” (EEA 2011).

REFERENCES

1. ASPB air quality report. 2011. Report on evaluation of the air quality in the city of
Barcelona, year 2011. Agency for Public Health of Barcelona (ASPB), Barcelona,
Spain, 75 pp (In Catalan).
2. Baik, J.J., K.H. Kwak, S.B. Park, and Y.H. Ryu. 2012. Effects of building roof
greening on air quality in street canyons. Atmospheric Environment 61: 48–55.
3. Baldocchi, D.D., B.B. Hicks, and P. Camara. 1987. A canopy stomatal resistance
model for gaseous deposition to vegetated surfaces. Atmospheric Environment 21:
91–101.
4. Barcelona City Council Statistical Yearbook. 2012. Department of Statistics,
Barcelona City Council, Barcelona, Spain (In Spanish). Retrieved December 20,
2012, from http://​www.​bcn.​cat/​estadistica.
32 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

5. Barcelona Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan 2020. 2013. Edited by Envi-
ronmental and Urban Services. Urban Habitat Department. Barcelona City Coun-
cil. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from http://​www.​bcn.​cat/​mediambient.
6. Beckett, K.P., P.H. Freer-Smith, and G. Taylor. 1998. Urban woodlands: Their
role in reducing the effects of particulate pollution. Environmental Pollution 99:
347–360.
7. Bolund, P., and S. Hunhammar. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecologi-
cal Economics 29: 293–301.
8. Burriel, J.A., J.J. Ibáñez, and J. Terradas. 2006. The ecological map of Barcelona,
the changes in the city in the last three decades. XII National Spanish congress
on geographic information technologies: University of Granada. ISBN 84-338-
3944-6 (In Spanish, English summary).
9. Carter, W.P.L. 1994. Development of ozone reactivity scales for volatile organic
compounds. Air & Waste 44: 881–899.
10. Chaparro, L., and J. Terradas. 2009. Report on Ecological services of urban forest
in Barcelona. Barcelona City Council, Barcelona, Spain: Department of Environ-
ment. 96 pp.
11. Chiesura, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and
Urban Planning 68: 129–138.
12. Currie, B., and B. Bass. 2008. Estimates of air pollution mitigation with green
plants and green roofs using the UFORE model. Urban Ecosystems 11: 409–422.
13. Dobbs, C., F.J. Escobedo, and W.C. Zipperer. 2011. A framework for developing
urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning 99: 196–206.
14. Dodman, D. 2009. Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban green-
house gas emissions inventories. Environment and Urbanization 21: 185–201.
15. EC. 2008. Energy and climate package—Elements of the final compromise agreed
by the European Council, European Commission. Retrieved December 15, 2012
from http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​clima/​policies/​package/​documentation_​en.​htm.
16. EEA. 2011. Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion. The concept of green
infraestructure and its integrations into policies using monitoring systems. EEA
report 18/2011, 138. Copenghagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.
17. EEA. 2013. Air quality in Europe—2013 report. EEA report 9/2013, European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, 107 pp. ISBN 978-92-9213-406-8.
18. EPA. 2010. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on
Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. Retrieved February 15, 2013,
from http://​www.​epa.​gov/​climatechange/​EPAactivities/​economics/​scc.​html.
19. Escobedo, F.J., and D.J. Nowak. 2009. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution re-
moval by an urban forest. Landscape and Urban Planning 90: 102–110.
20. Escobedo, F.J., J.E. Wagner, D.J. Nowak, C.L. De la Maza, M. Rodríguez, and
D.E. Crane. 2008. Analyzing the cost effectiveness of Santiago, Chile’s policy of
using urban forests to improve air quality. Journal of Environmental Management
86: 148–157.
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 33

21. Escobedo, F.J., S. Varela, M. Zhao, J.E. Wagner, and W. Zipperer. 2010. Analyzing
the efficacy of subtropical urban forests in offsetting carbon emissions from cities.
Environmental Science & Policy 13: 362–372.
22. Escobedo, F.J., T. Kroeger, and J.E. Wagner. 2011. Urban forests and pollution
mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollu-
tion 159: 2078–2087.
23. Fuller, R.A., and K.G. Gaston. 2009. The scaling of green space coverage in Euro-
pean cities. Biology Letters 5: 352–355.
24. Gómez-Baggethun, E., and D.N. Barton. 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem
services for urban planning. Ecological Economics 86: 235–245.
25. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Å. Gren, D. Barton, J. Langemeyer, T. McPhearson, P.
O’Farrell, E. Andersson, Z. Hamstead, et al. 2013. Urban ecosystem services. In
Urbanization, ed. T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. Mar-
cotullio, R.I. McDonald, et al., 175–251. Challenges and Opportunities. Springer:
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. ISBN 978-94-007-7087-4.
26. Hirabayashi, S., C.N. Kroll, and D.J. Nowak. 2011. Component-based develop-
ment and sensitivity analyses of an air pollutant dry deposition model. Environ-
mental Modelling and Software 26: 804–816.
27. Hoornweg, D., L. Sugar, and C.L. Trejos Gómez. 2011. Cities and greenhouse gas
emissions: Moving forward. Environment and Urbanization 23: 207–227.
28. i-Tree User’s manual. 2008. Tools for assessing and managing Community For-
ests. Software Suite v2.1. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://​www.​itree-
tools.​org.
29. Jo, H.K., and G.E. McPherson. 1995. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential
greenspace. Journal of Environmental Management 45: 109–133.
30. Kennedy, C., J. Steinberger, B. Gasson, Y. Hansen, T. Hillman, M. Havránek, D.
Pataki, A. Phdungsilp, et al. 2009. Greenhouse gas emissions from global cities.
Environmental Science & Technology 43: 7297–7302.
31. Kesselmeier, J., and M. Staudt. 1999. Biogenic volatile organic compounds (VOC):
An overview on emission, physiology and ecology. Journal of Atmospheric Chem-
istry 33: 23–88.
32. Liu, C., and X. Li. 2012. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban forests in
Shenyang, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11: 121–128.
33. Lyytimäki, J., and M. Sipilä. 2009. Hopping on one leg—The challenge of ecosys-
tem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
8: 309–315.
34. Manning, W.J. 2008. Plants in urban ecosystems: Essential role of urban forests
in urban metabolism and succession toward sustainability. International Journal of
Sustainable Development and World Ecology 15: 362–370.
35. McHale, M.R., E.G. McPherson, and I.C. Burke. 2007. The potential of urban tree
plantings to be cost effective in carbon credit markets. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening 6: 49–60.
34 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

36. McPherson, E.G., K.I. Scott, and J.R. Simpson. 1998. Estimating cost effective-
ness of residential yard trees for improving air quality in Sacramento, California,
using existing models. Atmospheric Environment 32: 75–84.
37. Murray, F.J., L. Marsh, and P.A. Bradford. 1994. New York state energy plan Vol.
II: issue reports. Albany, NY: New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority.
38. Nowak, D.J. 1994. Air pollution removal by Chicago’s urban forest. In Chicago’s
Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project,
ed. E.G. McPherson, D.J. Nowak, and R.A. Rowntree, pp. 63–81. Radnor: USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report NE-186.
39. Nowak, D.J. 2006. Institutionalizing urban forestry as a “biotechnology” to im-
prove environmental quality. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 5: 93–100.
40. Nowak, D.J., and D.E. Crane. 2000. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model:
Quantifying urban forest structure and functions. In Integrated tools for natural
resources inventories in the 21st century, ed. M. Hansen, and T. Burk, pp 714–720.
St. Paul: North Central Research Station.
41. Nowak, D.J., and D.E. Crane. 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban
trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution 116: 381–389.
42. Nowak, D.J., K.L. Civerolo, S. Trivikrama Rao, G. Sistla, C.J. Luley, and D.E.
Crane. 2000. A modeling study of the impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmospheric
Environment 34: 1601–1613.
43. Nowak, D.J., D.E. Crane, J.C. Stevens, and M. Ibarra. 2002a. Brooklyn’s Urban
Forest, 107 pp. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Re-
search Station, GTR NE-290.
44. Nowak, D.J., J.C. Stevens, S.M. Sisinni, and C.J. Luley. 2002b. Effects of urban
tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of
Arboriculture 28: 113–122.
45. Nowak, D.J., D.E. Crane, and J.C. Stevens. 2006. Air pollution removal by ur-
ban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4:
115–123.
46. Nowak, D.J., D.E. Crane, J.C. Stevens, R.E. Hoehn, and J.T. Walton. 2008a. A
ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34: 347–358.
47. Nowak, D.J., J.T. Walton, J.C. Stevens, D.E. Crane, and R.E. Hoehn. 2008b. Ef-
fect of plot and sample size on timing and precision of urban forest assessments.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34: 386–390.
48. Oberndorfer, E., J. Lundholm, B. Bass, R.R. Coffman, H. Doshi, N. Dunnett, S.
Gaffin, M. Köhler, et al. 2007. Green roofs as urban ecosystems: Ecological struc-
tures, functions, and services. BioScience 57: 823.
49. Paoletti, E. 2009. Ozone and urban forests in Italy. Environmental Pollution 157:
1506–1512.
50. Pataki, D.E., P.C. Emmi, C.B. Forster, J.I. Mills, E.R. Pardyjak, T.R. Peterson, J.D.
Thompson, and E. Dudley-Murphy. 2009. An integrated approach to improving
fossil fuel emissions scenarios with urban ecosystem studies. Ecological Com-
plexity 6: 1–14.
Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Air Quality 35

51. Pataki, D.E., M.M. Carreiro, J. Cherrier, N.E. Grulke, V. Jennings, S. Pincetl, R.V.
Pouyat, T.H. Whitlow, et al. 2011. Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban envi-
ronments: Ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 9: 27–36.
52. Pauleit, S., N. Jones, G. Garcia-Martin, J.L. Garcia-Valdecantos, L.M. Rivière, L.
Vidal-Beaudet, M. Bodson, and T.B. Randrup. 2002. Tree establishment practice
in towns and cities—Results from a European survey. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening 1: 83–96.
53. PECQ. 2011. The energy, climate change and air quality plan of Barcelona (PECQ)
2011–2020. Barcelona City Council. Retrieved December 15, 2012, from http://​
www.​covenantofmayors​.​eu/​about/​signatories_​en.​html?​city_​id=​381&​seap.
54. Peñuelas, J., and J. Llusià. 2003. BVOCs: Plant defense against climate warming?
Trends in Plant Science 8: 105–109.
55. Pérez, L., J. Sunyer, and N. Künzli. 2009. Estimating the health and economic
benefits associated with reducing air pollution in the Barcelona metropolitan area
(Spain). Gaceta sanitaria/SESPAS 23: 287–94 (In Spanish, summary in English).
56. Pons, X. 2006. MiraMon. Geographic information system and remote sensing
software. Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications (CREAF).
ISMB: 84-931223-5-7.
57. Pugh, T.A.M., A.R. Mackenzie, J.D. Whyatt, and C.N. Hewitt. 2012. Effective-
ness of green infrastructure for improvement of air quality in urban street canyons.
Environmental Science and Technology 46: 7692–7699.
58. Robinson, M.F., J. Heath, and T.A. Mansfield. 1998. Disturbances in stomatal be-
haviour caused by air pollutants. Journal of Experimental Botany 49: 461–469.
59. Rowe, D.B. 2011. Green roofs as a means of pollution abatement. Environmental
Pollution 159: 2100–2110.
60. Seibert, P., F. Beyrich, S.E. Gryning, S. Joffre, A. Rasmussen, and P. Tercier. 2000.
Review and intercomparison of operational methods for the determination of the
mixing height. Atmospheric Environment 34: 1001–1027.
61. Setälä, H., V. Viippola, A.L. Rantalainen, A. Pennanen, and V. Yli-Pelkonen. 2013.
Does urban vegetation mitigate air pollution in northern conditions? Environmen-
tal Pollution 183: 104–112.
62. Taha, H. 1996. Modeling impacts of increased urban vegetation on ozone air qual-
ity in the South Coast Air Basin. Atmospheric Environment 30: 3423–3430.
63. Terradas, J., T. Franquesa, M. Parés, and L. Chaparro. 2011. Ecología urbana.
Investigación y Ciencia 422: 52–58. (In Spanish).
64. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved January 15, 2013,
from http://​www.​bls.​gov/​ppi/​.
65. Vos, P.E.J., B. Maiheu, J. Vankerkom, and S. Janssen. 2013. Improving local air
quality in cities: To tree or not to tree? Environmental Pollution 183: 113–122.
66. Yang, J., J. McBride, J. Zhou, and Z. Sun. 2005. The urban forest in Beijing and its
role in air pollution reduction. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 3: 65–78.
67. Yang, J., Q. Yu, and P. Gong. 2008. Quantifying air pollution removal by green
roofs in Chicago. Atmospheric Environment 42: 7266–7273.
36 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

68. Zhao, M., Z. Kong, F.J. Escobedo, and J. Gao. 2010. Impacts of urban forests on
offsetting carbon emissions from industrial energy use in Hangzhou, China. Jour-
nal of Environmental Management 91: 807–813.
CHAPTER 2

Modelling Short-Rotation Coppice

and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon
Management–A Citywide Analysis
NICOLA MCHUGH, JILL L. EDMONDSON, KEVIN J. GASTON,
JONATHAN R. LEAKE, and ODHRAN S. O'SULLIVAN

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Urban populations depend on rural areas to supply essential provisioning

ecosystem services including food, fibres, wood and water, and it is often
assumed that urban areas are unable to make any significant contribution
to such services. However, urban greenspaces deliver a variety of support-
ing, regulating and cultural ecosystem services (Davies et al. 2011a; Gó-
mez-Baggethun et al. 2013; Nowak et al. 2013a), including high species
richness (McKinney 2008), improved psychological well-being (Fuller et
al. 2007), reduced stormwater run-off and air pollution interception (Sæbø
et al. 2012). Better management of urban greenspace to deliver multiple
ecosystem services has the potential to simultaneously enhance the qual-
ity of life for city dwellers and the sustainability of urban areas (Davies

© McHugh, N., Edmondson, J. L., Gaston, K. J., Leake, J. R., O'Sullivan, O. S. (2015), Modelling
Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon Management–A Citywide Analysis.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 52: 1237–1245. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12491. Creative Commons At-
tribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
38 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

et al. 2011a). Despite such evidence, the potential for urban greenspaces to
deliver provisioning ecosystem services such as biomass fuel and timber,
and regulating services, such as carbon storage, has received little atten-
tion in the UK. Consequently, the extent to which tree planting can con-
tribute to CO2 emissions reduction targets through carbon sequestration
into biomass or through biofuel substitution for fossil fuels in UK cities
remains unclear.
Urban areas are expanding globally, with urban populations increasing
fivefold from 0·8 to 3·6 billion between 1950 and 2011 (United Nations
2012), and these areas disproportionately contribute to global anthropo-
genic CO2 emissions (UN-Habitat 2011). The UK is committed to reducing
national CO2 emissions by 80% of 1990 values by 2050 (UK Parliament
2008), requiring a major reduction in fossil fuel use. Maximizing local
energy production and increasing carbon sequestration into biomass will
undoubtedly be among the range of solutions required to achieve this am-
bitious goal.
Appropriately planned and managed, urban greenspaces could deliver
increases in specific ecosystem services such as carbon storage in trees,
as seen in urban tree planting in the UK (Díaz-Porras, Gaston & Evans
2014) and USA (Nowak et al. 2013b; McPherson & Kendall 2014). In
Leicester, a typical UK city, trees account for 97·3% of carbon stored in
above-ground vegetation (Davies et al. 2011b) confirming their impor-
tance in ecosystem carbon storage. Urban tree planting has been promoted
to enhance multiple ecosystems service benefits (Roy, Byrne & Picker-
ing 2012) including: air pollution interception (Sæbø et al. 2012); noise
reduction (Roy, Byrne & Pickering 2012); enhanced stormwater infiltra-
tion (Stovin, Jorgensen & Clayden 2008); reduced building energy use for
summer cooling (Rahman, Armson & Ennos 2014) and recreation, aes-
thetic and cultural benefits (Kaplan 2007).
Larger greenspace areas may have the potential for growing short-
rotation coppice (SRC), a system for woody biomass production. SRC
refers to any woody species (typically high-yielding species such as poplar
and willow), which is managed in a coppice system, typically harvested
every 3–5 years and normally grown as a biofuel crop (Aylott et al. 2008,
2010). This can contribute to the UK Government target for 15% of energy
to come from renewable sources by 2020 (DECC 2011).
Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon Management 39

Despite the large areas of greenspace within towns and cities, cur-
rent UK SRC guidance is exclusively focussed on agricultural land
(Natural England, 2013a). However, constraints identified in this guid-
ance do not necessarily preclude SRC in urban areas, indeed the urban
fringe was identified as particularly suited to such crops in an ear-
lier report (British BioGen 1996). Many of the recommendations for
increasing biodiversity within SRC patches (Rowe, Street & Taylor
2009) are achievable in urban areas, including plantations with large
edge to interior ratio, small plot sizes and blocks of SRC interspersed
with other habitats.
The fragmented heterogeneous structure of urban landscapes due to di-
vision of land into small patches under different ownership, management
and diverse usage (Luck & Wu 2002) is exemplified by domestic gardens
which account for 22–27% of greenspace in UK urban areas (Loram et al.
2007). High-resolution spatial data are overcoming the problem of assess-
ing the ecosystem services provided by such small land parcels (Davies et
al. 2013).
Here, we assess the potential to increase carbon sequestration in trees
and harvested SRC biomass in a typical UK city. On the basis of previous
estimates, the contribution of SRC biomass to heat municipal buildings
and homes and the reduction in CO2 emissions achieved by this biomass
substituting for natural gas heating homes is assessed. Wood-fuel biomass
boilers have gained increasing importance in municipal heating systems
and schools (The Carbon Trust, 2012); however, there has been surpris-
ingly little research to date on biomass fuel production in urban areas (but
see Nielsen & Møller 2008; MacFarlane 2009; Strohbach et al. 2012;
McPherson & Kendall 2014; Zhao et al. 2014).
We developed modelling tools to address the specific challenges
of simulating tree and SRC growth to ensure that the modelled trees
could be fitted into the existing landscape and continue to do so as they
grew. The tree-planting model identified suitable sites for planting and
was designed to maintain the existing diversity of tree species within
the urban study area, based on recent surveys of trees in Leicester (Da-
vies et al. 2011b), matching tree size at maturity to the greenspace
patch sizes.
40 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

2.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.2.1 STUDY AREA

This study focused on Leicester (52°38′N, 1°08′W), a typical mid-sized

city in central England with a population of around 310 000, and annual
CO2 emissions of 478 000 tonnes of carbon (Leicester City Council,
2012). The 73-km2 city area has a densely developed urban core, beyond
which are suburbs, with built development reaching the city boundary in
the east and west and small peri-urban areas to the north and south. The
annual daily mean temperature range is 1·7–21·3 °C with 606-mm annual
rainfall (Met Office 2012).
Land ownership was divided into private (land within the boundary
of private dwellings, identified through MasterMap) (Ordnance Survey
2008), public (land owned by Leicester City Council) or mixed-land own-
ership (areas belonging to business or private individuals and land where
ownership was undetermined). Land cover was derived from the Land-
Base data set (Infoterra 2006), which identifies eight land cover classes:
bare ground, inland water, artificial surface, buildings, herbaceous (mainly
grassland), shrub, tall shrub and trees (0·25 m2 resolution). Only areas cat-
egorized as herbaceous or bare ground were considered suitable for tree or
SRC planting in our models, with shrub, tall shrub and tree land cover, and
areas currently under artificial surface or buildings, excluded.

2.2.2 MIXED-SPECIES TREE-PLANTING MODELS

Separate mixed-species tree-planting models were developed to apply to

private land (Fig. S1, Supporting information) and public and mixed own-
ership land (Fig. S2), as the small land parcel size in private land necessi-
tated the use of a separate model. The two GIS models (ESRI ArcInfo 10,
ModelBuilder) iteratively planted trees allowing planting restriction to be
applied to avoid areas deemed unsuitable (Table S2).
Building on an approach developed by Wu, Xiao & McPherson (2008)
for Los Angeles, the models analysed the current landscape in order to
Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon Management 41

predict the ability to accommodate trees, including allowing for tree

growth over 25 years, a modelling time span that reflects the use of cur-
rent climate information and is consistent with recent studies of effects
of peri-urban trees on air quality (Kroeger et al. 2014). Combining data
from the tree survey carried out by Davies et al. (2011b) and a garden tree
survey using the same methodology (data available from the Dryad Digital
Repository: http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.j25t0; McHugh et al. 2015),
over 1300 trees in Leicester were identified and diameter at breast height
(d.b.h.) measured. Those species with more than one individual (68 spe-
cies) were included in the tree-planting models.
Mature crown diameter values of large (15 m) and small (5 m) spe-
cies within the tree population were incorporated into the models reduc-
ing the risk of overplanting the landscape, replicating the species and
size heterogeneity of the current urban forest and developing more real-
istic carbon storage values than could be achieved with a single species
planting model. Trees planted were modelled on whips [<2 cm diameter,
100–200 cm height (ENA 2010; Forestry Commission 2010)], with a
mean diameter planting size of 0·53 cm determined from Willoughby et
al. (2007).
Minimum distance restrictions from impervious surfaces (measured
from trunk) of 6 or 2 m for large and small trees, respectively, were ap-
plied. These values were determined by combining root spread values of
tree species from the local population, expressed as a percentage of mean
crown diameter (Gruffydd 1987; Hodge & White 1990; RHS 2014), to-
gether with existing distance guidelines to minimize damage to nearby
buildings, roads and paths (Gasson & Cutler 1998) (Table S1). Such guide-
lines have economic relevance—in the London Borough of Hackney, UK,
40% of trees removed from 2002 to 2007 were a result of insurance claims
for tree-related property damage (LAEC, 2007).
The private ownership model (Fig. S1) in domestic gardens had a
minimum area requirement of 9 m2 for large trees and 2 m2 for small
trees with no overlap of existing or newly planted tree canopies stipu-
lated. The model continued searching for planting sites until the num-
ber of trees planted in each cycle was <10 large or 1000 small trees,
determined to balance search time with additional trees planted. The
42 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

separate modelling approach applied to public and mixed ownership

land was designed to maximize planting in larger spaces (Fig. S2). This
model incorporated a single cycle of large tree planting followed by the
removal of unsuitably sited trees, that is where mature canopies would
extend beyond the suitable planting area. The final stage identified
sites that could still accommodate small trees and filled gaps within the
planting scheme. Identical tree size and minimum distances to build-
ings, roads and paths were used in private, and public and mixed own-
ership models.
Urban-specific mortality rates for newly planted trees (0–3 years) of
10%, and for established trees (4–25 years) of 6%, were applied (Gilb-
ertson & Bradshaw 1990; Nowak, McBride & Beatty 1990; Bradshaw,
Hunt & Walmsley 1995; Nowak, Kuroda & Crane 2004; LAEC 2007).
A replanting phase (5% trees aged 0–3 years, 3% trees aged 4–25 years)
then occurred outside the spatial modelling environment. The number
and size of trees removed from the models through annual mortality
events was calculated in order to quantify carbon removed from the
study area.
Annual tree growth rates were taken from the literature and applied
for 25 years to planted trees. Species-specific rates were used when avail-
able, or else genus or family specific rates were used (see Table S3), with
growth rates of urban trees in the same geographic region as the study
site used preferentially. Linear growth rates were applied as growth is
unlikely to slow in the first 25 years (Strohbach et al. 2012). The above-
ground biomass of trees was calculated annually using species- and
genus-specific allometric equations (see Table S4), and a biomass-to-
carbon conversion factor of 0·46 for broadleaf and 0·42 for coniferous
species was used to determine carbon content (Milne & Brown 1997).
The use of generalized equations (up to eight annual growth rates and six
allometric biomass equations) minimized variability, an issue identified
by McHale et al. (2009) when applying non-urban equations to urban
trees. To compare the mixed-species models, the maximum possible in-
crease in carbon storage by tree planting was estimated using the fastest
growing large (Eucalyptus gunnii Hook. F.) and small trees (Populus
tremula L.) in our data base (Table S3).
Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon Management 43

2.2.3 SRC MODEL

Potential SRC yield for combined willow and poplar plantings was calcu-
lated based on regional mean values based on Agricultural Land Classification
(ALC) (Aylott et al. 2010). As no yield value was provided for the ALC ‘ur-
ban’ category, the yield for lowest quality (category 5) land, of 10·3 oven-dry
tonnes (odt) ha−1 year−1, was used. This is a conservative approach as citywide
analysis of soil properties in Leicester found that in most greenspaces, the soil
quality matches or exceeds that of agricultural land (Edmondson et al. 2011,
2012, 2014). A series of spatial restriction criteria, based on UK Energy Crop
Scheme guidance (Natural England 2013b) and findings of biofuels research
(Renewable Fuels Agency 2008; Aylott et al. 2010), was developed (Table S2)
to identify suitable planting sites and the annual yield possible across the study
area was calculated. The heating and fossil fuel offset potential of SRC yields
were estimated (see Appendices S1 and S2) using published values for the
biomass of wood chips required to heat a typical domestic house, municipal
building or support a district heating scheme (Biomass Energy Centre 2014).
The fossil fuel carbon savings of biomass substitution for natural gas was cal-
culated using data on household gas consumption from DECC (2013), and
the net fossil fuel savings relative to natural gas provided by SRC wood chips,
taking into account fossil fuel costs of harvesting, transport, chipping, drying
and distribution (Defra 2009).

2.2.4 COMPARISON OF TREE AND

SRC PLANTING MODEL OUTPUTS

The increase in carbon sequestration resulting from the two carbon man-
agement approaches, the mixed-species tree planting and SRC models was
compared at years 10 and 25 to the above-ground carbon stocks of the ex-
isting tree population of the study area. In addition, a combined manage-
ment approach giving priority to SRC on all suitable land followed by the
application of the mixed-species tree-planting model to remaining suitable
sites was employed to maximize effects of carbon management.
44 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

2.3 RESULTS

The tree-planting models identified an area of 11 km2 suitable for planting,

86·5% of which was in public or mixed ownership, and only 13·5% was
in private gardens (Table 1). Nonetheless, gardens were found to be able
to accommodate 70 000 additional, mainly small, trees. Over 25 years,
these trees could enhance carbon stocks by six times the current amounts
in above-ground herbaceous vegetation in the areas of gardens allocated
to tree planting (Tables 1 and 2). This is a higher proportional increase in
carbon storage than that found by the model of public or mixed ownership
land, which projects a doubling of carbon storage over 25 years in areas of
herbaceous vegetation allocated to the planting of a total of 220 000 trees.
Most of these trees were of species too large for gardens once fully grown
and therefore were planted at a lower density than the small trees.
Carbon storage increases resulting from applying the tree-planting
models are strongly influenced by the differing tree species compositions
between land ownership classes. On domestic land, 23% of trees were
fast-growing Cupressaceae which over the 25-year period individually
sequestered c. 96-kg carbon (d.b.h. 33 cm). The species composition of
trees found in public and mixed ownership land was more diverse and
although the most common tree species have the potential to reach a large
size, they often grow more slowly, for example Fraxinus excelsior L. with
a d.b.h. of 14 cm at 25 years. Because of the initially small size and asso-
ciated slow growth rates of many of the trees, the model projected a total
increase in above-ground carbon storage in biomass compared to herba-
ceous vegetation by only 2600–4200 tonnes over 25 years (Tables 1 and
2). However, as a consequence, we expect tree planting to supplement
rather than to replace the existing herbaceous biomass. Carbon removed
from the study area as a result of tree mortality over 25 years totalled 224
tonnes of carbon (private land ownership model) and 460 tonnes of carbon
(public and mixed ownership model), giving a total removal of tree bio-
mass of 684 tonnes. Although likely to be unacceptable from a biodiver-
sity and aesthetic perspective (Roy, Byrne & Pickering 2012), maximizing
carbon sequestration using the fastest growing large and small tree species
(E. gunnii and P. tremula) indicated potential increased storage of 53 000
45
Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon Management

Table 1. Area of greenspace suitable for tree planting or short-rotation coppice (SRC), and estimates of the above-ground carbon
stocks in vegetation in these areas
Greenspace Land Total greenspace area Area of herbaceous Current above-ground carbon
management ownership under herbaceous greenspace suitable for in area suitable for
approach vegetation (m2) management approacha management approachb
m2 % (tonnes)
Tree planting Public 12 647 614 3 096 813 47·5 464·522
Mixed 6 524 299 6 475 435 51·2 906·561
Private 8 402 581 1 494 506 17·8 209·231
All 27 574 494 11 066 754 40·1 1580·314
SRC establishment Public 12 647 614 1 710 878 26·2 256·632
Mixed 6 524 299 4 154 263 32·8 581·597
All 19 171 913 5 865 141 30·6 838·229
Combined All 27 574 494 11 066 754 40·1 1580·314
a
Suitable areas were identified after spatial restriction criteria were applied (areas covered in shrubs or trees were excluded).
b
See Davies et al. (2011b) for further details.
46 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

tonnes of carbon after 25 years—over 12 times greater than the projection

from the model with multiple species (Table 2).
In comparison with tree planting, the SRC planting model projected
much larger total biomass production of 71 848 tonnes across the city over
25 years, 20 958 tonnes of carbon being produced by SRC on public land
and 50 889 tonnes of carbon on mixed ownership land (Table 2). These
quantities are striking considering that the SRC model identified only 5·87
km2 (8% of the city) as suitable for planting, reflecting the high planting
density and repeated harvesting of fast-growing coppice biomass every 4
years which allows for rapid regrowth and associated conversion of atmo-
spheric carbon to biomass.
Under the combined tree planting and SRC management, 73 400
tonnes of extra carbon could be captured by tree biomass and harvested
SRC biomass (Tables 1 and 2) using 15% of the land area across Leicester.
Total carbon removed by tree mortality in this case was estimated to be
only 245 tonnes of carbon over 25 years.
The spatial distribution of current above-ground carbon in Leicester,
together with projected 25-year carbon conversion to live biomass (trees)
and harvested biomass (SRC), is presented in Fig. 1. Current stocks of
above-ground carbon (Fig. 1a) average 3·16 kg m−2, with greatest stor-
age corresponding with managed parkland and other large greenspaces,
largely on the city outskirts. Under the tree-planting approach (Fig. 1b),
increases are rarely above 0·06 kg of carbon m−2 in the city centre after
25 years owing to lack of space for large trees. Outside the city centre, a
higher proportion of land is suitable for tree planting, but our models show
across the city above-ground carbon stocks only increase by 0·04–3·20 kg
m−2 after 25 years. Nonetheless, these increases should be viewed in the
context of the already high biomass of vegetation in the city compared to
the UK average above-ground vegetation carbon density of 0·497 kg car-
bon m−2 (Milne & Brown 1997).
The areas suitable for SRC establishment are more limited and mainly
in the urban fringes (Figs 1c and 2a). However, it is clear that where land
is suitable for SRC, the quantity of carbon that can be fixed is far greater
than that achievable by planting trees using a mixture of species similar to
the existing urban tree population (Fig. 1b,c; Table 2).
47

Table 2. Potential increase in carbon sequestration into live trees and harvested short-rotation coppice (SRC) biomass over 25 years,
and potential carbon offsetting by SRC biomass substitution for natural gas in domestic heating and tree planting
Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon Management

Greenspace Carbon (tonnes) sequestered into newly planted trees or harvested SRC biomass
management [carbon offset by SRC, and under combined management the total carbon
approach sequestered plus offset for tree planting plus SRC]
Year 0a Year 10 Year 25
Tree planting
Public ownership 0·286 167·377 1024·389
Mixed ownership 0·512 294·266 1821·020
Private ownership 7·226 249·024 1337·278
Total 8·024 710·667 4182·687
SRC establishment
Public ownership 0 8383·302 [3411·341] 20958·256 [8528·354]
Mixed ownership 0 20355·889 [8283·238] 50889·722 [20708·096]
Total 0 28739·191 [11694·580] 71847·978 [29236·450]
Combined management 7·726 29309·877 [12405·247] 74983·920 [33419·137]
approach
a
Year 0 values refer to imported carbon for tree-planting establishment. The carbon import of SRC is assumed to be zero as
establishment is from small cuttings.
48 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

The spatial distribution of potential carbon capture into trees and har-
vested SRC biomass production (Fig. 2b) clearly identifies areas, pri-
marily on the city margins, with the greatest opportunities for a change
in management. These are larger patches of public parks, undeveloped
greenspace and brownfield sites near to industrial zones. The largest in-
creases are due primarily to SRC, but enhancement of carbon stocks can
take place across most of the city through utilizing small patches of urban
greenspace for tree planting.
Based on our modelled SRC biofuel production potential across the
city, averaging these yields over 25 years, could supply energy to 30 mu-
nicipal buildings, or 52 district heating schemes (common in northern Eu-
rope and well suited to densely populated urban areas) (Biomass Energy
Centre 2014). Using data from an award-winning scheme in Barnsley, UK
(Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council 2006), the SRC biomass could
support district heating of over 4200 flats, comprising 3% of households in
Leicester. Domestic use of woodchip biofuel from SRC for heating would
allow 1566 households to each avoid emissions of 746·7 kg carbon year−1
compared to the use of fossil fuel natural gas (Defra 2009), potentially
avoiding 29 236 tonnes of fossil fuel carbon release over 25 years (Table
2). Together with the carbon sequestration into trees, additional to pre-ex-
isting herbaceous vegetation, a total reduction of 33 419 tonnes of carbon
in the atmosphere could be achieved in 25 years by combined SRC and
tree planting across the city (Table 2).

2.4 DISCUSSION

The analysis presented here highlights the potential for enhanced carbon
storage and mitigation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions by tree plant-
ing and SRC in urban greenspaces in a typical UK city. Assessment of
carbon accumulation in urban tree-planting programmes is constrained
by the limited availability of urban-specific tree growth data. Our mod-
els mostly used growth rates reported for Europe (67%) (Table S4) and
North America (13%) (Table S4). Urban-specific growth rates only ac-
counted for 4% of those used, reflecting the limited availability of these
data. Most growth rates were derived from community woodland (24%),
Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon Management 49

FIGURE 1: (a) Current total above-ground carbon in 250 × 250 m grids across the
city, (b) additional biomass carbon after 25 years predicted by the mixed-species
tree-planting models and (c) carbon converted to harvested biomass over 25 years
predicted by the short-rotation coppice (SRC) model.

forestry (22%) and ex-agricultural (16%) sites. The application of natu-

ral forest system allometric relationships to urban forests is common-
place (Timilsina et al. 2014), but potentially inaccurate. However, our
use of averaged equations is one method of constraining errors in bio-
mass estimates (McHale et al. 2009).
 50

FIGURE 2: (a) Available urban greenspace suitable for management under the combined management approach and (b) total
carbon assimilated both into above-ground tree biomass, and harvested in short-rotation coppice (SRC) over 25 years under the
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

combined management approach in 250 × 250 m grids.

Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon Management 51

Fossil fuel carbon emissions occur in the nursery-raising, transport,

and planting of new trees and their subsequent maintenance (Nowak &
Crane 2002; Strohbach et al. 2012; McPherson & Kendall 2014). These
emissions are very context dependant. In the Million Trees Los Angeles
Programme which covers an area of 1022 km2, McPherson & Kendall
(2014) estimate that 6·8 kg of fossil fuel carbon is required to grow and
plant each tree, mainly through use of oil in transport. In the more compact
UK cities, these carbon costs are likely to be much lower. The modelled
fitting of trees to suitable-sized patches in our study results in low plant-
ing densities that will minimize the need for maintenance over 25 years.
Furthermore, a comparable study of urban tree planting found the major-
ity of trees did not need pruning (Russo et al. 2014), and McPherson &
Kendall (2014) suggest urban tree maintenance is only about 3% of the
net reduction in CO2 due to tree planting arising from sequestration into
biomass and avoided fossil fuel carbon emissions where harvest biomass
is used as a biofuel.
If our findings in Leicester are representative of the 6·8% of the UK
that is urban area (Davies et al. 2011a), 15% of this land is suitable for
combined planting of SRC and trees, suggesting that these areas hold the
potential for reducing fossil fuel carbon emissions and increasing tree car-
bon sequestration by a total of over 7 480 000 tonnes carbon over 25 years
nationally. This is a first approximation, assuming SRC is used to substi-
tute natural gas in domestic heating, and is based on 10·3 odt ha−1 year−1
SRC yield (Aylott et al. 2010), rather than the 6 odt ha−1 year−1 value of
Strohbach et al. (2012). In Leicester, soil quality data (Edmondson et al.
2011, 2012, 2014) justify the higher yield value. More definitive estimates
of carbon savings require the tree and SRC yields on typical urban soils
and landscapes to be determined, and the areas of urban land suitable for
planting to be determined nationally.
Short-rotation coppice biofuel production requires fossil fuel energy
use by machinery for planting, management, harvesting and processing,
resulting in carbon emissions estimated to be c. 22% of the total global
warming potential of SRC biofuel in the Mediterranean (Esteban et al.
2014). These components have been estimated for UK SRC production
by Defra (2009) and are taken into account in our calculations of avoided
carbon emissions, but are not based on urban grown SRC. In an urban
52 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

context, data are required on land-use change effects on other greenhouse

gasses such as N2O (Don et al. 2012) and a life cycle assessment made
of the transport and processing activities (St Clair, Hillier & Smith 2008;
Holtsmark 2013). Local production and consumption will minimize trans-
port emissions, estimated to be 11·5% of the global warming potential of
SRC biofuel production in a Spanish case study (Esteban et al. 2014), in-
creasing the economic viability for district energy schemes (Climate East
Midlands 2012).
To meet the UK government target of 15% of all energy and 30%
of electricity demand to come from renewable sources by 2020 (DECC
2009), Aylott et al. (2010) calculate 0·8 million ha would be required if
met by SRC production. To achieve the 7·5 million odt required, all grade
5 and 97% of grade 4 agricultural land across England would be needed
to avoid the best quality land. SRC production across England from 2010
to 2011 ranged from 2600 to 2700 ha (Defra 2013), indicating low ac-
ceptance of SRC by farmers. Our modelling suggests it is possible to add
over 20% to the current UK SRC output by utilizing urban sites within
Leicester alone. Assuming Leicester is not unique, our findings underline
the untapped potential for SRC across UK urban areas.
The greatest potential for an enhanced urban carbon sequestration
strategy is on the urban fringe, comprising predominantly public and
mixed ownership land that can be used for tree planting or SRC. How-
ever, changed greenspace management over large areas of the city has
implications for existing and future provision of ecosystem services.
Urban tree planting is recognized to improve local provision of ecosys-
tem services in ways that can positively influence local climate, carbon
cycles and energy use (Davies et al. 2011b; Nowak et al. 2013a). The es-
tablishment of SRC would allow for increases in pollutant interception,
microclimate amelioration, soil stabilization, visual amenity additions
to heterogeneous urban areas and provide graded edges to forested ar-
eas (Wiström et al. 2015). However, SRC could negatively impact local
ecosystem services potentially restricting public access to greenspaces
and may have low public acceptance in some areas owing to the episodic
aesthetic contrasts between dense mature coppice and recently harvested
stools (Nielsen & Møller 2008). It is important that factors such as these
Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon Management 53

are taken into consideration when selecting suitable sites for any energy
crop (Aylott et al. 2010; Bullock et al. 2011). Plantations on transport
route embankments may have noise reduction and pollution interception
benefits, although the need for buffer zones and access for harvesting
and management may ultimately exclude such sites. This highlights the
importance of identifying competing interests of stakeholders, as con-
flicts may arise if single ecosystem services are promoted in isolation to
the wider consequences (Bullock et al. 2011). Large areas of many cit-
ies are former industrial and derelict building, brownfield sites that are
often contaminated, requiring expensive remediation before redevelop-
ment. Such sites naturally support invading pioneer trees and could sup-
port SRC, with the added benefit of soil phytoremediation (French et al.
2006) although, when burning biomass, appropriate filters would need to
be used (Zhao et al. 2014).
In conclusion, this study highlights the potential of urban greens-
pace for enhanced carbon management through SRC and tree planting.
Carbon sequestration benefits from tree planting would continue well
beyond the 25-year scope of this study, as older trees disproportionately
contribute to carbon storage (Davies et al. 2011b). In contrast, the ben-
efits from fossil fuel replacement by SRC are realized much sooner, with
just one mid-sized city having the potential to add over 20% to UK pro-
duction of this biomass fuel in about a decade. Even if cities across the
UK only implemented a portion of the combined management approach
suggested in this study, the potential for increased SRC production could
reduce demand for high-quality agricultural land to be used for biofuel
production and its associated loss of food production (Renewable Fu-
els Agency 2008), with potential economic and societal benefits. Local
authorities are central to national efforts to cut greenhouse gas emis-
sions and need to encourage the use of urban spaces to assist in meet-
ing the 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 target (UK Parliament
2008) and the EU target of 20% renewable energy by 2020 (DTI, DFT
& DEFRA, 2007). The development of biomass energy sources close to
large populations and encouragement of landowners (public and private)
to increase carbon sequestration across a city should be part of climate
change mitigation policies of city councils.
54 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

REFERENCES

1. Aylott, M.J., Casella, E., Tubby, I., Street, N.R., Smith, P. & Taylor, G. (2008)
Yield and spatial supply of bioenergy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in
the UK. New Phytologist, 178, 358–370.
2. Aylott, M.J., Casella, E., Farrall, K. & Taylor, G. (2010) Estimating the supply of
biomass from short-rotation coppice in England, given social, economic and envi-
ronmental constraints to land availability. Biofuels, 1, 719–727.
3. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2006) District heating from local tree
waste. Technical report. Available at: www.ashden.org/winners/barnsley (accessed
April 2015).
4. British BioGen (1996) Short Rotation Coppice for Energy Production. British Bio-
Gen & Department for Trade and Industry, London.
5. Biomass Energy Centre (2014) Biomass heating of buildings of different sizes. Avail-
able at: www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,163211&_
dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL (accessed April 2015).
6. Bradshaw, A.D., Hunt, B. & Walmsley, T. (1995) Trees in the Urban Landscape.
E & F N Spon, London.
7. Bullock, J.M., Aronson, J., Newton, A.C., Pywell, R.F. & Rey-Benayas, J.M.
(2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportu-
nities. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26, 541–549.
8. Climate East Midlands (2012) District Heating in Leicester. Leicester City Coun-
cil, Leicester. Available at: http://www.climate-em.org.uk/images/uploads/CEM-
Leicester-DH-7-A4.pdf.
9. Davies, L., Kwiatkowski, L., Gaston, K.J., Beck, H., Brett, H., Batty, M. et al.
(2011a) Urban. UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report, 361–410.
10. Davies, Z.G., Edmondson, J.L., Heinemeyer, A., Leake, J.R. & Gaston, K.J.
(2011b) Mapping an urban ecosystem service: quantifying above-ground carbon
storage at a city-wide scale. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 1125–1134.
11. Davies, Z.G., Dallimer, M., Edmondson, J.L., Leake, J.R. & Gaston, K.J. (2013)
Identifying potential sources of variability between vegetation carbon storage es-
timates for urban areas. Environmental Pollution, 183, 133–142.
12. DECC (2009) The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009. Department of Energy
& Climate Change, London.
13. DECC (2011) UK Renewable Energy Roadmap. Department of Energy & Climate
Change, London.
14. DECC (2013) Energy Consumption in the UK (2013). Department of Energy &
Climate Change, London.
15. Defra (2009) Carbon Factor for Wood Fuels for the Supplier Obligation. AEA
Final Report to Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, London.
16. Defra (2013) Area of crops grown for bioenergy in England and the UK: 2008–
2011. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/landuselivestock/
nonfoodcrops/ (accessed April 2015).
17. Díaz-Porras, D.F., Gaston, K.J. & Evans, K.L. (2014) 110 Years of change in urban
tree stocks and associated carbon storage. Ecology and Evolution, 4, 1413–1422.
Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon Management 55

18. Don, A., Osborne, B., Hastings, A., Skiba, U., Carter, M.S., Drewer, J. et al. (2012)
Land-use change to bioenergy production in Europe: implications for the green-
house gas balance and soil carbon. GCB Bioenergy, 4, 372–391.
19. DTI, DFT & DEFRA (2007) UK Biomass Strategy. Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, London.
20. Edmondson, J.L., Davies, Z.G., McCormack, S.A., Gaston, K.J. & Leake, J.R.
(2011) Are soils in urban ecosystems compacted? A citywide analysis. Biology
Letters, 7, 771–774.
21. Edmondson, J.L., Davies, Z.G., McHugh, N., Gaston, K.J. & Leake, J.R. (2012)
Organic carbon hidden in urban ecosystems. Scientific Reports, 2, 963.
22. Edmondson, J.L., Davies, Z.G., McCormack, S.A., Gaston, K.J. & Leake, J.R.
(2014) Land-cover effects on soil organic carbon stocks in a European city. Sci-
ence of the Total Environment, 472, 444–453.
23. ENA (2010) European Technical and Quality Standards for Nursery Stock. Euro-
pean Nurserystock Association, Lochristi, Belgium.
24. Esteban, B., Riba, J.-R., Baquero, G., Puig, R. & Rius, A. (2014) Environmental
assessment of small-scale production of wood chips as a fuel for residential heat-
ing boilers. Renewable Energy, 62, 106–115.
25. Forestry Commission (2010) Tree Care Guide. Forestry Commission, London.
26. French, C.J., Dickinson, N.M. & Putwain, P.D. (2006) Woody biomass phytoreme-
diation of contaminated brownfield land. Environmental Pollution, 141, 387–395.
27. Fuller, R.A., Irvine, K.N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P.H. & Gaston, K.J. (2007)
Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters,
3, 390–394.
28. Gasson, P.E. & Cutler, D.F. (1998) Can we live with trees in our towns and cities?
Arboricultural Journal, 22, 1–9.
29. Gilbertson, P. & Bradshaw, A.D. (1990) The survival of newly planted trees in in-
ner cities. Arboricultural Journal, 14, 287–309.
30. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Barton, D.N., Langemeyer, J., McPhearson, T.,
O'Farrell, P. (2013) Urban ecosystem services, Chapter 11. Urbanization, Biodi-
versity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities: A Global Assess-
ment (eds T. Elmqvist et al.), pp. 175–251. SpringerOpen, Dordrecht.
31. Gruffydd, B. (1987) Tree Form, Size and Colour: A Guide to Selection, Planting
and Design. E & FN Spon, London.
32. Hodge, S.J. & White, J.E.J. (1990) The Ultimate Size and Spread of Trees Com-
monly Grown in Towns. Arboriculture Research Note, Department of the Environ-
ment, London.
33. Holtsmark, B. (2013) The outcome is in the assumptions: analyzing the effects on
atmospheric CO2 levels of increased use of bioenergy from forest biomass. GCB
Bioenergy, 5, 467–473.
34. Infoterra (2006) LandBase Geoperspectives Layer Leicester (Updated November
2006). Infoterra, Leicester.
35. Kaplan, R. (2007) Employees’ reactions to nearby nature at their workplace: the
wild and the tame. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82, 17–24.
36. Kroeger, T., Escobedo, F.J., Hernandez, J.L., Varela, S., Delphin, S., Fisher, J.R.B.
& Waldron, J. (2014) Reforestation as a novel abatement and compliance measure
56 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

for ground-level ozone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

United States of America, 111, E4204–E4213.
37. LAEC (2007) Chainsaw Massacre: A Review of London's Street Trees. Greater
London Authority, London.
38. Leicester City Council (2012) A Low Carbon City Climate Change – Leicester's
Programme of Action. Leicester City Council, Leicester.
39. Loram, A., Tratalos, J., Warren, P.H. & Gaston, K.J. (2007) Urban domestic gar-
dens (X): the extent and structure of the resource in five major cities. Landscape
Ecology, 22, 601–615.
40. Luck, M. & Wu, J.G. (2002) A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case
study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecology,
17, 327–339.
41. MacFarlane, D.W. (2009) Potential availability of urban wood biomass in Michi-
gan: implications for energy production, carbon sequestration and sustainable for-
est management in the U.S.A. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33, 628–634.
42. McHale, M.R., Burke, I.C., Lefsky, M.A., Peper, P.J. & McPherson, E.G. (2009)
Urban forest biomass estimates: is it important to use allometric relationships de-
veloped specifically for urban trees? Urban Ecosystems, 12, 95–113.
43. McHugh, N., Edmondson, J.L., Gaston, K.J., Leake, J.R. & O'Sullivan, O.S. (2015)
Modelling short-rotation coppice and tree planting for urban carbon management
– a city-wide analysis. Dryad Digital Repository, http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.
j25t0
44. McKinney, M.L. (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of
plants and animals. Urban Ecosystems, 11, 161–176.
45. McPherson, E.G. & Kendall, A. (2014) A life cycle carbon dioxide inventory of
the Million Trees Los Angeles program. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 19, 1653–1665.
46. Met Office (2012) 1971–2000 Climate averages. Available at: http://www.metof-
fice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/ (accessed March 2014).
47. Milne, R. & Brown, T.A. (1997) Carbon in the vegetation and soils of Great Brit-
ain. Journal of Environmental Management, 49, 413–433.
48. Natural England (2013a) Opportunities and optimum sitings for energy crops.
Available at: www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/ecs/sitings/
default.aspx (accessed March 2014).
49. Natural England (2013b) Energy Crops Scheme Establishment Grants Handbook.
3rd Edition Version 3.1. Natural England, Worcester.
50. Nielsen, A.B. & Møller, F.G. (2008) Is coppice a potential for urban forestry? The
social perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7, 129–138.
51. Nowak, D.J. & Crane, D.E. (2002) Carbon storage and sequestration by urban
trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution, 116, 381–389.
52. Nowak, D.J., Kuroda, M. & Crane, D.E. (2004) Tree mortality rates and tree popu-
lation projections in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Green-
ing, 2, 139–147.
53. Nowak, D.J., McBride, J.R. & Beatty, R.A. (1990) Newly planted street tree
growth and mortality. Journal of Arboriculture, 16, 124–129.
Short-Rotation Coppice and Tree Planting for Urban Carbon Management 57

54. Nowak, D., Hoehn, R., Bodine, A., Greenfield, E. & O'Neil-Dunne, J. (2013a)
Urban forest structure, ecosystem services and change in Syracuse, NY. Urban
Ecosystems, doi: 10.1007/s11252-013-0326-z.
55. Nowak, D.J., Greenfield, E.J., Hoehn, R.E. & Lapoint, E. (2013b) Carbon storage
and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States.
Environmental Pollution, 178, 229–236.
56. Ordnance Survey (2008) OS MasterMap topography layer. Updated June 2008.
57. Rahman, M., Armson, D. & Ennos, A. (2014) A comparison of the growth and
cooling effectiveness of five commonly planted urban tree species. Urban Eco-
systems, 17, 1–19.
58. Renewable Fuels Agency (2008) The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of
Biofuel Production. Renewable Fuels Agency, St Leonards-on-Sea.
59. RHS (2014) Trees. Available at: www.rhs.org.uk/plants/trees (accessed September
2014).
60. Rowe, R.L., Street, N.R. & Taylor, G. (2009) Identifying potential environmental
impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Re-
newable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 271–290.
61. Roy, S., Byrne, J. & Pickering, C. (2012) A systematic quantitative review of ur-
ban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic
zones. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11, 351–363.
62. Russo, A., Escobedo, F.J., Timilsina, N., Schmitt, A.O., Varela, S. & Zerbe, S.
(2014) Assessing urban tree carbon storage and sequestration in Bolzano, Italy. In-
ternational Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management,
10, 54–70.
63. Sæbø, A., Popek, R., Nawrot, B., Hanslin, H.M., Gawronska, H. & Gawronski,
S.W. (2012) Plant species differences in particulate matter accumulation on leaf
surfaces. Science of the Total Environment, 427–428, 347–354.
64. St Clair, S., Hillier, J. & Smith, P. (2008) Estimating the pre-harvest greenhouse
gas costs of energy crop production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32, 442–452.
65. Stovin, V.R., Jorgensen, A. & Clayden, A. (2008) Street trees and stormwater man-
agement. Arboricultural Journal, 30, 297–310.
66. Strohbach, M., Arnold, E., Vollrodt, S. & Haase, D. (2012) Carbon sequestration
in shrinking cities – potential or a drop in the ocean? Urban Environment (eds S.
Rauch & G.M. Morrison), pp. 61–70. Springer, Dordrecht.
67. The Carbon Trust (2012) Biomass Heat Accelerator – Overview and Summary of
Output. The Carbon Trust, London.
68. Timilsina, N., Staudhammer, C.L., Escobedo, F.J. & Lawrence, A. (2014) Tree
biomass, wood waste yield, and carbon storage changes in an urban forest. Land-
scape and Urban Planning, 127, 18–27.
69. UK Parliament (2008) Climate Change Act c. 27. Available at: http://www.legisla-
tion.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27 (accessed 14 February 2013).
70. UN-Habitat (2011) Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settle-
ment 2011. United Nations Human Settlement Programme, London.
71. United Nations (2012) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision. Depart-
ment of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, NY.
58 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

72. Willoughby, I., Stokes, V., Poole, J., White, J.E.J. & Hodge, S.J. (2007) The po-
tential of 44 native and non-native tree species for woodland creation on a range
of contrasting sites in lowland Britain. Forestry, 80, 531–553.
73. Wiström, B., Nielsen, A.B., Klobuĉar, B. & Klepec, U. (2015) Zoned selective
coppice –a management system for graded forest edges. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, 14, 156–162.
74. Wu, C., Xiao, Q. & McPherson, E.G. (2008) A method for locating potential tree-
planting sites in urban areas: a case study of Los Angeles, USA. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening, 7, 65–76.
75. Zhao, X., Monnell, J.D., Niblick, B., Rovensky, C.D. & Landis, A.E. (2014) The
viability of biofuel production on urban marginal land: an analysis of metal con-
taminants and energy balance for Pittsburgh's Sunflower Gardens. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 124, 22–33.

Additional supplemental information (including tables, figures, and appendices)

available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12491/
full.
CHAPTER 3

Neighborhood Greenspace and Health

in a Large Urban Center
OMID KARDAN, PETER GOZDYRA, BRATISLAV MISIC,
FAISAL MOOLA, LYLE J. PALMER, TOMÁŠ PAUS,
and MARC G. BERMAN

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Many have the intuition that living near trees and greenspace is beneficial
to our health. But how much could a tree in the street or a nearby neigh-
borhood park improve our health? Here we set out to examine this very
question by studying the relationship between health and neighborhood
greenspace as measured with comprehensive metrics of tree canopy on the
street vs. tree canopy in parks and private residences.
It is a known fact that urban trees improve air quality1,2, reduce cool-
ing and heating energy use3, and make urban environments aesthetically
more preferable4,5. Importantly, several studies have shown that exposure
to greenspaces can be psychologically and physiologically restorative by
promoting mental health6,7, reducing non-accidental mortality8, reducing
physician assessed-morbidity9, reducing income-related health inequality’s

© Kardan, O. et al (2015). Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center. Sci. Rep.
5, 11610; doi: 10.1038/srep11610. Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/).
60 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

effect on morbidity10, reducing blood pressure and stress levels11,12, reduc-

ing sedentary leisure time13, as well as promoting physical activity14,15. In
addition, greenspace may enhance psychological and cardio-vascular ben-
efits of physical activity, as compared with other settings12.
Moreover, experimental research has demonstrated that interacting
with natural environments can have beneficial effects—after brief ex-
posures—on memory and attention for healthy individuals16,17,18 and for
patient populations19,20,21. In addition, having access to views of natural
settings (e.g., from a home or a hospital bed) have been found to reduce
crime and aggression22,23 and improve recovery from surgery24.
Although many studies have shown that natural environments enhance
health or encourage healthy behaviors, to our knowledge, fewer studies
have quantified the relationship between individual trees and health. In
addition, studies have not separately estimated the treed area beside the
streets and other urban greenspaces and related those variables to indi-
viduals’ health in various domains, including cardio-metabolic condi-
tions, mental disorders and general health perception. Knowing the kind
of greenspace that may be associated with health benefits would be critical
when deciding the type of greenspace that should be incorporated into
built environments to improve health.
The typical method for quantifying exposure to greenspace for indi-
viduals in large population studies is to use the percentage of area cov-
ered in greenspace in an individual’s neighborhood. The size of the areas
and the accuracy (and also definition) of greenspace quantification vary
across different studies. For example10, used data containing >10 m2 ac-
curacy for greenspace and geographical units of 4 km2 on average in their
study, Richardson et al. (2013) used >200 m2 accuracy for greenspace and
geographical units that averaged 5 km2, and7 used the presence of public
“natural” spaces in areas within a 5 km radius from schools to quantify
exposure to nature for school-aged children.
In this study, we were interested in examining greenspace with lower
granularity (i.e., higher geographical resolution) and quantifying associa-
tions that are specific to exposure to trees, as opposed to exposures to any
greenspace, such as grass or shrubbery. Here, our definition of greenspace
consisted of tree canopy only and not of urban grass or bushes (or other
“natural” settings). This choice is based on the assumption that trees are
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 61

the most consistent green components in an area and potentially the most
important component for having beneficial effects25.
We also used a much higher geographical resolution for the following
reasons. First, we wanted to distinguish between trees along the roads and
streets versus those in domestic gardens and parks, and other open areas.
To do so, we used individual tree data from the ‘Street Tree General Data’
and tree-canopy polygon data from the ‘Forest and Land Cover’ dataset
to construct our greenspace variables. Both datasets came from the city
of Toronto. Second, to ensure that the tree variables were less confounded
by health insurance policies as well as demographic parameters (age, sex,
education, and income), we used a single urban population (Toronto) in
Canada, a country with a universal publically funded healthcare system
that, compared with the United States, guarantees access to health-care
services independent of income and/or employment status26. These health-
care equalities facilitate the interpretation of the relationships between
individual urban trees and health in this urban population. Although fi-
nancial barriers may not impede access to health care services in Canada,
differential use of physician services with respect to socio-economic status
persist; Canadians with lower incomes and fewer years of schooling visit
specialists at a lower rate than those with moderate or high incomes and
higher levels of education despite the existence of universal health care27.
In particular, we examined the relationship between tree canopy density
beside the streets and in other areas such as parks and domestic gardens
with an individual’s health. The health variables that we focused on were:
1) Overall health perception; 2) Presence of cardio-metabolic conditions
such as hypertension, high blood glucose, obesity (both overweight and
obese), high cholesterol, myocardiac infarction, heart disease, stroke,
and diabetes; and 3) Mental health problems including major depression,
anxiety, and addiction. Subjective self-rated health perception was cho-
sen as one of the health outcomes because self-perception of health has
been found to be related to morbidity and mortality rates and is a strong
predictor of health status and outcomes in both clinical and community
settings28,29,30.
Furthermore, on the tree variable side, we distinguished tree canopy of
trees beside the street from those planted in other areas, such as parks and
private backyards. A distinction of these different sources of tree canopy
62 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

may be helpful for urban planning policies. We hypothesized that street

trees could have stronger beneficial associations with individual’s health
because they may be more accessible to all residents in a given neighbor-
hood as residents are likely exposed to street trees in their daily activities
and through views from their windows; for example see24.
Figure 1 shows a geographic map of the individual tree data (i.e., the
individual trees on the street) and Fig. 2 shows a geographic map of the
satellite tree data (i.e., the amount of tree canopy) for different neighbor-
hoods in the city of Toronto. Both tree datasets were used to quantify the
“greenness” of the neighborhoods (see Methods). Figure 3 shows the dis-
semination areas (i.e., Toronto neighborhood units) that were used in our
analysis. The highlighted neighborhoods are the ones that were included
in our analysis.
To uncover the relationships between neighborhood greenspace and
health we performed two analyses. The first was a multiple regression
of each health outcome on socio-economic, demographic and tree den-
sity variables. The second was a canonical correlation analysis where we
examined the multivariate relationship between all health outcomes and
socio-economic, demographic and tree density variables. Our canonical
correlation model is shown in Fig. 4. In all of these analyses we attempted
to quantify the independent relationships of street tree canopy and non-
street tree canopy on health.

3.2 RESULTS

3.2.1 REGRESSION RESULTS

3.2.1.1 HEALTH PERCEPTION

Our results suggest that people who live in areas that have more (and/
or larger) trees on the streets report better health perception, after con-
trolling for demographic factors, such as income, age and education
[p < 0.0001]. As can be seen in Table 1, the regression coefficient for
the street tree density variable shows that a four percent square meters
63
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center
FIGURE 1: The Greenspace map of the city of Toronto constructed from the individual tree information Street Tree General Data.
This image is shown in much lower resolution compared to the real image and the dissociation between individual trees and other
areas is clearly perceivable for the zoomed-in area. Parks are shown in dark gray.
 64

FIGURE 2: The Greenspace map of the city of Toronto constructed from the Geographical Information System (GIS) polygon data
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

set Forest and Land Cover. The levels are shown in units of 10–15% for display purposes only as we analyzed these data as a
continuous variable.
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 65

(400 cm2) increase in the treed area for every square meter of neighbor-
hood predicts about 0.04 increased health perception (i.e., 1% of our 1–5
health perception scale) for individuals living in that area. A 400 cm2/m2
increase in treed area is equal to the addition of about 200 average trees
(with 40 m2 crown area) on the streets in a dissemination area of almost
average size (about 200,000 m2) in Toronto. This is approximately 10
more trees per city block (a DA usually contains about 25 blocks). As
can be seen in Table 1, this increase in health perception is equivalent to
the effect of a $10,200 increase in annual household income and living in
a DA with equally (i.e., $10,200) higher median income. (Notice that for
this comparison we added up the estimates of income and area income
because a hypothetical increase of income for the families in a DA also
increases the median area income in that DA to the same extent). This
same increase in health perception is also, on average, equivalent to be-
ing 7 years younger.
Other than street tree density, variables that independently predict
better health perception in this multiple regression are: eating more
servings of vegetables and fruits in one’s diet (1 more serving per day
predicts 1.2% better health perception [p < 0.0001]), being younger (10
years less age predicts 1.5% better health perception [p < 0.0001]), being
male (males have on average almost 1% better health perception than
females [p = 0.0004]), having higher education (belonging to one higher
educational group predicts 1.6% better health perception [p < 0.0001]),
living in more affluent neighborhoods (belonging to one higher area me-
dian income group predicts 0.7% better health perception [p < 0.0001]),
and having higher household income (belonging to one higher income
group predicts 1.6% better health perception [p < 0.0001]). It should be
mentioned that the associations between health perception and tree den-
sity and other predictors reported here explain 9% of the variance in
health perception. While the model explains a significant proportion of
the variance in the data, it does not explain all of the variance of the
dependent variable. This is true of all models whose R2 values are less
than 1. As such the model’s predictions may not always hold true if the
other unidentified factors that predict the remaining variability in health
perception are not controlled for.
 66

FIGURE 3: The dissemination area map of the city of Toronto (2006). The colored regions show the dissemination areas that were
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

included in the study.

67
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center
FIGURE 4: The canonical correspondence model that was used in our canonical correlation analyses to assess the relationship of
the predictors (socio-economic, demographic and tree density variables) with health factors.
 68

Table 1. Combined results of regression of health perception on the multiply-imputed data.

Variable Estimate Std. Error t-stat p-value df Rel. Increase FMI

Intercept 2.7794 0.0296 93.8319 <0.0001 6202 0.0685 0.0644
Diet 0.0481 0.0024 19.7007 <0.0001 668 0.2130 0.1781
Age –0.0059 0.0004 –16.8734 <0.0001 10566 0.05246 0.0500
Sex 0.0374 0.0107 3.4853 0.0004 14364 0.04498 0.0432
Education 0.0663 0.0032 20.6885 <0.0001 6647 0.06620 0.0624
Income 0.0710 0.0034 21.0145 <0.0001 448 0.2630 0.2117
Area income 0.0278 0.0056 4.9162 <0.0001 3664 0.08932 0.0825
Street Tree den. 0.0101 0.0015 6.6879 <0.0001 34158 0.02915 0.0284
Other Tree den. –0.0003 0.0004 –0.7293 0.4658 25993 0.03342 0.0324

R2 = 0.0885, adjusted R2 = 0.0876, F (8, 7879*) = 94.6814, p < 0.0001. FMI is fraction of missing information. *The average of
estimated degrees of freedom.
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 69

3.2.1.2 CARDIO-METABOLIC CONDITIONS

Results of regressing the cardio-metabolic conditions index on the indepen-

dent variables are shown in Table 2. Results suggest that people who live in
areas that have more (and/or larger) trees on the streets report significantly
fewer cardio-metabolic conditions. People reported decrease of 0.04 units
of cardio-metabolic conditions (0.5% of the 0–8 scale for cardio-metabolic
conditions) for every increase of 408 cm2/m2 in tree density. This is approx-
imately equivalent to 11 more average-sized trees on the streets per city
block. This effect for cardio-metabolic conditions is equivalent to a $20,200
increase in both area median income and annual household income adjusted
for other variables. This decrease in cardio-metabolic conditions is also, on
average, equivalent to being 1.4 years younger.
Other than street tree density, variables that predict fewer cardio-metabolic
conditions, after controlling for other variables in this multiple regression, are:
eating more servings of vegetables and fruits in one’s diet (1 more serving
per day predicts 0.08% less cardio-metabolic conditions [p = 0.0129]), being
younger (10 years less age predicts 3.7% less cardio-metabolic conditions
[p < 0.0001]), being female (females report on average 3.3% less cardio-met-
abolic conditions than males [p < 0.0001]), having higher education (belong-
ing to one higher educational group predicts 0.71% less cardio-metabolic
conditions [p < 0.0001]), living in more affluent neighborhoods (belonging to
one higher area median income group predicts 0.36% higher reported health
perception [p < 0.0001]), and having higher household income (belonging to
one higher income group predicts 0.28% less cardio-metabolic conditions
[p < 0.0001]). In addition, we added the interaction terms of all predictors with
the tree density variables and the models R2 for health perception and cardio-
metabolic conditions did not improve much (ΔR2 = 0.0008 for health percep-
tion, ΔR2 = 0.0009 for cardio-metabolic conditions), even though there was a
small positive interaction between street tree density and age that was statisti-
cally significant. We chose not to include these interactions due to lack of a
priori hypotheses, their small effect sizes and to preserve the models simplic-
ity. Again, it should be mentioned that the associations between cardio-met-
abolic conditions and tree density and other predictors reported here explain
19% of the variance in cardio-metabolic conditions. While the model explains
 70

Table 2. Combined results of regression of cardio-metabolic conditions on the multiple-imputed data.

Variable Estimate Std. Error t-stat p-value df Rel. Increase FMI

Intercept 0.1236 0.0363 3.4049 0.0008 895 0.1937 0.1643
Diet –0.0062 0.0026 –2.3217 0.0204 1206 0.1569 0.1371
Age 0.0296 0.0004 70.4279 <0.0001 1724 0.1307 0.1166
Sex 0.2894 0.0128 22.5830 <0.0001 857 0.1871 0.1596
Education –0.0570 0.0037 –15.2098 <0.0001 553 0.2351 0.1932
Income –0.0240 0.0038 –6.2648 <0.0001 168 0.4563 0.3213
Area income –0.0286 0.0066 –4.3071 <0.0001 863 0.1864 0.1591
Street Tree den. –0.0097 0.0018 –5.4025 <0.0001 801 0.1937 0.1643
Other Tree den. –0.0001 0.0005 –0.1196 0.9048 776 0.1970 0.1667

R2 = 0.1920, adjusted R2 = 0.1845, F (8, 871*) = 25.6089, p < 0.0001. FMI is fraction of missing information. *The average of estimated
degrees of freedoms.
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 71

a significant proportion of the variance in the data, it does not explain all of the
variance of the dependent variable. This is true of all models whose R2 values
are less than 1. As such the model’s predictions may not always hold true if
the other unidentified factors that predict the remaining variability in cardio-
metabolic conditions are not controlled for.

3.2.1.3 MENTAL DISORDERS AND OTHER DISORDERS

Results of Mental Disorders and Other Disorders can be found in Supple-

mental Tables S1 and S2. Regressing the Mental Disorders index on the in-
dependent variables do not capture a significant amount of variance in Men-
tal Disorders in the data [R2 = 0.0136, adjusted R2 = −0.0111, p = 0.1820]. We
will further investigate this issue later in the canonical correlation analysis.
Finally, the Other Disorders index is not a coherent variable and was
not constructed to be used as a dependent variable in the regression analy-
ses, but mainly was constructed as a control variable for the canonical
correlation analysis. Nonetheless, results of regressing the Other Disor-
ders index (Cancer, Migraines, Arthritis, or Asthma) on the independent
variables are shown in Table S2.

3.2.2 CANONICAL CORRELATION RESULTS

Figures 5, 6, 7 show the results from the canonical correlation analysis,

which finds the relationship (i.e., linear combination of weights) between
two sets of variables. The height of each bar shows the correlation of each
variable with the corresponding set of canonical weights. Error bars show
±2 standard errors containing both between and within imputation vari-
ance calculated by bootstrapping imputed data sets. Importantly, all ca-
nonical variates are orthogonal to one another.
The canonical correlation coefficient (r) for each pair of linear compos-
ites is shown near the bidirectional arrow representing the relationship be-
tween the two sets of variables (demographic and green-space variables and
health-related variables). The canonical correlation coefficients for all the
four pairs of linear composites were statistically significant (p < 0.0001 for
Bartlett’s approximate chi-squared statistic with Lawley’s modification).
 72

FIGURE 5: The first pair of linear composites for the canonical correlation analysis; F (32, 114680) = 381.2263), R2 = 0.2084,
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

p < 0.0001. Bars show correlation of each variable (canonical loadings) with the first set of weighted canonical scores. Error bars
show ±2 standard errors containing both between and within imputation variance calculated by bootstrapping imputed data sets.
73
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center
FIGURE 6: The second pair of linear composites for the canonical correlation analysis; F (21, 89297) = 211.0480), R2 = 0.0822,
p < 0.0001. Bars show correlation of each variable with the second set of weighted canonical scores. Error bars show ±2 standard
errors containing both between and within imputation.
 74

FIGURE 7: The third pair of linear composites for the canonical correlation analysis; F (12, 63702) = 139.9347, R2 = 0.0491,
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

p < 0.0001. Bars show correlation of each variable with the third set of weighted canonical scores. Error bars show ±2 standard
errors containing both between and within imputation variance.
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 75

The first pair of linear composites (Fig. 5) is dominated by the effect

of age on physical disorders (Cardio-metabolic and Other disorders). This
suggests that being older is highly correlated (r = 0.4565, R2 = 0.2084)
with having more cardio-metabolic conditions, as well as cancer, arthritis,
asthma and migraines.
The second pair of linear composites is mainly dominated by Health
Perception and shows that individuals with higher annual income, higher
education, higher vegetables/fruits consumption and who live in areas
with higher street tree density report the best health perception. This rep-
licates and extends the results found in the regression. The same group of
people also reports fewer cardio-metabolic conditions, although the er-
rorbar for the loading of these conditions crosses zero (indicating a non-
significant effect). This is possibly due to the fact that the main part of the
variability in cardio-metabolic conditions (that was mainly due to older
age) was already captured by the first canonical loadings. The canonical
correlation for this second linear composite is of medium size (r = 0.2868,
R2 = 0.0822).
The third pair of linear composites has a modest effect size (r = 0.2216,
R2 = 0.0491) and is mainly dominated by sex. This composite shows that
females report more other disorders and more mental disorders. This com-
plies with the regression results and the fact that occurrence of breast can-
cer is more frequent among women even at younger ages31.
Results from the fourth composite are shown in Supplementary Fig-
ure S1. The fourth component was dominated by mental disorders after
much of the variability due to sex was extracted by the previous com-
posites (mainly third composite). Neither the demographic nor the tree
density variables significantly correlated with the fourth canonical scores.
The very small effect size (r = 0.0539, R2 = 0.0029) shows that the data and
variables might not be rich enough for an analysis of mental disorders, as
mentioned before in the regression analysis. Indeed, only a non-reliable
combination of demographic and tree variables seem to be related to more
mental disorders at this stage of analysis. Future studies with more de-
tailed data regarding mental disorders may help to test the results found
for the fourth composite.
Finally, Table 3 shows the communalities for all the variables, which
are computed as sum of the squared loadings across all latent variables and
76 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 3. Communalities for the variables based on the canonical correlation analysis.

Variable Communal- Variable Communality

ity
Age 0.9845 Str. Tree Density 0.3980
Income 0.8158 Other Tree Density 0.1317
Area Income 0.2649 Health Perception 1.0000
Sex 0.9848 Cardio-metabolic Conditions 1.0000
Education 0.5016 Mental Disorders 1.0000
Diet 0.4372 Other Disorders 1.0000

represent how much of the variance in the variable has been accounted for
by the canonical correlation model. The communality results show that
the canonical variates are able to capture/reproduce at least 15% of the
variance in all original variables. In conclusion, both the regression and
the canonical correlation analyses suggest that higher tree density on the
streets, in a given dissemination area, correlates with better health percep-
tion and fewer cardio-metabolic conditions for people living in that dis-
semination area.

3.3 DISCUSSION

Results from our study suggest that people who live in areas with higher
street tree density report better health perception and fewer cardio-met-
abolic conditions compared with their peers living in areas with lower
street tree density. There are two important points about our results that
add to the previous literature. First, the effect size of the impact of street
tree density seems to be comparable to that of a number of socioeconomic
or demographic variables known to correlate with better health (beyond
age). Specifically, if we consider two families, one earning $10,200 more
annually than the other, and living in a neighborhood with the same higher
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 77

median income, it is predicted that the more affluent family who is liv-
ing in the richer neighborhood perceives themselves as healthier people.
Interestingly, however, that prediction could turn out to be wrong if the
less affluent family lives in a neighborhood that has on average 10 more
trees beside the streets in every block. Regarding cardio-metabolic condi-
tions, the same scenario is expected to hold true for an income difference
of $20,200.
Ten more trees in every block is about 4% increase in street tree density
in a dissemination area in Toronto, which seems to be logistically feasible;
Toronto’s dissemination areas have a 0.2% to 20.5% range of street tree
density and trees can be incorporated into various planting areas along
local roads. According to our findings improving health perception and
decreasing cardio-metabolic conditions by planting 10 more trees per city
block is equivalent to increasing the income of every household in that city
block by more than $10,000, which is more costly than planting the addi-
tional 10 trees. (See the “Urban Watershed Forestry Manual, Part 3 Urban
Tree Planting Guide” for estimation of urban tree planting and mainte-
nance costs and other considerations for urban tree planting. Generally,
planting and maintenance of 10 urban trees could annually cost between
$300 to $5000). Finally, it should be mentioned that this estimation of
increased tree density being equivalent to specific increases in economic
status of people is based on respondents from Canada, which has a publi-
cally funded universal health-care system. It may be the case that in other
countries that do not have universal health care individuals’ health may
be more affected by economic status, which could cause the tree density
relationship with health to be smaller-in economic terms. This, however,
is an empirical question that is certainly worthy of further investigation.
The second important finding is that the “health” associations with tree
density were not found (in a statistically reliable manner) for tree density
in areas other than beside the streets and along local roads. It seems that
trees that affect people most generally are those that they may have the
most contact (visual or presence) with, which we are hypothesizing to
be those planted along the streets. Another possible explanation could be
that trees on the street may be more important to reductions in air pollu-
tion generated by traffic through dry deposition32. This does not indicate,
however, that parks are not beneficial. This study only shows that planting
78 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

trees along the roads may be more beneficial than planting trees in parks
and private residences at least for these health measures. For example, our
sample only consists of adults and trees in parks may be more beneficial to
children who spend more time in such locations33. Future studies need to
address this possibility more thoroughly.
An important issue that is not addressed in this study is the mechanisms
by which these beneficial effects of proximity to more (or larger) urban
trees on health occur. Improving air quality, relieving stress, or promoting
physical activity could all be contributing factors to improved reported
health. The current study provides two pieces of information that could
be useful when trying to study the underlying mechanisms of the health
benefits attained from urban trees. First, more than proximity (tree density
in the neighborhood), it is the availability of the trees to the largest pro-
portion of people (trees on the roads) that is beneficial. Second, the form
of the relationship is linear, at least in the density range of 0 to 20% for
trees on the streets found in the city of Toronto (i.e., adding the quadratic
or the square root of street tree density to the multiple regressions did not
improve the models, suggesting that the relationship of health outcomes
with street tree density neither decreases (quadratic transformation), nor
increases (square root transformation) in a meaningful way at higher lev-
els of street tree density). These two results imply that: 1) some of the ef-
fects may be partially related to the mere visual exposure to trees16,18,24 or
to the dry deposition of air pollutants and 2) that the effects are not likely
to plateau or accelerate, in a meaningful way, as the level of tree canopy
density increases.
In addition, in a post-hoc analysis, we compared the health outcomes
of individuals living in areas with more leaf-retaining versus more de-
ciduous trees, adjusted for street and other tree density and demographic
variables. Our analysis showed that people living in year-round green ar-
eas (more leaf-retaining trees) reported less cardio-metabolic conditions
(p = 0.017) than their peers, but not better health perception. Again, while
not conclusive, this result points to some importance regarding the types
of trees that should be planted, but it would be much too premature to fa-
vor the planting of non-deciduous vs. deciduous trees.
Our study could benefit from improvements in at least three aspects.
First, we used cross-sectional data for practical reasons; longitudinal data
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 79

would provide us with much stronger inferences of causality. Second, our

health data items are self-reported, which introduces some error and po-
tential biases in health variables reported. Third, we are assuming that
controlling for area median income accounts for many other neighborhood
variables that could affect mental and physical health in indirect ways
(such as neighborhood safety, pollution, etc.), which might not always
hold true. In future research we plan to test our current findings in a more
comprehensive manner that obviates the mentioned limitations. In sum-
mary, our results show that street trees are associated with a significant,
independent and reliable increase in health benefits in urban populations
and that small increases in the number of trees along the street could im-
prove health markedly and in cost-effective ways.

3.4 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Canada is divided into geographical units called dissemination areas (DA),

which consist of 400 to 700 inhabitants and whose boundary lines mostly
follow roads. We used data from 3,202 DAs located in the city of Toronto
with an average population of 690 individuals and average physical size
of 172,290 m2.
We combined data from three different sources to construct our tree,
health and demographic variables:
The first source of tree canopy data came from the ‘Street Tree General
Data,’ which is a Geographical Information System (GIS) dataset that lists
the locations of over 530,000 individual trees planted on public land within
the city of Toronto. This dataset comes from experts who traversed the city
of Toronto and recorded tree species and diameters at breast height. Trees
in public parks are not listed as the listed trees were only from public land
that lines the streets. The set contains each tree’s common and botanical
names, their diameters at breast height (DBH), the street addresses and the
general location reference information. Figure 1 shows the green-space
map of Toronto generated from these data for illustration.
The second source of tree canopy data came from the Geographical In-
formation System (GIS) polygon data set ‘Forest and Land Cover,’ which
contained detailed areal information of tree canopies in Toronto. In these
80 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

data, the satellite imagery resolution was 0.6 m—from QuickBird Satel-
lite imagery, 2007. The treed area was calculated using automated remote
sensing software—Ecognition. This automated land-cover map was then
monitored by staff from the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab
and adjusted to increase accuracy. In this dataset there is the ability to dif-
ferentiate shrub cover from trees. There is, however, some susceptibility
to errors when differentiating large shrubs from trees. To validate the ac-
curacy of the QuickBird satellite imagery, it was compared with two other
methods used to assess tree canopy cover: 1) Ocular estimates of canopy
cover by field crews during data collection in 2008; 2) 10,000 random
point samples of leaf-off and leaf-on aerial orthophotos (imagery avail-
able in required orthorecitifed format included 1999, 2005 and 2009)34.
The tree canopy coverage estimates for each of the respective approaches
were: QuickBird: 28%; Ocular: 24%; and Aerial Orthophotos: 26.2% re-
spectively34. Because of the similarity in results, we can be confident in
the accuracy of the QuickBird satellite results. For more information on
the automated classification of leaf-on tree canopy from the 2007 satellite
imagery see Appendix 4 of34. Figure 2 shows a map of tree canopy in each
dissemination area as generated from the QuickBird Satellite.
Information about individuals’ health and demographics was obtained
in the context of the Ontario Health Study (https://www.ontariohealth-
study.ca). This is an ongoing research study of adults (18 years and older)
living in the Canadian province of Ontario aimed at investigating risk
factors associated with diseases such as: cancer, diabetes, heart disease,
asthma, and Alzheimer’s Disease. The data were collected using two (sim-
ilar) versions of a web-based questionnaire consisting of demographic and
health-related questions. These questionnaires were completed by 94,427
residents living in the greater Toronto area between September, 2010 and
January, 2013. For this study, we used data from a subset of 31,109 resi-
dents (31,945 respondents, out of which 827 were removed during qual-
ity control for having duplicate records and 9 were removed because of
missing consent records). A record was considered a duplicate with the
following data quality checks: 1) Multiple registrations of the same Last
Name, First Name and Date of Birth 2) Multiple registrations of the same
Last Name, First Name and Postal Code 3) Multiple registrations of the
same Last Name, First Name, Date of Birth and Postal Code 4) Multiple
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 81

registrations of the same email address. Additional data quality checks

included several built-in checks in the online system, which included au-
tomatic skip patterns and limited ranges for free text numerical responses
such that participant responses must be within reasonable limits. The final
sample included individuals who resided in the 3,202 dissemination areas
of the city of Toronto as individual tree data were only available for these
areas. These dissemination areas are shown in Fig. 3.

3.4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

For each individual, we used sex (59% female; compared to the population
male/female ratio: Toronto’s population was 48.0% male and 52.0% female
in 2011 according to Statistics Canada), age (Mean = 43.8, range = 18–99;
as of 2011 the mean age of residents above 19 years of age for the entire
population of Toronto is: 47.9 according to Statistics Canada), education
(coded as: 1 = none (0.0%), 2 = elementary (1.0%), 3 = high school (15.3%),
4 = trade (3.3%), 5 = diploma (15.9%), 6 = certificate (5.9%), 7 = bachelor’s
(35.3%), 8 = graduate degree (23.3%), with Mean = 6.07, range = 1–8; Ac-
cording to the 2011 National Household Survey in www.toronto.ca, the
distribution of education for the entire city of Toronto is the following:
33% of all City residents 15 years and over have a bachelor degree or
higher, 69% of City residents between the ages of 25 and 64 years have
a postsecondary degree, 17% of 25–64 years old residents have gradu-
ate degrees), and annual household income (coded as: 1 = less than $10
000, 2 = $10 000 – $24 999, 3 = $25 000 – $49 999, 4 = $50 000 – $74 999,
5 = $75 000 – $99 999, 6 = $100 000 – $149 999, 7 = $150 000 – $199 999,
8 = $200 000 or more, with Mean = 4.67 which is equivalent to $90 806
annual income range = 1–8; compared to the entire city of Toronto’s popu-
lation mean household income, which was: $87,038 in 2010 according to
Statistics Canada), as well as diet (number of fruits and vegetable servings
respondent consume every day, with Mean = 2.24, range = 0–10), as po-
tential confounding variables. In addition, for each dissemination area we
used the area median income from Statistics Canada and coded those data
the same as the household income data, with mean = 4.08, range = 2–8.
Population densities in a given DA were used in the multiple imputation
82 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

analysis but not as a variable in the regressions or the canonical correlation

analyses. The correlations between demographic variables can be found in
Figure S2 of Supplementary Information.
Our studied sample had similar demographics to the entire city of
Toronto, but was slightly younger (mean age = 43.8; Toronto popula-
tion = 47.9), slightly more female (59%; Toronto population = 52%),
slightly more educated (35.3% had bachelor’s degrees vs. 33% in the To-
ronto population) and slightly wealthier (mean household income = $93,399
vs. $87,038 in the entire city of Toronto).

3.4.2 GREEN-SPACE VARIABLES

Crown area of the trees was used to calculate the density of area covered
by trees separately for the trees on the streets and the trees from greens-
pace in private locations and parks in each DA. We estimated the crown
area of the trees based on their diameter at breast height (DBH) values. We
obtained formulas for estimating tree crown diameter based on DBH for 8
tree types (Maple, Locust, Spruce, Ash, Linden, Oak, Cherry, and Birch)
that were derived from forestry research. Forestry researchers have fit lin-
ear and non-linear models to relate crown diameter and DBH for differ-
ent species of trees. These models achieved good fits as verified by their
high R2 values (above 0.9)35,36. The formulas that were used to estimate
crown diameters from DBH for these tree types and their references can
be found in the Supplementary Equations section of the Supplementary In-
formation. These 8 tree species covered 396,121 (83%) of the trees in our
dataset. For the other 81,017 (17%) of the trees, we estimated crown diam-
eter based on the linear regression of crown diameters on DBHs obtained
from the 83% of the trees belonging to the tree types with known crown
formulas. The crown areas of all the trees were then calculated using the
crown diameters and assuming that the crown areas were circular in shape.
Street tree density for each dissemination area was quantified as the
total area of the crowns of trees (m2) beside the streets in the dissemination
area over total dissemination area size (m2) multiplied by 100 to be in per-
centage format. The range for this variable was found to be from 0.02% in
the areas with the least street tree density to 20.5% in the areas with highest
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 83

street tree density (Mean = 4.57%). Other tree density for each dissemina-
tion area was calculated by subtracting out the area covered by crowns of
the trees on the streets (street tree area) from the total treed area (m2) in the
dissemination area (from the satellite Tree Canopy data), and then divid-
ing that by the area size and multiplying by 100 to be in percentage format.
The range for this variable was found to be from 0.00% in the areas with
almost no trees in parks (or no parks), no domestic gardens or other open
areas; to 75.4% in areas with high tree density and parks (Mean = 23.5%).
As mentioned above, there was limited ability to differentiate large shrub
cover from tree cover in the satellite data. Therefore, the variable “other
tree density” could contain some unwanted large shrub cover as well, es-
pecially for areas with very high other tree density.

3.4.3 HEALTH VARIABLES

All of the health variables were constructed from the self-reported items
in the Ontario Health Study (OHS). Items related to disorders were based
on the question “Have you ever been diagnosed with …?” and coded with
0 = No and 1 = Yes. These consisted of physical conditions including high
blood pressure, high cholesterol, high blood glucose, heart attack (MI),
stroke, heart disease, migraines, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder
(COPD), liver cirrhosis, ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel disease (IBD),
arthritis, asthma, cancer, and diabetes (DM), as well as mental health con-
ditions including addiction, depression, and anxiety. About 66.3% of all
respondents reported having at least one of the mentioned health condi-
tions. The percentages of “Yes” responses for each of these conditions
are reported in Supplementary Table S3. Additionally, body mass index
(BMI) for each person was calculated from his/her self-reported height
and weight. Our “Obesity” variable was constructed as 0 for BMI below
25, 0.5 for BMI between 25 and 30 (overweight, 26% of respondents),
and 1 for BMI over 30 (obese, 13% of respondents). Other variables
drawn from these data are general health perception (self-rated health
(1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, 5 = excellent, with Mean = 3.66,
range = 1–5), and four more variables that were used in the multiple im-
putations to increase the accuracy of imputations: walking (the number
84 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

of days a participant has gone for a walk of at least 10 minutes in length

last week, with Mean = 5.33, range = 0–7), smoking (if participant has ever
smoked 4-5 packs of cigarettes in their lifetime, 38% Yes), alcohol con-
sumption frequency (coded as 0 = never, 1 = less than monthly, 2 = about
once a month, 3 = two to three times a month, 4 = once a week, 5 = two
to three times a week, 6 = four to five times a week, with Mean = 3.60,
range = 0–7), and alcohol binge frequency (coded as 0 = never, 1 = 1 to 5
times a year, 2 = 6 to 11 times a year, 3 = about once a month, 4 = 2 to 3
times a month, 5 = once a week, 6 = 2 to 3 times a week, 7 = 4 to 5 times a
week, 8 = 6 to 7 times a week, with Mean = 1.62, range = 0–8).
The dependent variables related to physical and mental health were
created from the multiple-imputed data. For each complete dataset, the
Cardio-metabolic Conditions index was constructed by summing the fol-
lowing seven variables related to cardio-metabolic health: High Blood
Glucose, Diabetes, Hypertension, High Cholesterol, Myocardial infarc-
tion (heart attack), Heart disease, Stroke, and “Obesity” with Mean = 0.89,
range = 0–8. The Mental disorders index was constructed by summing
Major Depression, Anxiety, and Addiction, with Mean = 0.26, range = 0–3.
The Health Perception index was the third dependent variable in our anal-
yses with Mean = 3.66, range = 1–5. The Other disorders index consisted
of Cancer, Migraines, Asthma, and Arthritis (Mean = 0.48, range = 0–4.
This index was constructed to be a control variable in the canonical cor-
relation analysis. The additional variables (e.g., cirrhosis) were included
to increase the accuracy of the imputation, but were not analyzed. The
correlation matrix between the health variables, the tree variables, and
the demographic variables is reported in supplementary Figure S2 of the
Supplementary Information.

3.4.4 MULTIPLE IMPUTATIONS ANALYSIS

The self-reported health data contained some missing values for different
variables (mainly due to “I don’t know” responses). List wise deletion of
the data (keeping only participants with no missing values in any of the
items) would have resulted in a loss of 73% of the participants because the
missing values in the different items were distributed across subjects, and
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 85

was therefore an unreasonable method of analysis. To handle the missing

data problem, we assumed that the data were missing at random (MAR),
meaning that the probability of missingness for a variable was not depen-
dent on the variable’s value after controlling for other observed variables.
We then replaced the missing values with multiple imputed data37,38,39.
Thirty complete datasets were created from the original dataset using the
estimate and maximize (EM) algorithm on bootstrapped data implemented
by the Amelia package for R [Amelia40;]. All of the 30 imputations con-
verged in less than 11 iterations. Variables used in the imputations and
their missing percentages are reported in Supplementary Table S4.

3.4.5 REGRESSION ANALYSIS

The regression analyses were performed separately for each imputed data-
set and then combined based on Rubin’s rules38 using the Zelig program in
R41. Rubin suggested that the mean of each regression coefficient across
all imputed datasets be used as the regression coefficients for the analysis.
In addition, to avoid underestimation of standard errors and taking the
uncertainty of the imputed values into account, both the within imputa-
tion variance and between imputation variance of each coefficient should
be used to construct the standard error for each regression coefficient.
Lastly42, proposed using degrees of freedom estimated as a function of the
within and between imputation variance and the number of multiple impu-
tations when approximating the t-statistics for each parameter.
To assess the amount of the variance in the dependent variables that is
explained by the regression model for the multiple imputed data we used
the method suggested by Harel (2009) to estimate the R2 and the adjusted
R2 values. Based on this method, instead of averaging R2 values from
the 30 imputations, first the square root of the R2 value (r) in each of the
imputed datasets is transformed to a z-score using Fisher’s r to z trans-
formation, z = atanh(r). The average z across the imputations can then be
calculated. Finally, the mean of the z values is transformed back into an
R2. The same procedure can be used for adjusted R2 values. Harel (2009)
suggests that the number of imputations and the sample size be large when
using this method, which holds true in the current study. Also, the resulting
86 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

estimates of R2 could be inflated (i.e. are too large), while estimates of

adjusted R2 tend to be biased downwards (i.e. are too small). Therefore,
we estimated both values for a better evaluation of the explained variance.

3.4.6 CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS

To investigate further the relationship between the two sets of variables,

namely the health-related variables (Health Perception, Cardio-metabolic
conditions, Mental Disorders, and Other Disorders) and the demographic
and green-space variables (Age, Sex, Education, Income, Area income,
Diet, Street Tree Density, and Other Tree Density), we performed a canon-
ical correlation analysis43,44. Our model is presented in the diagram shown
in Fig. 4. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was performed on the average of im-
putations in MATLAB (Sphertest: Sphericity tests menu) and showed that
the correlation matrix of the data is significantly different from the identity
matrix (p < 0.0001). This significant departure of the data from sphericity
warrants the canonical correlation analysis.
In a canonical correlation analysis, first, the weights that maximize
the correlation of the two weighted sums (linear composites) of each set
of variables (called canonical roots) are calculated. Then the first root is
extracted and the weights that produce the second largest correlation be-
tween sum scores is calculated, subject to the constraint that the next set
of sum scores is orthogonal to the previous one. Each successive root will
explain a unique additional proportion of variability in the two sets of
variables. There can be as many canonical roots as the minimum number
of variables in the two sets, which is four in this analysis. Therefore, we
obtain four sets of canonical weights for each set of variables, and each of
these four canonical roots have a canonical correlation coefficient which
is the square root of the explained variability between the two weighted
sums (canonical roots).
To obtain unbiased canonical weights for variables and canonical cor-
relation coefficients, we averaged data values over the 30 imputations and
performed canonical correlation analysis on the z-scores of the averaged
data using MATLAB (MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release 2014a,
The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States). For a more
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 87

straight-forward interpretation and better characterization of the underly-

ing latent variable, instead of using the canonical weights, we calculated
the Pearson correlation coefficient (canonical loading) of each observed
variable in the set with the weighted sum scores for each of the four lin-
ear composites. This way, each canonical root (linear composite) could be
interpreted as an underlying latent variable whose degree of relationship
with each of the observed variables in the set (how much the observed
variable contributes to the canonical variate) is represented by the loading
of the observed variable and its errorbar (see canonical correlation results).
To estimate the standard errors of the canonical loadings, we boot-
strapped z-scores from each of the 30 complete imputed data (1000 simu-
lations for each) and performed canonical correlation analysis 30000 times
using MATLAB. Then, we calculated the variances of the set of loadings,
which were calculated as explained above, over each completed dataset
(within imputation variance). We also calculated the variance of the 30
sets of coefficients (between imputation variance). The standard errors of
the coefficients were then estimated using the same Rubin’s rules as was
done for the regression analyses.

REFERENCES

1. Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E. & Stevens, J. C. Air pollution removal by urban trees
and shrubs in the United States. Urban forestry & urban greening 4, 115–123
(2006).
2. Nowak, D. J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A. & Greenfield, E. Tree and forest effects
on air quality and human health in the United States. Environmental Pollution 193,
119–129 (2014).
3. Akbari, H., Pomerantz, M. & Taha, H. Cool surfaces and shade trees to reduce en-
ergy use and improve air quality in urban areas. Solar energy 70, 295–310 (2001).
4. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R. & Wendt, J. S. Rated preference and complexity for natu-
ral and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics 12, 354-&, 10.3758/
bf03207221 (1972).
5. Smardon, R. C. Perception and aesthetics of the urban-environment - review of
the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 15, 85–106, 10.1016/0169-
2046(88)90018-7 (1988).
6. Richardson, E. A., Pearce, J., Mitchell, R. & Kingham, S. Role of physical activity in
the relationship between urban green space and health. Public health 127, 318–324
(2013).
88 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

7. Huynh, Q., Craig, W., Janssen, I. & Pickett, W. Exposure to public natural space as
a protective factor for emotional well-being among young people in Canada. BMC
public health 13, 407 (2013).
8. Villeneuve, P. J. et al. A cohort study relating urban green space with mortality in On-
tario, Canada. Environmental Research 115, 51–58, 10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.003
(2012).
9. Maas, J. et al. Morbidity is related to a green living environment. Journal of epide-
miology and community health 63, 967–973 (2009).
10. Mitchell, R. & Popham, F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health
inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 372, 1655–1660, 10.1016/
s0140-6736(08)61689-x (2008).
11. Grahn, P. & Stigsdotter, U. A. Landscape planning and stress. Urban forestry &
urban greening 2, 1–18 (2003).
12. Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Sellens, M. & Griffin, M. The mental and physical health
outcomes of green exercise. International journal of environmental health research
15, 319–337 (2005).
13. Storgaard, R. L., Hansen, H. S., Aadahl, M. & Glumer, C. Association between
neighbourhood green space and sedentary leisure time in a Danish population. Scan-
dinavian Journal of Public Health 41, 846–852, 10.1177/1403494813499459 (2013).
14. Kaczynski, A. T. & Henderson, K. A. Environmental correlates of physical activ-
ity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences 29, 315–354
(2007).
15. Humpel, N., Owen, N. & Leslie, E. Environmental factors associated with adults’
participation in physical activity: a review. American journal of preventive medicine
22, 188–199 (2002).
16. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J. & Kaplan, S. The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting With
Nature. Psychological Science 19, 1207, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x ER
(2008).
17. Kaplan, S. & Berman, M. G. Directed Attention as a Common Resource for Execu-
tive Functioning and Self-Regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5, 43,
10.1177/1745691609356784 (2010).
18. Berto, R. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, 249, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001 (2005).
19. Taylor, A. F. & Kuo, F. E. Children With Attention Deficits Concentrate Better After
Walk in the Park. Journal of Attention Disorders 12, 402, 10.1177/1087054708323000
er (2009).
20. Berman, M. G. et al. Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for in-
dividuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders 140, 300–305, 10.1016/j.
jad.2012.03.012 (2012).
21. Cimprich, B. & Ronis, D. L. An environmental intervention to restore attention in
women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Cancer nursing 26, 284 (2003).
22. Kuo, F. E. & Sullivan, W. C. Environment and crime in the inner city - Does vegeta-
tion reduce crime? Environment and Behavior 33, 343 (2001).
23. Kuo, F. E. & Sullivan, W. C. Aggression and violence in the inner city - Effects of
environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior 33, 543 (2001).
Neighborhood Greenspace and Health in a Large Urban Center 89

24. Ulrich, R. S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science
224, 420–421, 10.1126/science.6143402 (1984).
25. Donovan, G. H. et al. The relationship between trees and human health: Evidence
from the spread of the emerald ash borer. American journal of preventive medicine
44, 139–145 (2013).
26. Lasser, K. E., Himmelstein, D. U. & Woolhandler, S. Access to Care, Health Sta-
tus, and Health Disparities in the United States and Canada: Results of a Cross-Na-
tional Population-Based Survey. American Journal of Public Health 96, 1300–1307,
10.2105/AJPH.2004.059402 (2006).
27. Dunlop, S., Coyte, P. C. & McIsaac, W. Socio-economic status and the utilisation of
physicians’ services: results from the Canadian National Population Health Survey.
Social science & medicine 51, 123–133 (2000).
28. Mossey, J. M. & Shapiro, E. Self-rated health: a predictor of mortality among the
elderly. American journal of public health 72, 800–808 (1982).
29. Idler, E. L. & Benyamini, Y. Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-
seven community studies. Journal of health and social behavior 38, 21–37 (1997).
30. Engström, G., Hedblad, B. & Janzon, L. Subjective well-being associated with im-
proved survival in smoking and hypertensive men. European Journal of Cardiovas-
cular Risk 6, 257–261 (1999).
31. Miller, A. B., Baines, C. J., To, T. & Wall, C. Canadian National Breast Screening
Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years.
CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 147, 1459 (1992).
32. Vardoulakis, S., Fisher, B. E., Pericleous, K. & Gonzalez-Flesca, N. Modelling air
quality in street canyons: a review. Atmospheric environment 37, 155–182 (2003).
33. Amoly, E. et al. Green and blue spaces and behavioral development in Barcelona
schoolchildren: the BREATHE project. Environ Health Perspect 122, 1351–1358,
10.1289/ehp.1408215 (2014).
34. City of Toronto, P., Forestry and Recreation. Every Tree Counts: A Portrait of To-
ronto’s Urban Forest. Urban Forestry (2013).
35. Hemery, G., Savill, P. & Pryor, S. Applications of the crown diameter–stem diameter
relationship for different species of broadleaved trees. Forest Ecology and Manage-
ment 215, 285–294 (2005).
36. Troxel, B., Piana, M., Ashton, M. S. & Murphy-Dunning, C. Relationships between
bole and crown size for young urban trees in the northeastern USA. Urban Forestry
& Urban Greening 12, 144–153 (2013).
37. Rubin, D. B. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. 81 (John Wiley &
Sons, 2004).
38. Rubin, D. B. Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63, 581–592 (1976).
39. Schafer, J. L., Olsen, M. K. & Smardon, R. C. Multiple imputation for multivari-
ate missing-data problems: A data analyst’s perspective Multivariate behavioral re-
search 33, 545–571 (1998).
40. Honaker, J., King, G. & Blackwell, M. Amelia II: A program for missing data. Jour-
nal of Statistical Software 45, 1–47 (2011).
41. Owen, M., Imai, K., King, G. & Lau, O. Zelig: Everyone’s Statistical Software. R
package version, 4.1-3 (2013).
90 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

42. Rubin, D. B. & Schenker, N. Multiple imputation for interval estimation from simple
random samples with ignorable nonresponse. Journal of the American Statistical As-
sociation 81, 366–374, 10.2307/2289225 (1986).
43. Hotelling, H. Relations between two sets of variates. Biometrika, 28 321–377 (1936).
44. Johnson, R. A., Wichern, D. W. & Education, P. Applied multivariate statistical anal-
ysis. Vol. 4 (Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992).

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at http://www.nature.com/srep

 PART II

EXPANDING
THE URBAN TREE CANOPY
CHAPTER 4

Public Reactions to
New Street Tree Planting
RUTH A. RAE, GABRIEL SIMON, and JESSIE BRADEN

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The arrival of new trees on a city street can transform a space that is both
public and private, turning gray sidewalks into green streetscapes. Particu-
larly in densely populated New York City, street trees do not emerge from
sidewalks on their own, but their planting requires coordinated efforts and
public policies. Through planting a tree at every suitable sidewalk location
in this urban environment—on blocks where people live or work—the
City of New York is transforming communities, and providing a variety of
environmental, social and aesthetic benefits (Figure 1).
Although trees offer benefits to the city overall, the public may not
know or understand those benefits. New street trees can elicit positive
or negative feelings, and territorial and aesthetic issues can influence

© Rae, R.A., G. Simon, and J. Braden. 2010. Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting. Cities and
the Environment 3(1):article 10. http://escholarship.bc.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/10. Creative Commons Attri-
bution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). Used with the permission of the authors.
 94

FIGURE 1: These photographs show a New York City street before and after the planting of new street trees, and how the trees can
green and soften the streetscape.
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 95

perceptions of the value of trees. Trees inserted into the urban environ-
ment soften the streetscape and provide aesthetic as well as environ-
mental benefits.
The planting of a tree is significantly different from the arrival of other
infrastructure items or static sidewalk furniture such as a light post or
street sign. Trees are living things that inhabit the space they are in with a
presence—they are iconic woody plants, with archetypal societal implica-
tions. People assume they will grow old, become large, reflect seasonal
change, and require maintenance and responsibility. Some welcome their
arrival with open arms and excitement, while others see their planting as
an intrusion into their private space or territory.
This study investigates how some of the public reacted to the plant-
ing of these new street trees. Both qualitative and spatial methods were
utilized to analyze the opinions communicated to the City of New York
which was doing the planting. The examination of emergent correspon-
dence data was rich and grounded in the perspectives of the people. It was
not pre-shaped by survey questions but rose up though the open coding of
an administrative data set. The public reaction portrayed in the correspon-
dence was both to the new street trees themselves and the planting policies
of the City of New York. In order to understand people’s reactions, we
will begin by describing the new street tree planting process and the public
policies that guide the planting process.

4.1.1 NEW STREET TREE PLANTING PROGRAM

New street trees arrive on large trucks, having been pre-dug from fields,
and are planted into a sidewalk space that has been cut open by contractors
and filled with soil (Figure 2). The new trees are eight to twelve feet high
with a trunk girth of approximately three inches. Contractors who plant the
trees are supervised by resident engineers during planting, and regulated
by contract specifications that contain best practices for healthy street tree
planting. The planting locations and tree species have been determined
in advance by foresters from the Department of Parks and Recreation’s
Central Forestry & Horticulture (DPR CF&H) Division to accommodate
healthy growth.
 96

FIGURE 2: These photographs show the arrival and planting of new street trees.
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 97

Recent large scale municipal planting of street trees in New York City
is fueled by the MillionTreesNYC program, proposed as part of Mayor
Bloomberg's PlaNYC in 2007. PlaNYC's goal is to create a greener, greater
NYC, with 127 initiatives intended to improve the physical city; impact-
ing land, water, transportation, energy, air and climate change (City of
New York 2007). The plan’s focus is to provide for sustainable improve-
ments to NYC, which requires new levels of collaborations and substantial
resources. The DPR CF&H Division, in collaboration with non-profit and
other partners, will plant one million trees by 2017. These plantings on
public and private property have the potential to increase the overall tree
canopy cover for New York City, which was estimated at 24% in 2001
(Grove et al. 2006).
The development of an urban forest requires significant public invest-
ment, and MillionTreesNYC combines both public and private funding
sources. The Parks Department will plant sixty percent of those one mil-
lion trees in public space (220,000 on streets with an additional 380,000
trees in woodland areas or open park space), while forty percent will be
planted by the City’s partners (New York Restoration Project and other
organizations) on public and private land (www.milliontreesnyc.org; Ste-
phens 2008).
The Mayor has pledged to fill all available sidewalk spaces with street
trees by 2017 to raise the street tree stocking level from 74% to 100%
(City of New York 2007). Since the area between the curb and the property
line belongs to the city, the plan is to create a ribbon of green along this
gray public space. New street trees will green the cityscape, and beautify
the public realm to improve the experience of every pedestrian. Between
2007 and 2009, the DPR CF&H Division has already planted 53,235 new
street trees.
Historically, the DPR CF&H Division planted trees on an individual
request basis. This meant that citizens could request a free tree planting
in front of their property, which was fulfilled on a first-come first-served
basis, since the demand could often exceed the supply of trees. In addition
to individual requests, foresters would also identify additional locations
for street tree plantings in front of properties where no tree request had
been made, and building owners were given the option to refuse the tree
planting. Under this method, one or two trees might be placed on a block
98 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

at one time, and trees could also be planted based on an unequal distribu-
tion of requests.
With the beginning of PlaNYC and MillionTreesNYC, there was a ma-
jor policy shift in how street tree planting was done. PlaNYC funded the
capital budget to provide for the large-scale volume planting of new street
trees. This led to the creation of the block planting program and the devel-
opment of a methodology to assess and target those neighborhoods in the
greatest need of new street trees. The sections of the city with low street
tree stocking level and high population density receive prioritized plant-
ing under the program, ensuring that tree benefits are maximized and the
scope of the initiative reaches all citizens by the scheduled conclusion of
MillionTreesNYC in 2017.
Along with this new program, the City enforced its legal authority over
the sidewalk and implemented a planting policy that no longer allowed
building owners the ability to deny a suitable tree planting in the public
right-of-way. Trees are still planted to fulfill requests from citizens, and
approximately thirty to forty percent of trees planted are in response to
individual requests citywide. However, the majority of new street trees
planted by DPR CF&H follow the policy priority of mass block planting.
Block planting brings trees and their benefits to neighborhoods that previ-
ously had few or no trees, while also making significant strides towards
accomplishing planting goals.

4.1.2 STREET TREE BENEFITS AND CONCERNS

The accrued benefits of street trees have been quantified and translated
into financial value (Peper et al. 2007; Nowak et al. 2007; McPherson et
al. 2007). As of 2005, the City had 592,130 street trees that were estimated
to provide approximately $121.9 million in annual gross benefits (Peper
et al. 2007). Planting along streets and in parking lots provides additional
benefits beyond those that come from planting in parks due to the shade of
structures (Peper et al. 2007).
The detailed analysis of the New York City urban forest by the U.S.
Forest Service was used by Parks Department’s Commissioner Adrian
Benepe to secure $400 million for tree planting from the city budget
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 99

(McIntyre 2008). In this calculation, both the environmental and aesthetic

benefits that the urban forest produces for the community are linked to the
quality and extent of New York City’s canopy cover. Fifty-seven percent
of the benefits are environmental and include the capture of storm water
runoff, energy savings, air quality improvement and the reduction of car-
bon dioxide (Peper et al. 2007; Nowak et al. 2007; McPherson et al. 2007).
The other forty-three percent of the benefits relate to beautification, the
associated aesthetic values and annual increases in property value (Peper
et al. 2007; Nowak et al. 2007; McPherson et al. 2007).
Several studies have assessed the social benefits of urban and commu-
nity forestry programs (Westphal 2003; Kuo 2003). Research found that
outdoor spaces with trees were used more frequently than spaces without
trees, and that this facilitated interactions among residents that fostered
more sociable neighborhood environments and stronger neighborhood so-
cial ties (Kou et al. 1998). Views of trees provide restorative experiences
that ease mental fatigue (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). By making residen-
tial outdoor spaces more vital, trees can contribute to the functioning of a
healthy community (Kou 2003; Kou et al. 1998).
Urban forestry programs often involve community-based greening
activities (Wolf 2003). People who either planted their own tree or par-
ticipated in a tree planting program reported greater satisfaction and were
more likely to think the tree improved the yard and the neighborhood
(Summit and Sommer 1998). If volunteers plant trees themselves their re-
lationship, attitude and satisfaction with the tree planting is substantively
different than those planted by a municipality using hired contractors
(Sommer et al. 1994).
Trees have many meanings for people. The connection between hu-
man beings and trees is strong, for trees can shape both individual and
collective identities (Sommer 2003). Human beings derive pleasure from
trees (Lewis 1996) and trees can also represent personal, symbolic, and
religious values (Dwyer et al. 1991). They can commemorate people who
have passed (Svendsen and Campbell 2005; Tidball et al. 2010) or chil-
dren just born, for they have spiritual value and longevity. Trees are more
than just a decorative feature in the landscape—they have the ability to
transform it over time at both a physical and psychological level.
100 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

The aesthetic aspects of trees have also been found to be important.

Several studies have found that there are visual preferences for a certain
size, shape or form of a tree (Williams 2002; Schroeder et al. 2006). The
majority of reported positive features of street trees were found to be re-
lated to aesthetic considerations such as being pleasing to the eye, the
giving of shade, enhancing the look of a garden or home, and making the
neighborhood more live-able (Gorman 2004). These intangible benefits of
aesthetics had the strongest correlation with the overall assessment of a
street tree right outside the home (Schroeder et al. 2006). Issues of comfort
(shade) and appearance play more of a role in the decision to plant trees
than do concerns about environmental benefits or energy savings (Summit
and McPherson 1998). Trees, by adding softer natural elements to a city,
also enhance the public’s impression of the visual quality of cities (Wolf
2008). Beautification is one of the most frequently cited reasons for why
people plant trees (McPherson 2007)
However, trees do require maintenance and imply responsibility. They
drop leaves and can damage sidewalks. Studies have found that urban trees
can cause annoyances and involve liability issues. Trees can be considered
to be messy or dirty by some (Sommer 2003). Gorman (2004) found that
complaints about trees had to do with power line interference, sidewalk
damage, and visibility blockage. There are issues with actual root dam-
age to property, falling leaves or limbs, general debris, or the reduction
of personal safety by limiting visibility views from the property (Schro-
eder et al. 2006). The planting and management of trees can conflict with
other elements of the urban infrastructure such as sewers and sidewalks
(McPherson et al. 2007).

4.1.3 THE SIDEWALK GREY ZONE

In New York City all trees growing in the public right-of-way, along streets
and in parks, are under the jurisdiction of the Parks Department, which
manages about half of the City’s 5.2 million trees (Nowak et al. 2007).
The City of New York owns the space between the curb and the building
owner’s property line, but the owner is responsible for the maintenance of
the sidewalk. New York City law requires property owners to repair the
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 101

sidewalk adjacent to their properties at their own cost1. The Department of

Transportation can issue violations for sidewalk defects for public safety
reasons (New York City Department of Transportation, 2008). The legal
responsibilities for liability related to sidewalks, tree roots and tree wells
has changed over time and by residential property type, so that liability
and ownership can be blurred (Kaye et al. 2009). The collective history of
New York’s tree and sidewalk laws reflect competing interests and con-
flicts between property owners and city agencies.
The greening of cities through the installation of trees into side-
walks is not inherently controversial, yet it can create conflict because
of people’s territorial instincts, and vagueness in legal issues defining
the responsibilities of the city and citizens. Sidewalks are seen as pub-
lic spaces that should encompass diversity and have multiple functions,
yet these places can also be contested terrains (Loukaitou-Sideris and
Ehrenfeucht 2009). Even though street trees are generally desirable,
they elicit varied responses from urbanites who want different things
from public space.
The planting of trees on residents’ streets and in front of homes
raises issues of territoriality and place attachment. Human territori-
ality involves the drive to establish control over physical spaces and
involves the demarcation and defense of space against territorial inva-
sion (Brown 1987; Taylor 1988; Sommer 2004). Human territoriality
is linked to concepts of personalization and privacy (Sommer 2004).
Territorial emotions can involve a positive emotional bond to a place
and belief that they should have control over the condition of the site
and who should be there, or a negative emotional reaction to changes
in conditions or users of an area (Wickham and Zinn 2001). Territo-
rial behavior is strongest when considering individuals or small groups
and when the spatial focus is on specific small scale locations. Terri-
torial functioning refers to sentiments, cognitions, and behaviors that
are highly space specific and represent transactions concerned with the
management, maintenance, legibility, and expressiveness of person-
place transactions (Taylor 1988).
Types of territories exist along dimensions of occupancy and psy-
chological centrality (Brown, 1987). Primary territories are locations
central to people’s lives and typically are homes. Outdoor residential
102 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

settings, including front yards, sidewalks, driveways, backyards, and

the street itself can also have strong centrality (Taylor 1988). The plant-
ing of trees on the streets where people live and adjacent to homes can
affect the 'lifespace' of an individual, since in going to and from home
people must transverse these places. Residences are inextricably linked
with the area right outside the door, not only physically but psycho-
logically as well.
Primary territories allow for order, predictability and control, as well as
the expression of a sense of identity (Brown, 1987). People often 'mark' or
personalize the areas around their homes leaving behavioral traces such as
decorations or signs of upkeep. Territorial behaviors also include bound-
ary control efforts to manage the access and activities of others. Territorial
cognitions include the perceptions of and affect toward a place including
issues of responsibility, caring and the association or appropriation of a
place (Taylor 1988).
Human territorial emotion is closely related to place attachment at the
affective level (Wickham and Zinn 2001). Place attachment involves hu-
man bonding to a place, which has affective, cognitive and behavioral
components (Low and Altman, 1992; Manzo 2005; Proshansky et al.
1983). A physical space becomes a place when it encompasses memory,
attachment, and identity. Places have a geographic location and material
form, but they are also invested with meaning and value by ordinary peo-
ple (Gieryn 2000). Territoriality is intimately related to how people use
land, how they organize space, and how they give meaning to a place
(Sack 1986). A sidewalk where a new street tree is planted may not be just
a physical space but can also be a place that has meaning to people. Since
place attachments are holistic but can operate in the background of aware-
ness, they become more fully recognized when they have been disrupted
(Brown and Perkins 1992).
The sidewalk belongs to the City and is a public right of way, but not
every resident wants a tree planted there regardless of the public benefit.
Sidewalks are both public and private spaces. They must allow for public
access, but can also evoke feelings of personal ownership and territorial-
ity. Although trees physically transform the grey infrastructure of sidewalk
into a green space, the sidewalk is a literal, figurative, and psychological
grey zone.
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 103

4.2 RESEARCH METHODS

This study examines the results of the content and spatial analysis of the
correspondence data and its relationship to the operational policies and
procedures that guide New York City's municipal street tree planting
program. Qualitative analysis of the administrative correspondence data
set examined the public perceptions and concerns related to the Million-
TreesNYC program. Spatial analysis explored the relationship between
the block planting locations of new street trees and the locations of the
citizen correspondence regarding both requests for new street trees and
complaints.
In late 2006, DPR’s CF&H Division created a database system to track
and log correspondence from receipt to resolution. This database made
this study possible with its capacity to record and conduct analyses of de-
tailed qualitative and quantitative data. The original intention of the quali-
tative coding was to easily identify similar themes in the correspondence
from the public as it became apparent that the same topics were being re-
peatedly addressed. Categorization of concerns increased the efficiency of
the responses to the public, helped in the creation of standardized template
responses, and improved reporting.
The qualitative analysis of the administrative correspondence data set
involved the open coding of text from 311 call transcriptions, letters, and
emails received by DPR CF&H Division between 2007 and 2009. The cat-
egories identified were not solicited or manipulated by any sort of directed
questioning, but were instead determined from the open-ended coding and
content analysis of this existing correspondence data set. There are limits
to this data set since it was not research guided by a survey tailored to
testing a certain hypothesis; demographic information was not collected,
nor was this from a random sample of the population. Instead the corre-
spondence analyzed reflected the concerns of individuals who were self-
selected in that they chose to contact the City of New York concerning
new street tree plantings.
The open coding of this correspondence allowed the perspectives of the
people and grounded theory to emerge. As the core categories were identi-
fied and dimensionalized through open coding, more axial and selective
104 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

coding began (Strauss and Corbin 1990). In order to code this correspon-
dence by category, we created a multifaceted coding system that included
a variety of primary categories and an array of more detailed subcatego-
ries. These subcategories gave dimensions to the primary categories and
made them more robust. Through further comparisons and examination
of relationships, the categories used were further refined and collapsed
(eighteen primary categories were collapsed to sixteen, and several sub-
categories were also combined). Selective coding and frequency analysis,
combined with operational and policy analyses, identified various para-
digms and patterns that explained the phenomenon of public reactions to
new street tree planting.
All items of correspondence received were coded using a multi-level
system2. A type classification was assigned to each correspondence item
received followed by the identification of primary categories and related
subcategories to specify the precise subject matter of the inquiry. In the
majority of correspondence items, 87%, only one issue of concern was
noted, but 10% had two categories and 3% contained three or more is-
sues. Sixteen primary categories and numerous associated subcategories
were identified from the qualitative content analysis of correspondence
received by CF&H from 2007 through 2009. Frequency analysis of these
primary categories found that 81% were comprised of seven New Street
Tree (NST) categories.3 For the purposes of this study, further analysis was
done only on these seven New Street Tree primary categories of which two
were Service Requests while five were Complaints. The seven NST pri-
mary categories totaled 3,838 of which the NST Complaints subtotal was
2,561 and the NST Service Requests subtotal was 1,277 (Table 1).
Spatial analysis of the data using geographic information systems
(GIS) was also performed. The development of geospatial tools has con-
tributed to urban forest management by enabling rapid analysis of cur-
rent data (Ward and Johnson 2007). Analyzing the distribution of planting
requests, citizen complaints, and block planting progress allowed for the
comparison of content analysis categories, new street tree requests, and
the locations of new street tree plantings by the Parks Department. In par-
ticular, block planting locations could be spatially compared to the public
reactions to new street tree planting. The GIS method brought together
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 105

Table 1. Communalities for the variables based on the canonical correlation analysis.

Correspondence Type and Total Percent of Total Percent of Type

NST Primary Categories
NST Complaint
Placement Objection 859 22% 33%
Policy Objection 606 16% 24%
Maintenance Objection 439 11% 17%
Resultant Damage 358 9% 14%
Process Objection 299 8% 12%
Subtotal 2,561 66% 100%
NST Service Request
New Tree Request 636 17% 50%
New Tree Conditions 641 17% 50%
Subtotal 1,277 34% 100%
TOTAL 3,838 100%

both the operational prioritization policy and the actual tree planting sites
with the content analysis research findings.
As part of DPR CF&H Division’s ongoing GIS program, planting loca-
tions are tracked and updated every season at both a street block segment
and individual tree location level. Individual trees are tracked in parts of a
Forestry Management System database that includes a spatial component.
Block planting street segment locations are provided by the foresters and
input directly into the GIS as line segments. The existing data on block
planting locations was analyzed against two additional data sets created
from the correspondence data. The first was a density of tree requests ras-
ter layer. Between 2007 and 2009, 14,908 requests for new street trees
were received by 311 and transmitted directly into a Forestry Management
System database utilized by DPR CF&H. ArcGIS’s Spatial Analyst exten-
sion was used to transform these addressed-based point requests into a ras-
ter density layer. The second analysis, using the same method, generated
106 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

a density of 2,561 complaints raster layer for the same time-period using
new street tree complaints from the DPR CF&H Division correspondence
database.

4.3 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.3.1 SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF NEW STREET TREE PLANTING

Figure 3 shows the result of the 311 New Tree Request data raster analysis.
This map depicts where citizens have requested new street trees and where
block planting has taken place. The block planting segments include plant-
ings since the inception of MillionTreesNYC in 2007 through 2009. Block
planting segments are tracked every planting season using data provided
by foresters. After each planting season, foresters submit field maps with
block planted segments highlighted. This information is incorporated into
the GIS layer and is shown as purple lines on the map. The green areas
show the spatial density of the 14,908 new tree requests from 311 during
the same time period. Darker green areas indicate more new street tree
requests received directly by the New York City 311 Customer Service
Center. The map shows that under the block planting program, the Parks
Department’s CF&H Division is block planting in areas where citizens
have generally not requested trees from 2007 through 2009.
Figure 4 also shows a map that depicts where block planting has taken
place between Fall 2007 through Fall 2009. This time, however, block
planting is plotted against the density of 2,561 citizen complaints CF&H
received from 2007 through 2009. The density of these complaints are
shown in blue, with darker areas indicating more complaints. As can be
seen, the highest density of complaints cluster around the block planting
locations shown in purple and display the high volume of citizen com-
plaints that are coming from areas of recent block plantings. Some light
blue areas that are not in proximity to block planting areas are reactions
to individual tree plantings. These show as higher density due to multiple
complaints made by one person or multiple complaints made by several
people who live relatively close together. The specific content of these
complaints are discussed in the New Street Tree Complaints section.
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 107

FIGURE 3: Map of 311 New Tree Requests Density and DPR CF&H Block Planting
Locations for New York City from 2007 through 2009.

4.3.2 CITIZEN CORRESPONDENCE OVERVIEW AND VOLUME

This study investigated the content of letters, emails, and transcriptions

of calls from 311 received by the Parks Department’s Central Forestry
and Horticulture Division between 2007 and 2009. At the broadest level,
each item of correspondence is assigned to one of five basic type groups:
108 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

FIGURE 4: Map of DPR CF&H Citizen Complaints Density and Block Planting
Locations for New York City from 2007 through 2009.

Complaint, Service Request, Information Request, Recommendation, or

Thank You. Table 2 below shows the frequency of the total items of cor-
respondence by type from 2007 through 2009. Complaints are the most
frequent type of correspondence received at 57%, followed by Service
Requests at 29%.
Table 1 also shows the three-fold increase in the total items of corre-
spondence received by the CF&H Division from 2007 to 2008 and 2009.
In reaction to MillionTreesNYC’s street tree planting initiative, CF&H
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 109

has witnessed a vast increase in the amount of citizen correspondence

since the MillionTreesNYC program’s inception in 2007. The increase
can be attributed to the expansion of the street tree planting program,
improved public accessibility and awareness of New York City’s 311
Customer Service Center services, and the efficiency of the 311Center’s
linkage to city agencies.
Figure 5 shows both the total items of correspondence received from 2004
until 2009 and the increase in the amount of street trees which were being
planted in the same year. The amount of correspondence increased dramati-
cally with the increase in street tree planting and the inception of the Million-
TreesNYC program in 2007, and is most noticeable in 2008 and 2009.

4.3.3 CONTENT ANALYSIS OF NEW STREET

TREE CORRESPONDENCE

Table 2 separates the seven New Street Tree (NST) primary categories by
type of correspondence and gives the totals and relative percentages for
each primary category as percent of the overall total and within each cat-
egory type. Of those seven primary NST categories, five were Complaints
(66%) and two were Service Requests (34%). Under the Complaint type
these include the primary categories (in order of frequency) of Placement
Objection, Policy Objection, Maintenance Objection, Resultant Damage
and Process Objection. Service Request types include the primary catego-
ries of New Tree Requests and New Tree Conditions. Following will be a
discussion of each of these primary categories and the subcategories they
contain separated by type.

4.3.4 NEW STREET TREE COMPLAINTS

New Street Tree Complaints are objections to elements of the tree planting
process, from general dissatisfaction with the mandated new program to
specific rationalized objections to a planting at a given location, or stages
of that planting process. Concerns over the placement of a particular new
tree planting based on surrounding site conditions, objection to the tree
110 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 2. Type of Correspondence by Year.

Correspondence Type 2007 2008 2009 Total

Thank You 24 15 28 67
Recommendation 51 19 32 102
Information Request 94 137 153 384
Service Request 190 241 764 1,195
Complaint 225 1,211 924 2,360
TOTAL 584 1,623 1,901 4,108

based on perceptions of future maintenance responsibilities, dissatisfac-

tion with the agency’s notification measures, or the quality of the work
performed by the landscape contractors in planting, are all examples of
common correspondence defined as Complaints. New Street Tree (NST)
Complaints were coded into five primary categories: Placement Objec-
tion, Policy Objection, Maintenance Objection, Resultant Damage, and
Process Objection. Table 2 depicts the total for each of these NST primary
categories, and their percentage within the total of the New Street Tree
Complaint type. The tables below (Tables 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) show the sub-
categories that make up these primary complaint categories.
Placement Objection at 33% was the largest primary category of com-
plaint (see Table 3). These subcategories of placement objections are con-
sidered to be logical appeals against the particular placement of a given
planting location or situation. The subcategories of concern are often not
in complete opposition to trees or their presence in the urban environment,
but believe that a given location for a new tree is unpractical or unsuitable
for tree planting because of existing infrastructure or site usage. Within
Placement Objection, utility line concerns are most prevalent (33%). This
variety of objection is typically brought by residents that fear a utility line,
whether it is gas/electric/water/sewer, will suffer damage because of the
tree planting process4 or the tree’s growth at a given location. The next
most popular subcategory was complaints against the street tree planting
111
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting FIGURE 5: Total Items of Correspondence and Total Number of New Street Trees Planted from 2004 through 2009.
112 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 3. New Street Tree Complaint—Placement Objection Subcategories.

Placement Objection Total Percent

Subcategories
Utility Line Disturbance 288 33%
Sidewalk 118 14%
Driveway 76 9%
Existing Tree 70 8%
Business Disturbance 51 6%
Private Property 48 6%
Visibility Interference 45 5%
Disability Concerns 44 5%
Infrastructure Conflict 41 5%
Miscellaneous 40 5%
Shade 38 4%
TOTAL 859 100%

because of the damage to the sidewalk or a narrowed sidewalk (14%).

This may be related to a resident’s sense of ownership over such a publicly
used space, particularly in an urban setting where walking and public tran-
sit are the most common forms of transportation. A variety of complaints
relate to the perception that the new street trees are too close to existing
infrastructure items or private property. Objections against placement can
also be based on disturbance to usage patterns, visibility or special circum-
stances. Proper placement may be the most difficult obstacle to planting
in a highly dense urban setting—it relates to the ambiguous public/private
nature of the sidewalk space, issues of territoriality and misunderstanding
of the procedural processes and guidelines followed during planting.
Policy Objection consists of approximately 24% of the total NST Com-
plaints received (Table 4). The majority of these are general refusals of
new trees in front of a given property. At 57%, these general refusals origi-
nate from citizens rejecting a planned planting without supporting reasons
or explanations for their complaint—they simply state they do not want a
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 113

tree. This subcategory assumes a general dissatisfaction with the planting

policies of the Parks Department and their public right of way authority to
plant at given sites without the expressed permission of adjacent property
owners. It also depicts how the planting of street trees can evoke issues of
territoriality and control. A total of 28% of complaints are objections to
planting based on lack of notification prior to planting; 18% complain of a
general lack of notification, while 10% of these complaints are objections
to the cut in their sidewalk or were reported by property owners who had
recently paved their sidewalks. Complaints of poor notification indicate
either actual property ownership or a sense of ownership over this shared
sidewalk space.
Maintenance Objections comprised 17% of total NST Complaints (see
Table 5). While not the largest subcategory of complaint, Maintenance
Objections are linked to sentiments of ownership and responsibility for
the sidewalk. Whether because of the proximity to their front door, feel-
ings of territoriality or their concerns regarding liability, this is typically
one of residents’ most adamant objections. Most Maintenance Objection
complaints express an apprehension about future responsibilities for tree
care. These include the raking of leaves and watering (36%), followed by
the fear of future sidewalk or foundation damage caused by a growing tree
and its roots (29%). The motivations behind an objection can be linked
directly to the laws of the municipality and the public’s interpretation of
the statutes. Many citizens also express fear that the trees may become
receptacles for dog waste and litter (24% in total), creating an unpleasant
experience for the resident and perceived added responsibilities to keep
the area clean because of the risk of a Department of Sanitation violation
and fine.
Resultant Damage represents 14% of total NST complaints (see Table
6). These are issued by residents who are dissatisfied with the quality of
the tree planting based on damage that occurred to the surrounding loca-
tion. The majority of these are complaints of damage to the curb or side-
walk adjacent to the tree planting (55%). Also, 26% are complaints against
the planting contractor for debris or material left on site, including packing
materials or excess concrete from sidewalk excavation.
Process Objections accounts for 12% of NST Complaints (see Table 7).
These citizens take issue with the logistical stages of planting operations
114 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 4. New Street Tree Complaint—Policy Objection Subcategories.

Policy Objection Total Percent

Subcategories
General Refusal 343 57%
Notification-General 111 18%
Notification-New 57 10%
Sidewalk Cut
Miscellaneous 52 8%
Pit Size 43 7%
TOTAL 606 100%

Table 5. New Street Tree Complaint—Maintenance Objection Subcategories.

Maintenance Objection Total Percent

Subcategories
Tree Care 157 36%
Future Sidewalk & 128 29%
Foundation Damage
Dog Waste/Litter 106 24%
Prior Experience with 48 11%
Property Damage
TOTAL 439 100%

Table 6. New Street Tree Complaint—Resultant Damage Subcategories.

Resultant Damage Total Percent

Subcategories
Sidewalk/Curb 197 55%
Debris Left at Site 93 26%
Utilities 38 11%
Private Property 30 8%
TOTAL 358 100%
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 115

Table 7. New Street Tree Complaint—Process Objection Subcategories.

Process Objection Total Percent

Sub-Categories
Unplanted Excavated 163 55%
Tree Pit
Species Assignment 57 19%
Contractor Misconduct 34 11%
General 30 10%
Confiscation of Sidewalk 15 5%
Decorations
TOTAL 299 100%

from sidewalk survey and markings, to excavation, to planting. The ma-

jority of these complaints may stem from the perception of liability or the
recognition of an obvious hazard caused by the planting operation. The
majority of the concerns (55%) were because of excavated sidewalk plots
left unplanted. Pre-excavation is a common stage of the NYC street tree
planting process as the planting contractors often pre-excavate planting
sites to expedite the installation of trees. The practice of pre-excavation
requires the contractors to secure the opened site with enough soil to bring
the area to grade with the sidewalk. In some cases, soil settles below the
sidewalk grade, or the citizen may be uninformed of the sequences of the
planting process. In other cases, residents take issue with the type of tree
species chosen by the forester, often asking for a different variety to be
selected (19%). These residents are accepting of the possibility of tree
planting at this site, but would like more control over the planting since
they expect the tree to become a part of their daily lives. The confiscation
of sidewalk decorations (5%) complaint relates to the personalization and
marking of territory that can be disrupted by the process of planting a
street tree.
All NST Primary Complaint categories included a subcategory that ad-
dressed public reaction to or concern over the sidewalk in relation to the
trees being planted. Complaints about new street tree planting are often
116 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

motivated by the public’s perception that the sidewalk is owned by its citi-
zens, particularly those citizens that live, work, or own adjacent property.
These subcategories reflect the sidewalk as a place that is both a public
and private space. Ownership conflicts and responsibility concerns are
evidenced, as are misunderstandings of the planting process and issues of
territoriality.

4.3.5 NEW STREET TREE SERVICE REQUESTS

NST Service Requests are correspondence where the public requests spe-
cific actions regarding new street tree planting. This can include requests
for new tree plantings, or maintenance on a recently planted tree. These re-
quests for service are typically public reports of tree conditions or tree pits
that require investigation, inspection and action. In the case of new street
tree planting, these are largely positive categories that depict a desire and
concern for trees, and can gauge civic support for the citywide greening
program. NST Service Requests include people following-up on the sta-
tus of their tree requests, making new tree requests under special circum-
stances, or asking for additional work to be performed in the maintenance
of a recently planted tree. The two major subdivisions of correspondence
of the Service Request Type, at 50% each, were New Street Tree Requests
(636) and New Tree Conditions (641) (see totals and subcategories in Ta-
bles 8 and 9).
Separate from the DPR CF&H correspondence database, there are 311
New Tree Requests which are transferred directly from 311 into the DPR
CF&H Division’s Forestry Management System database for assessment
by foresters. Between 2007 and 2009, 14,908 311 New Tree Requests were
received in this manner, and formed the basis for the spatial analysis for
the 311 New Tree Request map discussed earlier (Figure 3). In 2007 there
were 639 received via 311, but in 2008 and 2009 there was a dramatic
increase, and over 7,000 requests were received each year. This increase
was due to the visibility of the MillionTreesNYC campaign and the acces-
sibility of the 311 Customer Service Center.
Some New Street Tree Requests (646) are transmitted to the Parks De-
partment CF&H correspondence liaison by the 311 intake operator because
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 117

Table 8. New Street Tree Service Request—New Tree Requests Subcategories.

New Street Tree Requests Total Percent

Subcategories
Individual Planting-Initial/ 342 53%
Status
Block Planting-Initial/ 114 18%
Status
Damaged Tree 109 17%
Replacement
Commemorative Tree 38 6%
Planting
Tree Request Rejection/ 33 6%
Cancellation
TOTAL 636 100%

Table 9. New Street Tree Service Request—New Tree Conditions Primary Category,
Tree Health and Tree Pit Subcategories.

New Street Total Percent

Tree Conditions
Tree Health Subcategories
General (Unhealthy) 229 36%
Vandalism 55 9%
Tree Stakes 50 8%
Watering Needed/ 36 5%
Gator Bags
Miscellaneous 27 4%
Tree Health Subtotal 400 62%
Tree Pit Subcategories
Paving Stones 103 16%
Tree Guards 80 13%
Hazardous Pit/Maintenance 58 9%
Tree Pit Subtotal 241 38%
TOTAL 641 100%
118 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

of their unique nature, or were transmitted directly to DPR's CF&H by let-

ter or email, and these are reflected below in Table 8. The majority, at 53%,
relate to the individual planting requests or status inquiries, while another
18% have to do with initial or status block planting requests (since some-
times people request that their entire block be planted). These can also be
new service requests with special features that need attention such as when
a requested new street tree arrives with damage and requires replacement
(17%) or the planting of a commemorative tree (6%).
New Street Tree Conditions are comprised of two separate subcatego-
ries with multiple concerns listed within each (Table 9). The majority of
requests for service related to concerns about the health of a newly planted
tree (Tree Health at 62%), while 38% relate to issues surrounding the Tree
Pit (which is the earthen area surrounding the street tree). The major Tree
Health subcategories (36%) are reports of new trees which generally look
unhealthy and need help. There are also reports of incidences of vandalism
(9%) against trees, or about missing tree stakes (8%), which support the
trees when they are growing. The NST Condition category also includes
requests for work on the Tree Pits, including the installation of paving
stones around the perimeter (16%), the installation of tree guards (12%),
or the correction of other perceived tree pit hazards (9%). All of these
Service Requests show public interest in a recently planted area and imply
concern and responsibility for the newly planted street tree.

4.4 DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The correspondence that came to DPR’s Central Forestry and Horticul-

ture Division from 2007 to 2009 reflects the public’s concerns and re-
sponse to new street trees being planted. Particularly in 2008 and 2009,
the volume of correspondence about new street trees grew dramatically
in response to the increase in street tree planting initiated in 2007 by
PlaNYC and the MillionTreesNYC program. Two-thirds of the corre-
spondence categories about these new street trees involved complaints
or objections to new street trees, while one-third were service requests
either related to requests for a new street tree or concern for trees that
had just been planted.
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 119

The MillionTreesNYC campaign has an extensive public outreach

component, advertising the tree planting program and its goals and ben-
efits on subways, bus stops and in the media. Yet the public may still not
know about, understand, or appreciate the benefits of new trees. Even
though trees are substantive living things that have meaning for people
and can foster feelings of attachment, they can also involve responsibility,
care and maintenance. Maintenance objections were the third most preva-
lent category of complaint about new street trees.
The demand for new street trees and the popularity of the street tree
planting program is portrayed in the spatial analysis of the almost 15,000
311 New Tree Requests. Even though new street trees are still being
planted in response to individual requests, the MillionTreesNYC priority
is to plant street trees by block in order to target the areas of the city with
the most people and least trees. This spatial analysis showed that the street
tree block planting areas were not necessarily being planted where people
had made requests.
GIS analysis also showed that the highest density of citizen complaints
were coming from areas of recent block plantings. Planting individual trees
increases green infrastructure throughout the landscape, but block plant-
ing in particular transforms grey sidewalks of entire streets into ribbons
of green. Yet block planting, and sometimes even individual tree planting,
can sometimes happen without residents being aware the trees are coming.
Some welcome this planting, while others are wary.
Objections to placement location was the biggest complaint about new
street tree planting, followed by policy objections where people did not
want a tree or had not been notified in advance before their sidewalk was
cut or the tree was planted. Urban residents can be bothered by the place-
ment of trees in sidewalks, a literal grey zone that is both a public and
private space, especially if they did not ask for them. Despite the fact that
the public benefits should outweigh these personal disturbances, people
have a sense of territory about their homes and streets. Even though the
sidewalk is legally a public right of way with government jurisdiction,
residents can have a psychological sense of ownership over this place that
can have personal meaning.
Involvement in the planting process could help to transfer a citi-
zen’s sense of ownership over the sidewalk through giving them more
120 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

investment in new street trees. However, given the scale and complexity of
the Parks Department's citywide planting of new street trees, a large scale
citizen involvement with the planting of street trees would be difficult to
manage. MillionTreesNYC does have biannual volunteer planting days,
but these involve the planting of trees in parks citywide (City of New York
2010). They also have a website5 that provides educational publications
including instructions on tree care and an explanation of all the steps in the
street tree planting process.
The DPR CF&H Division also conducts public outreach about its up-
coming block street tree planting activities via the posting of block plant-
ing posters and flyers. Additional targeted education on tree benefits and
expanded notification of planting processes and procedures, particularly in
advance in targeted block planting areas, could increase public acceptance
of the new street tree planting. If residents were more aware of what was
about to happen to their street and sidewalks, they might be more receptive
to the new street trees.
The block planting of street trees actually offers an excellent opportu-
nity for a natural experiment. Control groups could be designated for com-
munities targeted for block planting: certain blocks would receive more
intensive education on tree benefits and the street tree planting process,
while other adjacent blocks would receive no or less notification and edu-
cation. This method would investigate the impact of education and out-
reach on reactions to new street tree plantings by the City.
There are many opportunities to conduct additional research that fur-
ther investigates the public’s reactions and perceptions of new street trees.
A random sample could be stratified by demographic and socio-economic
variables in order to investigate differences in the perception of new street
trees by neighborhood. Photographic methods could be utilized to assess
residents’ perceptions of changes in the aesthetics of the streetscape before
and after planting. Using spatial analysis to examine differences in public
perception by boroughs, neighborhoods, housing types and home owner-
ship would also be valuable.
Given the dual public and private issues surrounding the sidewalk,
it is likely that property ownership would be a significant factor. Public
policies concerning liability for the sidewalk have changed over time, but
regardless of the actual law, the public understanding of this complicated
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 121

city policy will continue to be murky. A future study could investigate how
sidewalk maintenance liability laws impact the public perceptions and re-
actions to street tree plantings.
Focus groups held in affected neighborhoods could identify areas of
concern not revealed in the analysis of this self-selected sample of people
who corresponded with the City about their newly planted street trees, and
could also identify the more positive reactions to new street tree planting.
This information, along with the categories of concern uncovered through
this study, could lead to the development of a robust survey instrument
that could be administered to targeted areas to evaluate the full spectrum
of responses to new street tree planting. This research would lead to a
fuller and more comprehensive understanding of both the positive and
negative aspects of people’s reactions to new street tree planting.

FOOTNOTES

1. There are some exceptions to this, especially in relation to one, two or three family
residential properties.
2. The qualitative coding majority of was performed by the correspondence liaison.
A trained intern assisted with coding after the categories were well defined, and
a comparison of their coding with the liaison found a 98% agreement of selected
categories.
3. Nine of the general primary categories consisted of only nineteen percent of the total
items of correspondence received: these consisted of Appreciation, Donations/So-
licitations, Greenstreets, Insects, Mature Tree Maintenance, Permits, Public Health,
Research and Miscellaneous.
4. Planting guidelines require that before work begins the utility companies mark the
locations of underground lines on the sidewalk to ensure that contractors are aware
of their presence while excavating the planting sites.
5. http://www.milliontreesNYC.org

REFERENCES

1. Brown, B. 1987. Territoriality, pp. 505-532. In Stokols, D. and I. Altman. (Eds.).

Handbook of Environmental Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
2. Brown, B. B. and D.D. Perkins. 1992. Disruptions in place attachment, pp. 279-
304. In Low, S.M. and I. Altman. (Eds.). Place Attachment. Plenum Press, New
York.
122 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

3. City of New York. 2007. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater, New York, Mayor Michael
R. Bloomberg, The City of New York. http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/
home/home.shtml (accessed 05/10/2010).
4. City of New York, 2010. PlaNYC Progress Report 2010, a Greener, Greater New
York. 2010. Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning & Sustainability, City Hall,
New York, NY. http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/planyc_
progress_report_2010.pdf (accessed 05/10/2010).
5. Dwyer, J.F, H.W. Schroeder, and P.H. Gobster. 1991. The significance of urban
trees and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboricul-
ture 17(10):276-284.
6. Gieryn, T.F. 2000. A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology
26:463-497.
7. Gorman, J. 2004. Residents' opinions of the value of street trees depending on tree
location. Journal of Arboriculture 30(1):36-44.
8. Grove, J.M., J. O'Neil-Dunne, K. Pelletier, D. Nowak, and J. Walton. 2006. A
report on New York City's present and possible urban tree canopy: Prepared for
Fiona Watt, Chief of the Division of Forestry and Horticulture. New York Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
28 pp. http://nrs.fs.fed.us/nyc/local-resources/downloads/Grove_UTC_NYC_FI-
NAL.pdf (accessed 10/01/2010).
9. Lewis, C.A. 1996. Green Nature/Human Nature: The Meaning of Plants in Our
Lives. University of Illinois Press, Chicago. 148 pp.
10. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. and R. Ehrenfeucht. 2009. Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotia-
tion over Public Space. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. 328 pp.
11. Low, S.M. and I. Altman. 1992. Place attachment: a conceptual inquiry, pp. 1-12.
In Low, S.M. and I. Altman, (Eds.). Place Attachment. Plenum Press, New York.
12. Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: a Psychological Per-
spective. Cambridge University Press, New York. 340 pp.
13. Kaye, J.S, R. Polechronis, A. Reddy, and J. Rebold. 2009, February. City sidewalks
trees and the law. New York State Bar Association Journal 24-27.
14. Kou, F.E. 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of
Arboriculture 29(3):148-154
15. Kou, F.E, M. Bacaicoa, and W.C. Sullivan. 1998. Transforming inner city landscapes:
trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior 30(1):28-59.
16. Manzo, L. 2005. For better or worse: exploring multiple dimensions of place mean-
ing. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25(1):67-86.
17. McIntyre, L. 2008, February. Shared wisdom. Landscape Architecture 88-93.
18. McPherson, E.G., J.R. Simpson, P.J. Peper, S.L. Gardner, K.E. Vargas, and Q. Xiao.
2007. Northeast Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting.
General Technical Report, PSW GTR-202. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 106 pp.
19. New York City Department of Transportation. 2008. Sidewalks, the New York City
Guide for Property Owners. Sidewalks and Inspection Management, Office of Side-
walk Management, New York City. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/faqs/side-
walkfaqs.shtml (accessed 05/13/2010)
Public Reactions to New Street Tree Planting 123

20. Nowak, D.J., R.E. Hoehn, D.E. Crane, J.C. Stevens, and J.T. Walton. 2007. Assess-
ing urban forest effects and values, New York City’s urban forest. Resource Bulletin
NRS-9. Newtown Square, PA, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North-
ern Research Station. 22 pp.
21. Peper, P.J., E.G. McPherson, J.R. Simpson, S.L. Gardner, K.E. Vargas, and Q. Xiao.
2007, April. New York City, New York, Municipal Forest Resource Analysis. Tech-
nical Report to Adrian Benepe, Commissioner, Department of Parks & Recreation,
New York City, New York. Center for Urban Forest Research, USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research Station. 65 pp.
22. Proshansky, H.M., A.K. Fabian, and R. Kaminoff. 1983. Place identity: physical
world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3:57-83.
23. Sack, R.D. 1986. Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge Studies
in Historical Geography. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 256 pp.
24. Schroeder, H., J. Flannigan, and R. Coles. 2006. Residents' attitudes toward
street trees in the UK and US communities. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry
32(5):236-246.
25. Stephens, M. 2008, January/February. A greater and greener New York City. City
Trees, Journal of the Society of Municipal Arborists. 22-23,38.
26. Sommer, R. 2004. Territoriality, pp 541-544. In Spielberger, C. D. (Ed). Encyclope-
dia of Applied Psychology, Volume 3. Elvsevier, California.
27. ------. 2003. Trees and human identity, pp 179-204. In Clayton, S. and S. Opotow.
(Eds.). Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of
Nature.
28. Sommer, R., F. Learey, J. Summit and M. Tirrell. 1994. The social benefits of resi-
dent involvement in tree planting. Journal of Arboriculture 20(3):170-175.
29. Summit, J. and E.G. McPherson. 1998, March. Residential tree planting and care: a
study of attitudes and behavior in Sacramento, California. Journal of Arboriculture
24(2): 89-96.
30. Summit, J. and R. Sommer. 1998. Urban tree-planting programs - a model for encour-
aging environmentally protective behavior. Atmospheric Environment 32(1):1-5.
31. Svendsen, E.S. and L. Campbell. 2005. Living Memorials Project: Year 1 Social and
Site Assessment. US Forest Service General Technical Report NE-333.
32. Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, California. 270 pp.
33. Taylor, R.B. 1988. Human territorial functioning: An empirical, evolutionary per-
spective on individual and small group territorial cognitions, behaviors, and conse-
quences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
34. Tidball, K.G., M.E. Krasny, E.S. Svendsen, L. Campbell, and K. Helphand. 2010.
Stewardship, Learning, and Memory in Disaster Resilience. Environmental Educa-
tion Research 16(5):341-357.
35. Ward, K.T. and Johnson, G.R. 2007. Geospatial methods provide timely and com-
prehensive urban forest information. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6(1):15-22.
36. Wickham, T.D. and H.C. Zinn. 2001. Human territoriality: an examination of a con-
struct, pp 35-39. In Kyle, G. (Ed.). Proceedings of the 2000 Northeastern Recreation
124 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Research Symposium. General Technical Report NE-276. Newtown Square, PA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.
37. Westphal, L.M. 2003. Urban greening and social benefits: a study of empowerment
outcomes. Journal of Arboriculture 29(3):137-147.
38. Williams, K. 2002. Exploring resident preferences for street trees in Melbourne,
Australia. Journal of Arboriculture 28(4):161-170.
39. Wolf, K.L. 2003. Introduction to urban and community forestry programs in the
United States. Landscape Planning and Horticulture 4(3):19-28.
40. ------. 2008. With plants in mind: social benefits of civic nature. Master Gardener
2(1):7-11.
CHAPTER 5

It’s Not Easy Going Green:

Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs
in East Baltimore
MICHAEL BATTAGLIA, GEOFFREY L. BUCKLEY, MICHAEL
GALVIN, and MORGAN GROVE

5.1 INTRODUCTION

While the urban forest is valued for the many environmental benefits
it provides—such as reducing storm water flow, impeding soil erosion,
and mitigating the urban heat island effect—a large and growing body
of evidence points to the social and public health benefits of strategically
planted trees. These include improvements to human health (Takano et al.
2002; Lovasi et al. 2008; Mitchell and Popham 2008), energy savings (Ak-
bari and Konopacki 2005), and higher market values for homes (Payton
et al. 2008; Sander et al. 2010). An increase in urban tree canopy (UTC)
has also been linked to lower crime rates (Kuo and Sullivan 2001; Troy et
al. 2012). For these and other reasons, cities across the U.S. are measur-
ing tree canopy, adopting UTC goals, and developing programs to pursue
these goals (United States Conference of Mayors 2008). Grow Boston

© Battaglia, Michael; Buckley, Geoffrey L.; Galvin, Michael; and Grove, Morgan (2014) "It’s Not
Easy Going Green: Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore," Cities and the Environ-
ment (CATE): Vol. 7: Iss. 2, Article 6, http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7/iss2/6. Used with the
permission of the authors.
126 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Greener, Million Trees LA, MillionTreesNYC, and The Chicago Tree Ini-
tiative are just a few examples of programs with ambitious plans in place
to increase canopy coverage in their respective cities.
Given the challenges of growing trees in an urban environment, ad-
vocates acknowledge that only a mix of planting on public and privately-
owned and managed lands will allow cities to achieve a broad range of
UTC goals (Grove et al. 2006). Thus, cities like New York have adopted
an “All Lands, All People” approach, which takes into consideration the
tree-growing potential of all urban lands—from parks and public rights-
of-way to residential parcels, commercial properties, and vacant lots. This
approach embraces cooperation and collaboration among government
agencies and NGOs, and promotes the collection and integration of social
and ecological information (Locke et al. 2013).
To promote expansion of the UTC as well as safeguard a city’s in-
vestment in trees, Grove et al. (2006), Raciti et al. (2006), and Locke et
al. (2010) recommend adoption of a strategy that incorporates the “Three
P’s”—Possible UTC, Preferable UTC, and Potential UTC. The first step
involves mapping Possible UTC. Possible UTC refers to any non-road,
nonbuilding, or non-water land; that is, any location in the city where it is
biophysically possible to plant trees. As living components of the urban
ecosystem, trees must be planted in locations—and under conditions—
that permit their survival. This may be difficult in an urban environment
that lacks open space. The second step is to determine Preferable UTC;
that is, identify where it is socially desirable to plant trees. In essence,
where are trees needed and where are they wanted? This stage opens
the door to public involvement in the decision-making process. Finally,
Potential UTC centers on the economic feasibility of planting trees in a
given location.
Like many cities, Baltimore is seeking to expand its urban tree canopy.
In 2006, government officials launched TreeBaltimore, an initiative to
double the city’s tree canopy to 40 percent by 2036. Although overall cov-
erage has increased since implementation of the new urban forest manage-
ment plan, many parts of the city still have extremely low canopy cover
(Galvin et al. 2006; O’Neil-Dunne 2009). To ensure that all citizens have
access to the benefits of urban trees, it is imperative that resource manag-
ers and other decision makers recognize and address these disparities—a
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore 127

concern driving research agendas in many U.S. cities (e.g., Landry and
Chakraborty 2009; Danford et al. 2014; Wolch, Byrne, and Newell 2014).
In this paper we address several issues associated with the Possible
and Preferable components of a city’s urban tree program and its ability to
achieve a UTC goal. Our research focuses on two neighborhoods in Bal-
timore: Madison-Eastend and Berea. These two neighborhoods are high
priority areas for increasing UTC (Locke et al. 2013) and have a history of
unsuccessful tree planting programs since the 1960s.
We explore three research questions. First, is there sufficient space
in the Madison-Eastend and Berea neighborhoods of East Baltimore to
support an aggressive tree planting effort? Second, do residents in these
two districts want more trees and, if so, are they willing to support tree-
planting programs? Finally, we ask whether a change in the ethnic profile
of these two neighborhoods since the 1960s has caused a shift in the way
trees are perceived. Ultimately, a goal of this research is to help urban for-
estry personnel more effectively manage the city’s urban forest by better
understanding some of the variation in perceptions, values, and prefer-
ences for urban trees among urban residents.

5.2 PERCEPTIONS OF THE URBAN FOREST

While the benefits and costs of urban trees are well documented, less is
known about the complex relationship that exists between people and ur-
ban green spaces (Balram and Dragicevic 2005). More specifically, how
do residents of different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds perceive
and value the urban forest? The question is a significant one as failure to
address the needs and desires of residents can pose problems for resource
managers pursuing UTC goals. This is especially true if the city in ques-
tion must depend on citizen support and cooperation to ensure the survival
of young trees (Lu et al. 2010).
An early survey conducted in Detroit found that 63 percent of resi-
dents preferred to live in neighborhoods where the streets were lined with
shade trees and small flowering trees. Only two percent responded that
they did not want trees on their streets. The benefits identified most often
by respondents were “pleasant to look at,” “gives shade,” and “increases
128 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

property values.” The participants were 70 percent African American and

30 percent white, with a relatively even distribution of income levels (Getz
et al. 1982). A study carried out in a suburb of New Orleans produced
similar results, with “aesthetic/visual,” “gives shade,” and “attracts wild-
life” emerging as the most important perceived benefits. Eighty-six per-
cent of respondents said that protecting trees was highly important, with
80 percent saying they would pay higher taxes to maintain the urban forest
(Lorenzo et al. 2000).
Lohr et al. (2004) administered a nationwide phone survey to identify
both perceived benefits and perceived problems relating to urban trees.
According to the survey, the most important reasons to have trees were
to “shade and cool” and “help people feel calmer.” When asked about
problems associated with trees, residents mentioned allergies and obstruc-
tion of store signs. The authors also determined that older respondents and
those with higher levels of educational attainment were more likely to link
trees with quality of life. Gorman’s (2004) survey results from State Col-
lege, Pennsylvania also suggest a correlation between positive attitudes
toward urban trees and higher levels of educational attainment. Respon-
dents in this study listed “give shade,” “pleasing to the eye,” “flowers on
tree,” “neighborhood more livable,” and “increase property value” as posi-
tive attributes of trees. Negative features related to public safety, such as
damage to sidewalks and power lines. In their study of Alabama’s urban
forests, Zhang et al. (2007) found that awareness of forestry programs,
employment, age (in this case, 56 years or younger), and annual income
($75,000 and higher) correlated positively with willingness to contribute
money and volunteer time to urban forestry activities. Race, gender, and
residence were not significant factors when it came to explaining attitudes
toward urban trees (Talbot and Kaplan 1984).
Preferences for open space and recreation areas are often discussed in
the context of culture (Gobster 2002; Elmendorf et al. 2005; Pincetl and
Gearin 2005). In such cases, “culture” is inferred through race or ethnic-
ity. Fraser and Kenney (2000), for example, reported that tree preferences
in Toronto, Canada were divided along ethnic lines. Their findings indi-
cate that residents of English descent prefer large shade trees, while Por-
tuguese and Italian residents favor small fruit-bearing trees. Meanwhile,
Chinese residents did not encourage tree planting in their neighborhoods.
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore 129

The authors maintain that these preferences are intimately tied to the land-
scape histories of each respective group’s country of origin. Similar to
Lohr et al. (2004), who found that a significantly lower percentage of Af-
rican Americans and Asian Americans said trees were important to quality
of life compared to other ethnicities, several studies suggest that African
Americans tend to favor parks and recreational areas with fewer trees due
to concerns about safety and crime (e.g., Gobster 2002; Brownlow 2006;
Lewis and Hendricks 2006).

5.3 STUDY AREA

East Baltimore is one section of the city that has long exhibited a notice-
able lack of trees. In an early attempt to increase UTC, the mayor’s office,
in 1965, allocated $326,000 to plant 8,000 street trees per year over a
multi-year period. However, a tree survey conducted by city forester Fred
Graves revealed that the cost of planting trees in East Baltimore alone—
one of fourteen city sections surveyed—would exceed $385,000, more
than the entire budget for the tree-planting effort and more than four times
higher than the next most costly section of the city. Graves noted that East
Baltimore was “practically denuded of trees” and that “the entire area has
solid cement sidewalks without openings for trees” (quoted in Buckley
2010, 170). Despite high cost estimates, the Division of Forestry started
to plant trees in East Baltimore two years later. It was at this time that
city officials discovered another problem: many residents opposed tree-
planting programs in their neighborhoods. Known in the local press as
the city’s “tree rebels,” these residents claimed to prefer “clean, unclut-
tered concrete” to urban trees (Figure 1). They further argued that, “Trees
belong in the country, not the city.” According to Graves, this anti-tree
sentiment was not evident in other parts of the city (quoted in Buckley
2010, 171-172).
Much has changed in the fifty years since residents of East Baltimore
voiced opposition to the city’s plans for tree planting. As manufacturing
jobs declined, so too did East Baltimore’s population. Formerly occupied
by a diverse mix of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, the
area is now inhabited largely by African Americans. One thing remains
130 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

FIGURE 1: An example of “clean, uncluttered concrete” in Baltimore ca. 1948. Note

the lack of tree pits in this block and the attention given to the condition of the
marble steps (Photo taken by A. Aubrey Bodine, Courtesy of the Maryland Historical
Society).
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore 131

constant—the area lacks trees, and thus it is an important target area for
TreeBaltimore. However, the decision to plant trees here should not be
made hastily. The limited budget of the Division of Forestry—and pro-
grams like TreeBaltimore—makes site selection extremely important.
Many variables must be taken into consideration to ensure that new tree
planting will be successful.
According to Galvin et al. (2006) and O’Neil-Dunne (2009), Baltimore
will not be able to meet its UTC goal of 40 percent coverage by planting
trees only in parks and along streets. In fact, such a strategy, even if car-
ried out to its maximum potential, would fall far short. The greatest op-
portunities for increasing tree canopy in Baltimore depend on other lands.
Moreover, they depend on the cooperation and collaboration of private
landowners and other community stakeholders all across Baltimore.
Two neighborhoods, Madison-Eastend and Berea, were selected as
study areas for this research (Figure 2). Madison-Eastend is the smaller of
the two, occupying 66.7 acres just north of Patterson Park. Berea, mean-
while, comprises an area of 217.6 acres including the expansive Baltimore
Cemetery. Selection was based on several criteria. First, it was necessary
to pick neighborhoods near the “tree rebel” area of the 1960s to gauge how
attitudes toward tree planting may have changed with time and shifting
demographics. Another important criterion was to select neighborhoods
with differing physical characteristics. Madison-Eastend and Berea vary
greatly when it comes to lot and house size, as well as available green
space, allowing us to investigate plantable space and resident preferences
in different contexts. Finally, the selection was based on a tree planting
prioritization scheme developed for Baltimore’s neighborhoods. Modeled
after Nowak et al. (2007), the plan assigned each neighborhood an index
score between 1 and 100. The index is based on population and tree cover
densities, with a score of 100 indicating a high population density and
low percentage canopy cover and a score of 1 indicating a low popula-
tion density and high percentage canopy cover. Of the 271 neighborhoods
with adequate data, Madison-Eastend ranked tenth and Berea twenty-third
when it came to greatest need for tree planting (Battaglia 2010).
With respect to physical differences, Madison-Eastend is characterized
by high-density row houses and a noticeable lack of greenery. Built be-
tween 1890 and 1920, the houses are situated close to the street with no
132 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

FIGURE 2: Berea and Madison-Eastend correspond roughly with the location of East
Baltimore’s “tree rebels” of the 1960s.

space for front yards. Most have a small paved lot in the back, which con-
nects to an alley. Much of the area’s green space is concentrated at Bocek
Park in the northeast corner of the neighborhood, and in the front of the
office buildings located nearby. In contrast, Berea’s row houses were con-
structed later, are relatively large, and have both a front and a backyard.
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore 133

Most residential streets are lined by areas of grass between the sidewalk
and the street, known as “tree strips” or “tree lawns.” Two neighborhood
elementary schools and several churches contain additional green space.
Regarding the area’s demographic makeup, significant change has
occurred in East Baltimore over the last several decades. Between 1970
and 2010 in Madison-Eastend, an area once dominated by working class
immigrants of European descent, the African American population in-
creased dramatically, from 14.24 percent to 90.26 percent. At 96.30 per-
cent, Berea’s African American population, having secured a foothold in
the neighborhood much earlier, has remained relatively constant over the
same period. Citywide, African Americans today make up approximately
63.82 percent of the total population (BNIA 2013). Both areas experienced
an overall decline in total population from 1970 to 2010.

5.4 METHODS AND FINDINGS

5.4.1 POSSIBLE UTC

For the purposes of this study, plantable area refers to any pervious surface
not covered by tree canopy. To assess plantable area (Possible UTC) within
Madison-Eastend and Berea, geo-spatial analyses were conducted using
ArcGIS 9.3 software. GIS shape files of neighborhood boundaries, par-
cel boundaries, street centerlines, building footprints, pavement edge, tree
canopy, and other planimetric data, along with 2008 aerial imagery, were
obtained from the Mayor’s Office of Information Technology (MOIT). An
overlay method, similar to previous studies (Grove et al. 2005; Raciti et
al. 2006), was combined with tree pit data we collected to produce final
plantable area maps for each neighborhood.
Both neighborhoods in the study area have a considerable amount of
possible tree planting space relative to the neighborhoods’ size. The plant-
able area totals 23.55 acres for Berea and 7.08 acres for Madison-Eastend
(Figures 3 and 4). Residential plantable space comprises a significant
portion of the total for Berea—especially the eastern section—but only a
very small amount for Madison-Eastend. This is because many of Berea’s
dwellings have both front and backyards. Both neighborhoods have
134 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

FIGURE 3: Berea Plantable Space. Many of the houses in Berea are set back from
the street and possess both front and backyards. As a result, there is a great deal of
residential plantable space. There are also opportunities to plant trees along public
rights-of-way (PROW) and on properties owned by schools, churches, businesses,
and the City of Baltimore.

planting opportunities along public rights-of-way (PROW) which include

all land area that is not part of a parcel, such as roads, alleys, sidewalks,
and other public transportation corridors. Other plantable space includes
parcels managed by the City of Baltimore, schools, church groups,
135
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore
FIGURE 4: Madison-Eastend Plantable Space. Unlike Berea, there is comparatively little residential plantable space in Madison-
Eastend. This is due to differences in housing type and lot size. However, there are opportunities to plant trees along public rights-
of-way (PROW) and in “other” plantable spaces, especially Bocek Park, which occupies the eastern third of the neighborhood.
136 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

businesses, or other private entities. Both neighborhoods possess signifi-

cant plantable space under this category.
With respect to planting opportunities along PROW, we counted 224
street trees and a total of 13,881 meters of potential planting length along
Berea’s streets, not including the cemetery, alleys, or streets with side-
walks less than four feet wide. According to these numbers, there is one
street tree for every 61.87 meters of roadside length. With 7.62 meters be-
tween pits, there is a potential to add many more trees. However, the best
possibility for planting along the public rights-of-way in Berea is on the
open tree lawns. The sum of the open tree lawns’ lengths is 2,972.7 meters.
Most would be suitable for small or medium-sized trees. (Note: Although
data specifying the locations of underground cables and sewage lines were
not available, we eliminated from consideration sites where obstacles to
tree planting were clearly present, such as locations with overhead electri-
cal wires and street lights.) If tree planting along the public rightsof- way
were prioritized, 390 new trees could be installed along the tree lawns
alone. Combined with planting in empty tree pits, there is an opportunity
to plant 418 street trees in Berea, which would almost triple the number in
the neighborhood to 642.
Madison-Eastend has 83 street trees and a total of 6,948.5 meters of
space along its roads, yielding an average of one street tree per 83.5 me-
ters throughout the neighborhood. If the goal were to maximize street
tree planting, at least 10 trees could be planted along a corridor that cur-
rently accommodates just one. The amount of actual plantable space along
the public rights-of-way is considerably less. Because of the type of row
houses present in Madison-Eastend, the length of the open tree lawns is
only 194 meters. At 1.22 meters wide they are able to accommodate small
or medium-sized trees. If planting were maximized, 26 new trees could be
planted. If every location along Madison-Eastend’s public rights-of-way
were planted, the number of street trees could be increased from 83 to
140. That said, if both neighborhoods were to maximize tree planting they
could increase existing canopy cover significantly—from approximately
5.26 to 16.08 percent in Berea, and from 6.23 to 16.84 percent in Madison-
Eastend (Table 1). Cumming et al. (2001) found a stocking level of 13.9
percent for roadside trees across the state of Maryland. Using their 15.24
meter spacing, stocking levels in Berea and Madison-Eastend would be
somewhat higher at 24.6 percent and 18.2 percent, respectively.
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore 137

Table 1. Existing and possible tree canopy cover in the study area.

Berea Madison-
Eastend
Total Area (acres) 217.61 66.74
Tree Canopy (acres) 11.44 4.16
Tree Canopy (%) 5.26 6.23
Plantable (acres) 23.55 7.08
Plantable (%) 10.82 10.61
Possible Tree canopy 34.99 11.24
(acres)
Possible Tree canopy (%) 16.08 16.84

5.4.2 PREFERABLE UTC

The measures of Possible UTC only take into account where it is bio-
physically possible to plant trees. The next step was to understand prefer-
ences for UTC. Thus, we sought to explore how trees were perceived and
valued in the study area and whether residents wanted and would care
for additional trees. To determine this, we interviewed residents in both
Madison-Eastend and Berea. Initial contacts with interview subjects were
facilitated by the TreeBaltimore coordinator; additional respondents were
contacted by referral or during the pit survey. After Institutional Review
Board (IRB) approval was granted, research trips to Baltimore were car-
ried out in December of 2009 and April 2010. In total, 26 interviews were
conducted. Sixteen of the residents lived in Berea, while ten resided in
Madison-Eastend. Sixteen of the respondents were male. All of the resi-
dents interviewed were African American and all were at least 18 years of
age. A semi-structured interview style was adopted to allow flexibility in
the event an informant wished to speak about a topic not covered by the
interview guide. Most interviews took approximately 15 minutes to com-
plete. Interview notes were transcribed and later coded. The coding was
analytic in nature with each interview assigned codes based on the nature
of subjects covered.
138 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

While the interview data do not express the views of everyone in the
study area, they provide a wealth of information regarding how some
residents understand trees. There were several who said they think tree
planting is a good idea, citing many of the same benefits mentioned
in earlier studies. Some of these, such as aesthetic enhancement and
shade provision, were widely acknowledged in Madison-Eastend and
Berea. Less obvious benefits, such as water quality improvement and
carbon sequestration, were referenced only a few times. While some
residents expressed support for new planting, others opposed it. Their
reasons for wanting to limit tree planting were wide ranging and in-
cluded items not mentioned in earlier surveys. In the following two
sections, we summarize our findings in terms of residents’ positive and
negative perceptions.

5.4.2.1 POSITIVE PERCEPTIONS

Of the 26 interviews conducted in the study area, 14 revealed some type

of positive perception of urban trees. One of the most widely understood
positive attributes of trees was their ability to provide shade. Baltimore
has a humid subtropical climate, with temperatures sometimes reach-
ing 100 degrees Fahrenheit during summer months (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration 2013). These high temperatures can
cause discomfort for residents, especially those whose homes are not air-
conditioned, a point confirmed by a male resident of Madison-Eastend:
“Man, it sure does get hot here, if you’re around in summertime you
see everybody sitting outside. No one wants to stay cooped up inside
in the heat. Some trees would be real nice to have, especially some big
shady ones. Maybe a nice big one right in front of my house!” This
feeling was widespread among interview participants. It was especially
important to those who did not have access to shaded outdoor areas in
Madison-Eastend. One woman stated, “It’s like sitting on top of a stove
. . . out here.” Several interviewees mentioned the common summer-
time practice of relaxing on the front stoop or porch. This was observed
during the summertime tree surveys we conducted, when the sidewalks
of Madison-Eastend filled with people during the mid to late afternoon
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore 139

hours. It was also clear that people gravitated to the side of the street that
was not in direct sunlight.
Berea residents appreciated shade as well. One woman remarked, “Our
block is lucky, we have all these big trees, they keep us cool when it gets
to be summer. I know a lot of these blocks don’t have any trees at all.” A
recent high school graduate commented that he was aware of the urban
heat island effect, and that he knew tree shade would help reduce it by
lowering temperatures. Some residents said they understood that strategi-
cally planted trees could save them money on their energy bills. A man in
Berea remarked that he was aware of reductions in energy costs through
tree planting and that he had planted a tree in his backyard the previous
summer for that reason. Another stated that he knew shade trees could
reduce energy costs and, further, that he would like to plant a tree but his
yard in Berea was too small.
Residents also valued the aesthetic appeal of trees. A woman living in
Berea said, “This block just looks better, people here plant flowers and you
get the flowers and the trees all together and it looks nicer than some of the
other blocks around here.” Another woman added, “I’m glad I live here.
It’s not the best part of the city, we have our problems, you know? But
compared to some other parts, like across the tracks down there, they got
it bad. You can go for blocks before you see a tree. . . . That’s just depress-
ing.” A female resident of Madison-Eastend concurred: “Beautification is
important in this area. It’s a rough neighborhood. I think if you make it
look nicer it wouldn’t feel as rough.”
The possibility of trees contributing to the mitigation of global cli-
mate change was mentioned on two occasions. Although the effectiveness
of urban trees as pollution filters and greenhouse-gas reducers has been
questioned (Nowak et al. 2007; Pataki et al. 2011), both interviewees had
strong opinions on the subject. “I know all about global warming, we need
to plant trees to stop it. I get that. I do know they provide oxygen. They
take the bad stuff out of the air.” The other respondent felt that it was one
of the most important characteristics of urban trees. “We need more oxy-
gen in our environment. Without oxygen, there can be no life. . . . So we
have two choices, learn to treat our earth right, stop chopping down the
rainforest, or start looking for another planet to inhabit. It starts right here
though. Planting trees is very important.”
140 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

5.4.2.2 NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS

Although the ability to attract wildlife is often listed as a benefit of the

urban forest (Dwyer et al. 1992; McPherson et al. 1997), none of the inter-
view participants in East Baltimore viewed wildlife in this way. Instead,
animals, such as birds, were considered nuisances. Bird droppings, in
particular, were a source of frustration for residents. An elderly woman
who has lived in Berea for over 40 years stated: “We have enough trees.
We don’t need any more. We got two on this block, and that’s more than
enough. I don’t think most folks want trees. Everybody always complains
about the bird manure anyway.” Even those who otherwise were in favor
of tree planting mentioned birds as a problem.
Insects were another perceived problem. Echoing the sentiments of an
anti-tree rebel from the 1960s (Buckley 2010), a resident of Berea was
not happy about a recent spike in the population of “caterpillars.” Sev-
eral participants also mentioned rats as a reason for opposing new plant-
ing, two of whom were convinced that trees attracted rats. According to
2009 figures from the Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance, the
number of reported incidents of rats per 1000 residents was 215.70 for
Madison-Eastend and 118.44 for the Clifton-Berea community statistical
area (CSA). The citywide average was 59.69 (BNIA 2012).
Several residents said they were allergic to tree pollen. A resident of
Madison-Eastend stated that after growing up in a part of Washington,
D.C. that had many trees he was relieved to not have as many problems. In
his words, “I don’t want to have to start taking allergy pills again.” A resi-
dent of Berea who otherwise supported aggressive tree planting lamented
that he has been dealing with allergy-induced asthma his whole life, but
that it was a necessary tradeoff.
Property damage from trees was another issue residents discussed.
When initially asked how she felt about tree planting programs, an elderly
woman in Berea responded “No thank you! No trees for me!” Through-
out her time as a homeowner in East Baltimore she has had numerous
problems with tree roots breaking her water pipes. A Madison-Eastend
man pointed to a group of vacant row houses along Glover Street all of
which had been infiltrated by tree branches. He maintained that these trees
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore 141

caused damage to electrical wires, and that he had experienced several

power outages in the previous year. Heynen et al. (2006) described a simi-
lar situation in an African American neighborhood in Milwaukee, where
trees were often removed due to property damage.
While none of the interview participants admitted to a preference for
“clean, uncluttered concrete” like the former inhabitants of East Balti-
more, many found certain aspects of the urban forest displeasing. In par-
ticular, residents did not appreciate the dead trees. When asked how he felt
about additional tree planting on his street, a Berea resident responded,
“Why would I want another tree when I can’t get rid of this dead one? I’ve
been on the city for a year to get rid of it but it’s still right there.” Another
resident of Berea added: “I have lived here for over 20 years now, and I
have seen trees get planted. Those trees that get planted just die. . . . The
city wants to plant more trees, why the hell don’t they just take care of the
ones already here?” Another man agreed: “Sure, I think planting trees is a
good idea. It’s also a good idea for them to take down the dead ones before
they start planting more.” Several interviewees worried about large dead
trees or limbs falling onto their houses during storms. The persistence of
dead trees in the urban landscape and the high mortality that can result
from lack of community support has long been a concern of residents and
resource managers (Sklar and Ames 1985; Roman et al. 2013).
As with many large urban areas, parts of Baltimore have significant
drug problems. According to 2011 statistics compiled by the Baltimore
Neighborhood Indicators Alliance, juvenile drug-related arrests per 1000
people have declined over the last five years in the Clifton- Berea CSA and
Madison-Eastend. Nevertheless, at 63.7 and 49.07, respectively, they re-
main significantly higher than the Baltimore City average of 30.26 (BNIA
2013). Interview participants linked trees to the drug trade on several oc-
casions. One respondent from Madison- Eastend said, “No man, no, we
don’t need more trees. That’s just another place to hide drugs. We don’t
need more of that around here.” Another remarked “When I was a younger
man running around on the streets, we used to use them (trees) as a drop
spot (for drugs).”
Some neighborhood members worried that tree planting would be
carried out for the wrong reasons. One resident of Berea was skeptical
of outsider interference in his community. : His mistrust of outsiders
142 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

stems from the recent bulldozing of entire blocks just a short walk to
the west to make room for an expansion of Johns Hopkins Hospital. In
particular, he worried about how other development plans might affect
his community in the future. In his opinion, tree planting would be fol-
lowed by gentrification and displacement of the remaining population of
Madison-Eastend.
As Atkinson (2003) notes, gentrification rarely benefits underserved
communities, leading Wolch, Byrne, and Newell (2014) to recommend
neighborhood greening initiatives that are “just green enough” to im-
prove the lives of residents but not enough to trigger sharp increases in
property values.
Another resident of Berea was skeptical of urban trees for a different
reason. He was concerned that tree planting was just the “flavor of the
week” for whatever politician was trying to get elected to office. When
asked about the possibility of trees on his street he recounted previous city
initiatives that proved ineffectual. His feelings reflect the recent political
turmoil in the city, where political corruption led to the resignation of the
mayor (Bykowicz 2010).
Many citizens argue that there are more pressing problems that need
to be addressed before the city dedicates funds to tree planting. One
man suggested spending money on trash cans. Another questioned why
the city had cut its trash collection days but was willing to spend more
on trees. A woman from Madison-Eastend remarked, “It’s just dirty
around here. There’s trash everywhere, people don’t care.” According
to the BNIA there were 267.7 reports of dirty streets and alleys per 1000
people in Madison-Eastend in 2011, the highest rate in the city. The Clif-
ton-Berea CSA ranked fifth highest with 171.87 reports per 1000 people
(BNIA 2013).
Before trees are planted on or adjacent to a residence, homeown-
ers must sign a waiver agreeing to water young trees and take basic
steps to ensure their survival (TreeBaltimore 2007). Therefore, in ad-
dition to answering questions about their perceptions of trees, residents
were asked how receptive they thought their community would be to
tree planting initiatives. When asked whether he thought his neighbors
would care for trees, the recent high school graduate from Berea stated:
“It all depends. I think on this block it would work. I’d water a tree!
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore 143

Some of these houses around here though, well I don’t know (laughs).
Some people really don’t care about that type of thing.” An elderly
gentleman in Berea was less optimistic. “More trees would be nice,
but we have already had trees on this block and they die. People don’t
water them. And most of the time, even if they do get watered, they
get killed anyway by the children. The children around here have no
respect for anything. They run wild and do what they want. I’ve seen
them tear little trees apart.”
A woman from Berea differentiated between homeowners and those
who rent, indicating she was not confident renters would put in the effort to
take care of newly planted trees: “Most of us around here own our homes.
Most of us have lived here for a long time. We care about our neighbor-
hood and the way it looks, obviously. You go down that way (pointing
south) though, I don’t think they’re gonna help out too much. They mostly
rent. Folks that rent, why should they care?” Her belief that renters are less
enthusiastic about tree planting programs is supported by the literature. In
their study of Milwaukee’s urban forest, Perkins et al. (2004) discovered
that only 11 percent of those who took advantage of a free tree-planting
program were renters in a city where 55 percent of homes are occupied by
renters. In the study area, a majority of home occupants are renters as well.
In Clifton-Berea, just 34.35 percent of housing units were owneroccupied
in 2011 (BNIA 2013).
Older interview participants in Berea indicated that they thought at-
tempts to plant trees in the future would fail because of changes in the
population. According to several interviewees, a majority of the origi-
nal African American residents of East Baltimore had migrated from
rural parts of the South and knew how to take care of trees and plants.
Now, only a few of the original transplants remain. The ability and
desire to care for the natural world, they claim, has diminished among
the people who have grown up in the city. As a former South Carolina
resident living in Berea put it, “Some of these people don’t know the
difference between a pine tree and an apple tree.” As Ziederman (2006)
points out, the migration of African Americans from the rural south to
the industrialized north brought not only people, but agricultural skills
and preferences as well. For the aging residents of Madison-Eastend
144 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

and Berea, trees may be representative of a landscape preference that

is rapidly dying out.

5.5 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we explored the potential for tree planting in two of East
Baltimore’s neighborhoods, Madison-Eastend and Berea. Fifty years af-
ter residents derailed a major treeplanting effort, and despite significant
demographic changes, large sections of these neighborhoods still exhibit
a noticeable lack of trees. In the 1950s and 1960s, the residents of East
Baltimore, many of whom were immigrants from southern and eastern Eu-
rope, found urban trees socially undesirable. When Blacks from the Amer-
ican South arrived in increasing numbers after 1970, they likely brought
with them different attitudes with respect to trees. While many may have
viewed trees in a more positive light—perhaps even socially preferable—
they inherited a landscape that was largely devoid of canopy cover during
a period of disinvestment in America’s cities. Trees may have been socially
preferable, but the legacy of the area’s former residents—virtually treeless
neighborhoods—ensures that a major effort to increase UTC requires a
significant economic investment (see also Boone et al. 2010 and Buckley
et al. 2013). Today, a new generation of African American residents voice
strong opinions both for and against tree planting in East Baltimore.
An important objective of our research was to determine whether a
change in the ethnic profile of a community—in this case, from south-
ern and eastern European to African American—might signal a change
in the way trees are perceived. Recognizing the small sample size and
limited geography of our exploratory research, the qualitative data pre-
sented here suggest that using ethnic groups as vehicles to make broad
generalizations about the perceptions and preferences of many people is
problematic. This result is supported by Li et al. (2007, 515), who argue
that, “The cultural variability within purported ethnic groups may be
as great, or greater, than the cultural variability between them.” Failure
to recognize variability within a cultural, racial, or ethnic group poses
problems. At best, it leads to the perpetuation of stereotypes. At worst,
it implies the acceptance of a form of environmental determinism. Our
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore 145

research indicates that most people’s perceptions of trees were practical

and developed through lived experiences.
With respect to Possible UTC, our research shows that there is room to
increase tree canopy in the study area from approximately six percent to
more than 16 percent, making Madison-Eastend and Berea prime targets
for TreeBaltimore. In Berea, most of the plantable area is located on resi-
dential parcels. Although all of the homes are considered row houses, a
majority of the homes in the eastern part of the neighborhood are on large
parcels that include front and backyards. In contrast, Madison-Eastend
has limited plantable area on residential land because the row houses lack
front yards, and most backyards are paved. Bocek Park and the land along
the neighborhood’s northern border account for most of the plantable area.
Although plantable area is limited along public rights-of-way, there is still
considerable space for tree planting.
While measuring Possible UTC is an important first step, gauging the
degree to which residents support tree planting in their neighborhoods
(Preferable UTC) gives us a better indication of how successful invest-
ments in green infrastructure may prove in the long run. The interviews we
conducted in Madison-Eastend and Berea reveal mixed attitudes towards
trees. Fourteen of the 26 participants supported tree planting because of
perceived benefits such as shade and beauty. However, several of these
individuals expressed doubt that residents—especially those who rent—
would maintain trees planted in front of their homes, supporting the argu-
ment that tree care can sometimes place an unacceptable burden on the
shoulders of lower income residents (Landry and Chakraborty 2009). The
12 remaining participants opposed tree planting and discussed a variety
of negative perceptions, often in great detail, ranging from problems with
pests and allergies to concerns about gentrification and the management
of existing trees.
A serious issue that civic leaders in Baltimore must address is how to
handle residents’ negative perceptions of trees. The academic community
has clearly elucidated the many benefits provided by urban trees, and mu-
nicipal policy in Baltimore and elsewhere reflects this enhanced under-
standing of the benefits of urban forests. This perspective is not shared by
everyone, however, and the question of how to deal with it is a challeng-
ing one. Acknowledging residents’ negative perceptions is necessary in
146 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

order to move forward. Reminding residents of the many ways trees could
benefit them may sway their opinions. However, any type of educational
program in Madison-Eastend or Berea should be carefully formulated to
address neighborhood conditions and concerns. Clearly, focusing on prop-
erty value increases and attracting wildlife would deter some residents
from supporting tree planting. Highlighting energy savings and mitiga-
tion of the urban heat island effect is more likely to make a favorable
impression.
TreeBaltimore's challenge, then, is not simply to overcome the limita-
tions of Possible UTC, but to enlist the support of residents and address
their preferences and priorities. Two opportunities emerge from this study.
The first opportunity relates to the management of older trees. As residents
made clear in the interviews, there are deep-seated concerns regarding the
maintenance of existing trees, including the removal of dead, dying, and
hazardous trees. Finding a way to meet the needs of residents in this regard
may help to generate support for future tree planting efforts. The second
opportunity is related to citizen involvement in the decision-making pro-
cess. Exploring new and innovative ways to engage and empower commu-
nities like Madison- Eastend and Berea offers resource managers a chance
to both address negative attitudes toward urban trees and restore confi-
dence in city government. Thus, while planting trees in disadvantaged
neighborhoods like Madison-Eastend and Berea would help close the gap
with respect to tree cover equity, it is also clear that city officials and re-
source managers also consider the care and health of urban trees over the
long term and its effects on residents’ perceptions, values, and preferences.

REFERENCES

1. Akbari, H., and S. Konopacki. 2005. Calculating energy-saving potentials of heat-

island reduction strategies. Energy Policy 33(6):721-756.
2. Atkinson, R. 2003. Introduction: Misunderstood Saviour or Vengeful Wrecker? The
Many Meanings and Problems of Gentrification. Urban Studies 40(12):2343–2350.
3. Balram, S., and S. Dragicevic. 2005. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Inte-
grating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude
measurements. Landscape and Urban Planning 71:147-162.
4. Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance. 2012. http://www.bniajfi.org/vs/vi-
tal_signs/5. (accessed 5 January 2014).
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore 147

5. Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance. 2013. Vital Signs 11. http://www.

ubalt.edu/bnia/. (accessed 10 January 2014).
6. Battaglia, M. J. 2010. A Multi-Methods Approach to Determining Appropriate Lo-
cations for Tree Planting in Two of Baltimore’s Tree-Poor Neighborhoods. M.A.
Thesis. Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA.
7. Boone, C. G., M. Cadenasso, K. Schwartz, J. M. Grove, and G. L. Buckley. 2010.
Landscape, vegetation characteristics, and group identity in an urban and suburban
watershed: why the 60s matter. Urban Ecosystems 13(3):255-271.
8. Brownlow, A. 2006. Inherited fragmentations and narratives of environmental
control in entrepreneurial Philadelphia. In In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political
Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism, eds. N. Heynen, M. Kaika, and E.
Swyngedouw, 208-225. London: Routledge.
9. Buckley, G.L. 2010. America’s Conservation Impulse: A Century of Saving Trees
in the Old Line State. Chicago: Center for American Places and Columbia College.
10. Buckley, G.L., A.C. Whitmer, and J.M. Grove. 2013. Parks, Trees, and Environ-
mental Justice: Field Notes from Washington, DC. Applied Environmental Educa-
tion & Communication 12(3):148-162.
11. Bykowicz, J. 2010. Dixon Resigns. Baltimore Sun, 7 January.
12. Cumming, A.B., M.F. Galvin, R.J. Rabaglia, J.R. Cumming, and D.B. Twardus.
2001. Forest Health Monitoring Protocol Applied to Roadside Trees in Maryland.
Journal of Arboriculture 27(3):126-138.
13. Dales, R.E., S. Cakmak, S. Judek, and F. Coates. 2008. Tree pollen and hospitaliza-
tion for asthma in urban Canada. International Archives of Allergy and Immunology
146(3):241–247.
14. Danford, R.S., C. Cheng, M.W. Strohbach, R. Ryan, C. Nicolson, and P.S. Warren.
2014. What Does It Take to Achieve Equitable Urban Tree Canopy Distribution? A
Boston Case Study. Cities and the Environment 7(1): Article 2. http://digitalcom-
mons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7/iss1/2. (accessed 17 October 2014).
15. Dwyer, J.F., E.G. McPherson, H. Schroeder, and R.A. Rowntree. 1992. Assessing
the Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5):227-234.
16. Elmendorf, W.F., F.K. Willits, and V. Sasidharan. 2005. Urban park and forest par-
ticipation and landscape preference: A review of the relevant literature. Journal of
Arboriculture 31(6):311-316.
17. Fraser, E.D.J. and W.A. Kenney. 2000. Cultural background and landscape his-
tory as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture
26(2):106-113.
18. Galvin, M.F., J.M. Grove, and J.P.M. O’Neil-Dunne. 2006. A Report on Baltimore’s
Present and Potential Urban Tree Canopy. Scenario. http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/utc/
reports/UTC_Report_BACI_2007.pdf. (accessed 17 October 2014).
19. Getz, D., A. Karow, J. Kielbaso. 1982. Inner city preferences for trees and urban
forestry programs. Journal of Arboriculture 8(10):258-263.
20. Gobster, P.H. 2002. Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse cli-
entele. Leisure Sciences 24:143-159.
21. Gorman, J. 2004. Residents’ opinions on the value of street trees depending on tree
allocation. Journal of Arboriculture 30(1):36-43.
148 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

22. Grove, J.M., W.R. Burch, and S.T.A. Pickett. 2005. Social Mosaics and Urban Com-
munity Forestry in Baltimore, Maryland. Introduction: Rationale of Urban Com-
munity Forestry. Continuities from Rural to Urban Community Forestry. In Com-
munities and Forests: Where People Meet the Land, eds. R.G. Lee and D.R. Field,
248-273. Corvallis, OR : Oregon State University Press.
23. Grove, J.M., J. O'Neil-Dunne, K. Pelletier, D. Nowak, and J. Walton. 2006. A report
on New York City's present and possible urban tree canopy: Prepared for Fiona Watt,
Chief of the Division of Forestry and Horticulture. New York Department of Parks
and Recreation, USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, USA.
24. Heynen, N., H.A. Perkins, and P. Roy. 2006. The political ecology of uneven urban
green space: The impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing
environmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Affairs Review 42(1):3-25.
25. Kielbaso, J.J. 1990. Trends and issues in city forests. Journal of Arboriculture
16:69-73.
26. Kuo, F. and W. Sullivan. 2001. Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Veg-
etation Reduce Crime? Environment and Behavior 33:343-366.
27. Landry, S.M., and J. Chakraborty. 2009. Street trees and equity: evaluating the spa-
tial distribution of an urban amenity. Environment and Planning A 41:2651-2670.
28. Lewis, J.G., and R. Hendricks. 2006. A Brief History of African Americans and
Forests(Unpublished collaboration between the Forest History Society and the
USDA Forest Service).
29. Li, C., G. Chick, H. Zinn, J. Absher, and A. Graefe. 2007. Ethnicity as a variable in
leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research 39:514–545.
30. Locke, D.H., J.M. Grove, W.T. Lu, A. Troy, J.P.M. O’Neil-Dunne, and B. Beck.
2010. Prioritizing preferable locations for increasing urban tree canopy in New York
City. Cities and the Environment 3(1): article 4. http://escholarship.bc.edu/cate/vol3/
iss1/4. (accessed 17 October 2014)
31. Locke, D.H., J.M. Grove, M. Galvin, J.P.M. O’Neil-Dunne, and C. Murphy. 2013.
Applications of Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and Prioritization Tools: Support-
ing Collaborative Decision Making to Achieve Urban Sustainability Goals. Cities
and the Environment 6(1): article 7. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol6/iss7.
(accessed 17 October 2014)
32. Lohr, V.I., C.H. Pearson-Mims, J. Tarnai, and D.A. Dillman. 2004. How urban resi-
dents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal
of Arboriculture 30(1):28-34.
33. Lorenzo, A.B., C.A. Blanche, Y. Qi, and M.M. Guidry. 2000. Assessing residents’
willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: A small-city case study.
Journal of Arboriculture 26(6):319-324.
34. Lovasi, G.S., J.W. Quinn, K.M. Neckerman, M.S. Perzanowski, and A. Rundle.
2008. Children living in areas with more street trees have lower prevalence of
asthma. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62:647-649.
35. Lu, J.W.T., E.S. Svendsen, L.K. Campbell, J. Greenfield, J. Braden, K.L. King, and
N. Falxa-Raymond 2010. Biological, Social, and Urban Design Factors Affecting
Young Street Tree Mortality in New York City. Cities and the Environment 3(1): article
5. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=cate.
(accessed 17 October 2014)
Obstacles to Tree-Planting Programs in East Baltimore 149

36. McPherson, E.G., D. Nowak, G. Heisler, S. Grimmond, C. Souch, R. Grant, and R.

Rowntree. 1997. Quantifying urban forest structure, function and value: the Chicago
Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban Ecosystems 1:49–61.
37. Mitchell, R., and F. Popham. 2008. Effect of exposure to natural environment on
health inequalities: An observational population study. Lancet 372:1655-1660.
38. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Baltimore/Washington
International Airport Normals, Means, and Extremes. http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/
climate/bwi/NME.htm (accessed 12 December 2013).
39. Nowak, D.J. 1994. Urban forest structure: The state of Chicago’s urban forest. In
Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate
Project. General Technical Report No. NE-186, eds. E. G. McPherson, D. J. Nowak,
and R. A. Rowntree, 3-18. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment
Station.
40. Nowak, D.J., R.E. Hoehn III, D.E. Crane, J.C. Stevens, and J.T. Walton. 2007. As-
sessing urban forest effects and values, Washington, DC’s urban forest. Resource
Bulletin. NRS-1. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
41. O’Neil-Dunne, J.P.M. 2009. A Report on the City of Baltimore’s Existing and Pos-
sible Tree Canopy. Burlington, VT: The Spatial Analysis Lab at the University of
Vermont’s Rubenstein School of the Environment and Natural Resources.
42. Pataki, D.E., M.M. Carreiro, J. Cherrier, N.E. Grulke, V. Jennings, S. Pincetl, R.V.
Pouyat, T.H. Whitlow, and W.C. Zipperer. 2011. Coupling biogeochemical cycles in
urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Front
Ecol Environ 9(1):27–36.
43. Payton, S.B., G.H. Lindsey, J.R. Wilson, J.R. Ottensmann, and J.S. Man. 2008. Valu-
ing the benefits of the urban forest: a spatial hedonic approach. Journal of Environ-
mental Planning and Management 56(6):717-736.
44. Perkins, H., N. Heynen, and J. Wilson. 2004. Inequitable access to urban reforesta-
tion: the impact of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests.
Cities 21(4): 291-299.
45. Pincetl, S., and E. Gearin. 2005. The Reinvention of Public Green Space. Urban
Geography 26:365-384.
46. Raciti, S., M. F. Galvin, J. M. Grove, J. P. M. O'Neil-Dunne, A. Todd, and S. Clag-
ett. 2006. Urban tree canopy goal setting: A guide for Chesapeake Bay communi-
ties. Annapolis, MD: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern State and Private Forestry,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office. http://www.jmorgangrove.net/Morgan/UTCFOS_
files/UTC_Guide_Final_DRAFT.pdf. (accesed 17 December 2006).
47. Roman, L.A. 2013. Urban Tree Mortality. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley.
48. Sander, H., S. Polasky, and R.G. Haight. 2010. The value of urban tree cover: a
hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota counties, Minnesota, USA.
Ecological Economics 69(8):1646-1656.
49. Sklar, F. and Ames, R.G. 1985. Staying Alive: Street Tree Survival in the Inner City.
Journal of Urban Affairs 7:55-66.
50. Takano, T., K. Nakamura, and M. Watanabe. 2002. Urban residential environments
and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: The importance of walkable green
spaces. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56(12):913-918.
150 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

51. Talbot, F. and R. Kaplan. 1984. Needs and Fears: the response to trees and nature in
the inner city. Journal of Aboriculture 10(8): 222–228.
52. TreeBaltimore. 2007. Urban Forest Management Plan Draft. City of Baltimore.
http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/government/recnparks/downloads/TreeBalti-
more%20Urban%20Forest%20Management%20Plan.pdf. (accessed 10 July 2008).
53. Troy, A., J.M. Grove, and J. O’Neill-Dunne. 2012. The relationship between tree
canopy and crime rates across an urban-rural gradient in the greater Baltimore re-
gion. Landscape and Urban Planning 106:262–270.
54. United States Conference of Mayors. 2008. Protecting and Developing the Urban
Tree Canopy: A 135-City Survey. Prepared by City Policy Associates, Washington,
DC. http://www.usmayors.org/trees/treefinalreport2008.pdf.
55. Wolch, J.R., J. Byrne, J.P. Newell. 2014. Urban green space, public health, and en-
vironmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough.” Landscape
and Urban Planning 125:234–244.
56. Zhang, Y., A. Hussain, J. Deng, and N. Leston. 2007. Public Attitudes Toward
Urban Trees and Supporting Urban Tree Programs. Environment and Behavior
39(6):797-814.
57. Ziederman, A. 2006. Ruralizing the City: The Great Migration and Environmental
Rehabilitation in Baltimore, Maryland. Identities 13(2):209-235.
 PART III

MANAGING URBAN FORESTS

CHAPTER 6

A Protocol for Citizen Science

Monitoring of Recently-Planted
Urban Trees
JESSICA M. VOGT and BURNELL C. FISCHER

6.1 INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, efforts are beginning to converge to monitor the sur-
vival, growth, and longevity of planted urban trees. In a comprehensive
review of published single-tree inventory methodologies used in urban
forestry (including aerial and satellite methods as well as traditional
ground survey inventory methods), Nielsen et al. (2014) found that tradi-
tional “field survey,” or on-the-ground, inventory methods constituted the
vast majority of single-tree inventory studies (46 of 57 articles reviewed).
Several recent large-scale, single-city tree-monitoring efforts have used
field survey methods to measure the survival rates of urban trees. In the
summer of 2006, the Parks and Recreation Department of New York City
conducted a large-scale young street tree mortality study to examine the
many factors in the city influencing the survival of over 14,000 newly

© Vogt, Jessica M. and Fischer, Burnell C. (2014) "A Protocol for Citizen Science Monitoring of
Recently-Planted Urban Trees," Cities and the Environment (CATE): Vol. 7: Iss. 2, Article 4, http://
digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7/iss2/4. Used with the permission of the authors.
154 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

planted street trees (NYC Parks 2014). The site assessment tools used in
this study included factors measuring the surrounding social and physical
environment of each tree (NYC Parks et al. 2010). Other recent regional
monitoring efforts include Sacramento, California, where Roman moni-
tored the survival rates over 5 years of over 400 trees that were handed
out as part of a utility company tree distribution program (Roman 2013);
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where, most recently, Koeser et al. (2013) use 25
years of monitoring data for a cohort of nearly 800 trees to determine the
impacts of a variety of factors on tree survival rates; and New Haven, Con-
necticut, where Jack-Scott et al. (2013) evaluate the impact of community
and other characteristics on survival rates for almost 1,400 trees planted
between 1995 and 2007. To our knowledge, large-scale, multi-city planted
tree monitoring studies do not seem to exist.
Standards for monitoring tree survival and growth over time are impor-
tant for comparing the data obtained through different monitoring efforts
across multiple locations and years (Leibowitz 2012; Roman et al. 2013;
Nielsen et al. 2014). In 2011, the International Society of Arboriculture
and The Morton Arboretum convened an international meeting on the sub-
ject of urban tree growth and longevity (Leibowitz 2012). This meeting
organized four topic areas around descriptive studies of tree growth and
longevity, plus three categories of factors influencing urban tree outcomes:
tree production and sales, site design and tree selection, and tree and site
management (Liebowitz 2012). The Urban Tree Growth and Longevity
(UTGL) Working Group that emerged out of this meeting has undertaken
to develop of a set of standards for monitoring the survival and growth of
planted urban trees, as well as the factors that may influence survival and
growth (UTGL Working Group 2014a). The Urban Tree Monitoring Pro-
tocol, as these standards are called, considers the factors of the tree, site,
community, and management that may relate to tree survival and growth
(UTGL Working Group 2014b).
We present in this paper the Planted Tree Re-Inventory Protocol for cit-
izen science-based monitoring of recently-planted urban trees. Although
we are members of the UTGL Working Group and the Urban Tree Moni-
toring Protocol committees, the protocol presented here was originally
developed prior to the creation of the UTGL Working Group. Although
our protocol and the in-progress UTGL monitoring protocol are informed
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 155

by one another, our protocol is distinct in that it explicitly presents a data

collection methodology for use by non-experts (i.e., citizen scientists) to
measure trees in the urban landscape that have been planted relatively re-
cently (trees in the establishment1 and semi-mature phase).2
This paper proceeds as follows: First, we reflect on tree planting or-
ganizations and their desire and capacity for monitoring. Then we define
citizen science and review its use in urban forestry to date. Next, we dis-
cuss the measurement of urban tree outcomes (survival and growth) and
summarize the literature on factors influencing tree success and urban for-
est outcomes. Finally, we present an overview of the main categories of
variables included the protocol. The entire protocol is available on the
Bloomington Urban Forestry Research Group website (http://www.indi-
ana.edu/~cipec/research/bufrg_protocol) and as an appendix to this paper.

6.2 THE TREE-PLANTING ORGANIZATION CONTEXT

In 2010, our research group (the Bloomington Urban Forestry Research

Group [BUFRG] at the Center for the Study of Institutions, Population
and Environmental Change at Indiana University) was approached by the
nonprofit urban greening organization, Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc.
(KIB), who was curious about the survival and growth of their planted
trees. KIB works with neighborhoods and other groups to plant 1-2” (2-5
cm) caliper trees in the greater Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana,
area. They collect information about the location of each planted trees
using global positioning system (GPS) units, and combine this with in-
formation obtained from the nursery about the species, planting packag-
ing, and size (caliper, container size, etc.) of the trees they plant using a
custom, self-designed Microsoft Access-based data management system.
KIB lacked the resources to follow-up and monitor the survival, growth,
and condition of these planted trees over the trees’ early years (i.e., during
the establishment and semi-mature phases before the trees reached their
mature size). Their interest was twofold: First, KIB wanted to learn more
about the survival and growth of trees they plant, and about the factors
influencing the success of these trees. Second, and more importantly, KIB
156 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

was looking for a way to expand capacity to monitor their planted trees
into the future.
With KIB and other urban tree-planting organizations (including citi-
zen groups, municipalities, etc.)3 in mind, BUFRG embarked on the task
of designing a method for reinventorying recently-planted urban trees that
could be used by minimally-trained data collectors, ranging from high
school students to casual adult volunteers. That our methods for invento-
rying planted trees be usable by non-expert individuals with minimal to no
training in urban forestry or arboriculture—i.e., citizen scientists—was of
key importance to our research group and to our main stakeholder, KIB.
The resulting Planted Tree Re-Inventory Protocol enables citizen scien-
tists to collect information about planted tree success (survival, growth
and condition) as well as the factors that may influence tree success. Us-
ability by citizen scientists makes our Protocol unique from existing urban
forestry inventory protocols or standards.

6.3 CITIZEN SCIENCE

Citizen science, broadly defined, is the involvement of nonprofessional

and amateur scientists— the average citizen—in scientific research efforts
(Dickinson et al. 2012; Miller-Rushing et al. 2012; Shirk et al. 2012; Bon-
ney et al. 2014). Citizen scientists can be paid interns, temporary work-
ers or unpaid volunteers, and their efforts can augment data collection ef-
forts undertaken by trained researchers, and thus expand the production
of knowledge. Citizen science can involve a wide range of activities and
various relationships between scientists and the general public. Miller-
Rushing et al. (2012) describe three types of citizen science efforts, based
on the level of public participation in the research process:4 contributory
(public contributes to data collection efforts only), collaborative (involv-
ing the public in data collection and also some parts of data analysis and
results reporting), and co-created (public involved in all or most parts of
the research process, from generating research questions to analyzing and
reporting results).
True citizen science—like all science—involves a research ques-
tion. Most projects in urban forestry are versions of Miller-Rushing
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 157

et al.’s (2012) contributory citizen science that may or may not involve
the processing and analysis of data to answer a true research question.
These projects typically involve the public as members of urban forest
inventory teams or in other monitoring efforts that might otherwise
have been undertaken by urban forestry practitioners and certified ar-
borists. Practitioners undertake inventories for a number of manage-
ment purposes, including monitoring the success (survival and growth)
of a group of trees over time, generating information about survival
rates for use planning future tree planting efforts, providing informa-
tion about the maintenance needs of a tree population, and more. All
of these uses of inventory data center on the idea of adaptive manage-
ment. Adaptive management occurs when the strategies used by re-
source managers are almost viewed as experiments or means of testing
predictions about the relationships between management and a desired
outcome (Holling 1996). Nonprofits or municipal forester managers
that change the management strategies they use to plant or maintain
trees based on the observed conditions of the urban forest as seen in
urban tree inventory data are using adaptive management.
The use of volunteers to collect inventory data is not new in urban for-
estry. Tretheway et al. (1999) summarize the results of workshop on “Vol-
unteer-Based Urban Forest Inventory and Monitoring Programs” convened
by the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station in 1999.
Workshop participants identified three purposes for involving volunteers
(i.e., citizen scientists) in urban forestry: to “provide a direct connection”
between the community and the urban forest, to increase public awareness
of the benefits and value of the urban forest, and to enhance support for
urban forest “planning, management and stewardship” (Tretheway et al.
1999: p. 2). Cowett and Bassuk (2012) make the case for using univer-
sity students at land grant colleges to conduct inventories; their “Student
Weekend Arborist Teams” conducted more than 40 street tree inventories
in small communities across New York State. Bancks (2014) discussed a
University of Minnesota extension program that trains volunteers in com-
munities of all sizes in urban forest rapid inventory methods, with the
intent of assessing preparedness for emerald ash borer (see also http://
mytreesource.com; University of Minnesota et al. 2014). Clarke (2009)
describes the use of citizen science to track phenological trends in the
158 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

urban forest as part of a larger citizen science program, Project BudBurst,

managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
When research relies on citizen science for data collection, there can
be concerns with the quality of the data collected. Several authors raise
concerns about the accuracy of data collected by non-professionals (e.g.,
Dickenson et al. 2012; Roman et al. 2013). Bloniarz and Ryan (1996) eval-
uated the accuracy of inventory data collected by volunteers and found it
to have similar levels of accuracy and consistency as data collected by cer-
tified arborists. In a more recent similar study, Bancks (2014) also found
acceptable levels of accuracy for urban forest inventory data collected by
volunteers. Future citizen science data collection efforts should continue
to monitor the accuracy of data collected to ensure that it meets the quality
required for good research.
Citizen science has the potential to substantially expand our ability
to not only measure and monitor planted urban trees through time, but to
also learn more about the factors influencing tree outcomes. Forty-two
percent of practitioner-driven tree monitoring organizations surveyed
by Roman et al. (2013) already make use of volunteers. And many tree-
planting organizations already keep records with at least some information
about the trees they plant (Roman et al. 2013). Rigorous citizen science
tools that allow the public to record additional information about planted
urban trees could help enhance both the quantity and quality of data on
the urban forest available to tree planting organizations, tree managers,
researchers, and decision makers. For instance, PhillyTreeMap (http://
www.phillytreemap.org) is an urban tree mapping and monitoring project
involving collaboration between multiple stakeholders in the Philadelphia
area, including Azavea (a geographic information systems software and
analysis company), Pennsylvania Horticultural Society (a tree-planting
nonprofit organization), and the City of Philadelphia Parks and Recreation
department, among other partners (Urban Forest Map et al. 2014). The
PhillyTreeMap website and mobile applications allow individuals to en-
ter information about a tree, including species, diameter, and height, and
to view the amount of ecosystem services that tree and other trees in the
database provide.
The implementation of similar tree-monitoring projects across mul-
tiple cities and regions and the integration of data collection methods for
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 159

more information about each tree would enhance the appeal of volunteer-
generated datasets to researchers interested in answering explicit research
questions. More direct connections and collaborations between practitio-
ner-driven inventory efforts and researchers would truly launch urban for-
estry into the land of citizen science. New technologies for monitoring
may even allow urban tree monitoring to eventually rival “big data” citizen
science projects like Galaxy Zoo (http://www.galaxyzoo.org; Zooniverse
2014) and the Christmas Bird Count (http://birds.audubon.org/christmas-
bird-count; National Audubon Society 2014).

6.4 MEASURING URBAN TREE OUTCOMES

Whether as trained experts or citizen scientists, when we measure urban

forest outcomes at the level of the individual tree, there are two different
general approaches: place-based inventories and cohort studies. Place-
based inventories aim to capture information about a particular type of
trees in a given area (e.g., street trees on a major street, public trees in a
single neighborhood, all trees on a particular piece of property). Inven-
tories are the more common approach to measuring the urban forest, and
street tree inventories in particular have been the norm for capturing the
information necessary to calculate the benefits of the urban forest. Cohort
studies take a different approach: instead of measuring a particular type
of trees in a single area, these studies monitor a cohort—or group of trees
planted at the same time—through multiple years or at multiple future
points in time. Cohort studies may follow all the trees planted as part of
a neighborhood tree-planting project, annual tree-planting program by a
municipality or nonprofit, tree distribution program, or other event where
multiple trees were planted at the same time, and there is interest in track-
ing the outcomes of the planted trees over time. For cohort studies, we
usually know the actual date, season, or year of planting for each tree,
whereas for inventories the date of planting is likely unknown.
Whether tracking a single cohort of trees planted at the same time or
inventorying all the street trees in an entire city, we are measuring fea-
tures of each individual tree in the inventory. At the level of the individual
tree, urban forest outcomes can be operationalized several ways: we could
160 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

measure tree health, vigor, or condition; the amount or value of benefits

produced by a tree; tree size or growth rate; or, most simply, whether
or not a tree lives or dies. Here, we discuss tree survival (or conversely,
mortality) and tree growth rates, as two of the more common tree-level
outcomes.

6.4.1 URBAN TREE SURVIVAL (AND MORTALITY)

A common urban forest axiom is that the expected life of a street tree is
only 7 or 10 years, but Roman and Scatena (2011) acknowledge that it’s
unclear where this life expectancy estimate comes from, and provide a
more empirical estimate of 19 to 28 years. There are a number of types of
mortality for trees in urban areas. Clark and Matheny (1991) identify three
primary reasons that trees die in urban areas: structural failure, environ-
mental degradation, and parasitic attack. Different types of mortality may
be more closely linked to certain stages in a tree’s lifecycle, and so another
typology of mortality might be establishment-related mortality, damage-
related mortality, and age-related mortality. Establishment-related mor-
tality is connected to the tree’s failure to establish in the landscape after
transplanting, either due to inadequate care (i.e., not watered after plant-
ing), poor tree stock, or improper site selection (not the “right tree” in the
“right place”). Damage-related mortality is the death of a tree directly due
to damage by humans, either during construction of roads, buildings, or
other urban infrastructure that results in removal of the tree during or af-
ter the construction, or other damage (due to an automobile, lawnmower,
etc.) that necessitates the tree’s removal. Age-related mortality is the typi-
cal cause of death for non-urban trees; age-related death results from the
natural senescing process undergone by trees, through which first small
branches and then large branches and then the whole tree stop producing
new growth or green leaves every season. Age-related mortality is closely
connected to mortality caused by pests or diseases, which are more likely
to affect declining or already dying trees.
When calculating a mortality rate for a group of planted trees, unless
the cause of tree mortality or failure was recorded for each tree (i.e., as in
the case of trees in the International Tree Failure Database; ITFD 2014),
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 161

most of the time we cannot distinguish the types of mortality from one an-
other. Especially in cases where the tree has been removed, the only thing
monitors can know is that where there was once a tree, there is no longer
a tree. For this reason, defining “mortality rates” for a cohort of planted
trees or for an inventory becomes rather muddled. We cannot know, for
instance, what portion of the calculated mortality rate is due to the plant-
ing of poor nursery stock relative to what is due to activities undertaken
(or not) post-planting in the name of tree care. Long-term data on the same
trees at multiple points in time generated through citizen science-based
monitoring efforts can help fill this gap in our knowledge.

6.4.2 GROWTH

Urban tree growth is another measurable urban forest outcome. Large, ma-
ture trees provide many more benefits than small or immature trees; thus, the
faster a tree grows, the sooner it will yield a return on investment (Nowak et
al. 1990). Growth rates are measured a number of different ways in the ur-
ban forestry literature, including change in tree height (e.g., Stoffberg et al.
2008; Jutras et al. 2009), amount of new shoot growth at the ends of branches
(e.g., Solfjeld and Hansen 2004), change in diameter at breast height (e.g.,
Nowak, McBride & Beatty 1990; Jack-Scott et al. 2013), change in caliper
(diameter at 6 in [15 cm] above the first lateral root; e.g., Struve et al. 2000),
and the width of annual growth rings as obtained from tree cores (e.g., Iako-
voglou et al. 2001). Peper and McPherson (2003) evaluated several meth-
ods for measuring leaf area of urban trees that could be used to measure or
model canopy growth and change. There are relatively few studies of urban
tree growth—particularly longitudinal studies (Liebowitz 2012). And al-
though tree growth has been examined in nursery and experimental settings,
few researchers have examined urban tree growth in situ in actual cities.

6.5 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE URBAN TREE OUTCOMES

Tree survival (mortality) and growth is influenced by a large number of fac-

tors. Several existing organizing frameworks can be helpful in identifying
162 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

categories of variables that might influence urban tree outcomes. The

social-ecological system (SES) framework developed in rural natural re-
source management settings states that the characteristics of the resource
itself (for example, a forest), the resource system (the trees), the resource
users or actors (timber harvesters), and their governance system (rules
about when and how to cut trees) influence outcomes observed in coupled
human-natural systems (e.g., Ostrom 2009; Ostrom and Cox 2010). In
urban forestry, the Clark et al. (1997) “Model of Urban Forest Sustain-
ability” states that sustainable urban forest outcomes are predicated on “a
healthy tree and forest resource, community-wide support and a compre-
hensive management approach” (Clark et al. 1997, 17). Tree biologists
and plant physiologists also delineate categories of variables that influ-
ence plant growth. In Growth Control in Woody Plants, Kozlowski and
Pallardy (1997) review the numerous factors influencing tree and shrub
growth. These authors outline categories of physiological factors, environ-
mental factors, and “cultural practices,” and describe how each category
influences the reproductive (production of flowers and pollen, fertilization
and eventually fruiting) and vegetative (root and shoot) growth of woody
plants (Kozlowski and Pallardy 1997).
We combine these ideas into an interdisciplinary5 social-ecological
systems perspective of urban forest outcomes (Table 1, Figure 1). Adapted
from SES theory (Ostrom 2009) and the Clark et al. (1997) model, and in-
formed by tree physiology research (Kozlowski and Pallardy 1997), Table
1 presents urban forest outcomes as the product of interactions between
the components of the urban forest social-ecological system. Thus, urban
forest outcomes— including tree survival, growth, condition, etc.—are
influenced by the interactions between the characteristics of the tree it-
self, the biophysical environment, the community, and the institutions and
management strategies (Figure 1).6
The following section describes the current state of knowledge for
each of the four main categories of variables that influence tree outcomes.
This abbreviated literature review uses the three key sources from Table
1 (Clark et al. 1997; Kozlowski & Pallardy 1997; Ostrom 2009) as well
as other relevant literature from the fields of urban forestry/arboriculture,
urban ecology, natural resource management, coupled human-natural sys-
tems, and more.
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 163

Table 1. The urban forests as social-ecological systems perspective draws on several

organizing frameworks, including the Model of Urban Forest Sustainability (Clark
et al. 1997), the Social Ecological Systems (SES) Framework (first developed by
Ostrom [2009], but see also Ostrom & Cox [2010]), and Kozlowski and Pallardy’s
(1997) Growth Control in Woody Plants. *“Institutions” refers to the rules and shared
strategies (per Ostrom 2005) used by people to manage and maintain trees as well as
the surrounding biophysical environment in the urban forest. [Modified from http://
www.indiana.edu/~cipec/research/bufrg_about.php).

Social-Ecological Model of Urban Growth Control of Urban Forests as

Systems Framework Forest Sustain- Woody Plants Social-Ecological
ability Systems
Resource Units Vegetative Resource Physiology Trees
Resource System Environment Biophysical
Environment
Governance System Resource Cultural Practices Institutions &
Management Management
Resource Users or Actors Community -- Community
Framework

6.5.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TREE

The characteristics of the tree itself obviously impact its survival and
growth. Clark et al. (1997) use vegetation resource to refer to the trees in
the urban forest, listing canopy cover, age distribution, species mix, and
native vegetation as the key features of the urban forest that influence
its sustainability. Here, we focus on the characteristics of an individual
tree—including physiology—that influences its success. Kozlowski and
Pallardy (1997) discuss the following key physiological processes as they
relate to tree growth: production of carbohydrates via photosynthesis, min-
eral uptake and use, internal water relations and evapotranspiration, and
hormone regulation. Clark and Matheny (1991) note that a tree’s growth
rate depends significantly on the availability of resources (carbohydrates,
minerals, water, etc.) and that when resources become limiting growth
is reduced. Because these physiological processes that manage resources
164 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

FIGURE 1: The urban forests social-ecological systems perspective emphasizes

that the community interacts with trees and the biophysical environment through
institutions and management to produce outcomes in the urban forest.

are clearly connected to tree genetics, it should come as no surprise that

different species exhibit different survival and growth rates (e.g., Iako-
voglou et al. 2001; Grabosky and Gilman, 2004). For transplanted trees,
the physiological processes that impact tree establishment, survival, and
growth in the landscape are affected by characteristics of the tree at the
time of transplanting. The size of the tree at planting has been linked to
subsequent survival and growth (Lambert et al. 2010). Nursery production
method and the type of plant packaging can also impact transplanted tree
success (Gilman and Beeson 1996; Buckstrup and Bassuk 2000). Trees
planted too deeply or with excessive mulch covering the rootball exhibit
higher mortality rates than trees planted at the proper depth (Gilman and
Grabosky 2004). Tree condition and health are also linked to tree success.
Lower tree condition ratings are associated with decreased odds of tree
survival (Koeser et al. 2013) and lower growth rates (Berrang et al. 1985).
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 165

6.5.2 BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Factors in the surrounding biophysical environment also influence tree

outcomes. Environmental factors include variables that might be studied
by a plant ecologist, such as light availability and intensity, water rela-
tions (including drought and flood conditions), temperature, soil nutrient
content and physical structure (e.g., compaction), pollution, and other abi-
otic (e.g., wind, fire) and biotic (pests and diseases) factors (Kozlowski
and Pallardy 1997). The biophysical environment may have a particularly
strong effect on urban tree success, and street trees in particular experi-
ence stressful growing conditions. The most influential environmental fac-
tors are significantly different for trees in urban areas compared to rural,
more natural growing environments. Urbanization increases impervious
surfaces, buildings, and other built or grey infrastructure, resulting in radi-
cal changes in the water, temperature, and other abiotic conditions across
the urbanized landscape (Arnold and Gibbons 1996; US EPA 2008). Water
stress is commonly cited as a limiting factor for urban tree growth (Kramer
1987; Krizek and Dubik 1987; Graves et al. 1991), particularly in arid
regions (Costello 2013; Symes and Connellan 2013). High air tempera-
tures can disrupt tree phenology and reproductive growth, and higher soil
temperatures can change seasonal root growth patterns (Kozlowski and
Pallardy 1997). Because water availability, temperature, and other charac-
teristics of the biophysical environment vary throughout the year for most
locales, the season of planting may also impact tree outcomes (Anella et
al. 2008; Solfjeld and Hansen 2004). Additionally, several authors have
found that smaller available rooting volume leads to constrained root,
trunk, and shoot growth (Krizek and Dubik 1987; Grabosky and Gilman
2004; Day et al. 2010). Competition with other trees for space, nutrients,
light, water and more can also limit tree growth and survival (Nowak et
al. 1990; Rhoades and Stipes 1999; Iakovoglou et al. 2001). Compound-
ing space constraints are the generally poor soil conditions in urban areas
(Scharenbroch et al. 2005; Smith et al. 2001).
The urban forest axiom right tree, right time, right place is often on
the minds of tree planters, and even sometimes a piece of urban forest
policies, plans, or ordinances. Several efforts are currently underway to
166 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

develop a more empirical foundation to the linkages between tree out-

comes and site and soil characteristics, including work led by Bryant
Scharenbroch at the The Morton Arboretum (MASS Laboratory 2014).
Our protocol includes measurement of variables that are proxies or in-
dicators for available growing space above and below ground and the
quality of the site.

6.5.3 INSTITUTIONS AND MANAGEMENT

Tree success is also impacted by the institutions—i.e., management

strategies and maintenance practices—that arborists, urban foresters and
other members of the community use to care for urban trees. Kozlowski
and Pallardy (1997) refer to these activities as cultural practices that
influence tree growth, and their list includes typical tree maintenance
activities such as pruning and watering, use of fertilizers, growth regu-
lators, or other chemicals, spacing of trees (both initial arrangement of
planted trees and thinning of existing forest stands), and, even protection
from freezing. The Clark et al. (1997) resource management component
includes mostly variables representing administrative or organizational
features of city government as these might relate to adequacy of re-
sources for urban tree management: city-wide management plan, fund-
ing, staffing, assessment tools, protection of existing trees, species and
site selection, standards for tree care, citizen safety, and recycling. The
SES framework (e.g., Ostrom 2009) uses the term institutions to refer
to the formal and informal rules and shared strategies that structure the
interactions among individuals and groups of people and between people
and their environment (Ostrom 2005).
Much of the research on institutions emerges from studies on com-
mon pool resource (CPR) management conducted in the disciplines
of political science, economics, and anthropology (e.g., Ostrom 1990,
2005). Theory on CPR management states that several principles are
likely to be linked to persistent or sustainable systems, including effec-
tive monitoring, appropriate sanctioning of rule-breakers, rules allowing
individuals impacted by the resource and rules to change those rules, and
strategies for effective conflict resolution (Cox et al. 2010). Institutions
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 167

as rules have only been cursorily examined in urban ecosystems, and not
at all for urban forest outcomes (Mincey et al. 2012). Larson et al. (2008)
describe rules of homeowners’ associations that limited the appearance
and management strategies used for residential vegetation, including
pest and water management methods and species composition. Mincey
and Vogt (2014) find that watering strategy used by the neighborhood
impacts tree survival rates.
Tree maintenance strategies can be characterized by the type of main-
tenance (e.g., pruning, watering), intensity (how much maintenance is
performed, i.e., training pruning, 15 gallons of water), frequency (how
often the activity is performed, e.g., annually, once per every week it does
not rain), duration (how long the activity is performed, e.g., for the first 5
years after transplanting), and extent (which trees or what part of each tree
is maintained, e.g., pruning up lower branches, watering all trees in the
State St. right-of-way) (Vogt, Hauer, and Fischer in review). Maintenance
type, intensity, frequency, duration, and extent all influence tree and urban
forest outcomes; the impact of watering (Gilman 2001, 2004), pruning
(Whitcomb 1979; Miller and Sylvester 1981; Evans and Klett 1985), and
mulching (Gilman and Grabosky 2004) varies depending on the particu-
lars of the maintenance strategy.
Maintenance strategies or institutions or rules about tree care may not
always be visible on the tree itself or in the area nearby. Our Protocol in-
cludes a few key maintenance practices— pruning, mulching, staking—of
which evidence can be seen on the tree itself.

6.5.4 COMMUNITY

Because urban trees are surrounded by people, the characteristics of the

community of people living in and around the urban forest influence
tree outcomes. For instance, Boyce (2010) observed that the designa-
tion of volunteer tree stewards in the community dramatically reduced
urban tree mortality rates. The components of community framework
included in the Clark et al (1997) model are public agency cooperation,
involvement of large private and institutional landholders, green in-
dustry cooperation, neighborhood action, citizen-government-business
168 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

interaction, general awareness of trees as a community resource, and

regional cooperation.7
Most of the empirical evidence for the influence of community char-
acteristics on environmental outcomes emerges from the research that
informed development of the SES framework. Because of its empha-
sis on rural natural resource management, the SES framework uses the
terms “resource users” or “actors” to describe the community of people
that manage and use a resource (Ostrom 2009; Ostrom and Cox 2010;
Epstein et al. 2013). Features of the community that impact resource
management outcomes according to the SES framework include com-
munity size (population or number of people involved), history using or
managing the system (i.e., experience), demographic or socioeconomic
characteristics, individual knowledge (of the resource system), norms
(individual perceptions of socially-acceptable practices), and the loca-
tion of the community (Ostrom 2009; Ostrom and Cox 2010; Epstein et
al. 2013).
Some of the resource user or actor characteristics listed above have
been examined for urban forest social-ecological systems. Iakovoglou
et al. (2002) find no significant difference in growth rates between dif-
ferent-sized communities. Jack-Scott et al. (2013) found that a greater
number of participants in tree planting events during a year is associated
with higher survival and growth rates. Land use type is a factor partially
indicative of the features of the biophysical environment but perhaps
more closely captures community characteristics. Several authors have
found an effect from adjacent or surrounding land use type on tree suc-
cess (Nowak et al. 1990; Lu et al. 2011). A few studies have found that
demographic characteristics (i.e., variables from the U.S. Census) are
related to tree outcomes (Nowak et al. 1990; Grove et al. 2006). Lastly,
studies from the field of urban ecology have observed that norms or in-
dividual motivations impact landscape outcomes (Austin 2002; Grove et
al. 2006; Nassauer et al. 2009).
Like institutions, characteristics of the community of people are dif-
ficult to observe during on-the-ground inventory. Our Protocol adapts sev-
eral of the stewardship factors collected by the New York Young Street
Tree Mortality Study (NYC Parks et al. 2010) as indicators of a care ethic
in the community surrounding the tree.
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 169

6.5.5 INTERACTIONS AND ENDOGENEITY

Complex coupled human-natural systems are inherently filled with endo-

geneity, or simultaneous interactions between variables that complicate
and sometimes obscures our understandings of the causal impact of vari-
ables on observed outcomes (Liu et al. 2007; Schlüter et al. 2014). The
urban forest social-ecological system is no exception: interactions within
and between tree, biophysical environment, community, and institutional
factors can influence urban forest outcomes as much as the influence of a
single factor. For instance, proper, proactive maintenance strategies may
actually mitigate the impact of sub-optimal growing conditions. Addition-
ally, alignment between rules, the characteristics of the community and
local conditions has been demonstrated to impact common-pool resource
outcomes (Cox et al. 2010). And characteristics of the community such as
individual preferences and knowledge may impact choice of management
strategies. A study of residential yards in Minnesota found that homeown-
ers’ application of water, fertilizers, and weed killers, as well as other yard
management techniques was strongly influenced by resident knowledge
and perception of the yard as a relatively closed system (Dahmus and Nel-
son 2013). Additionally, Vogt et al. (in review) observed an interaction
between watering strategy and planting season.

6.6 THE PLANTED TREE RE-INVENTORY PROTOCOL

In light of these four main categories of variables that influence urban

forest outcomes, we present here the Planted Tree Re-Inventory Pro-
tocol (see the Appendix of this paper for Version 1.1; refined from an
earlier version of the protocol: Vogt et al. 2013). The protocol describes
standardized methods that can be used by non-professional inventory
personnel to gather data necessary to evaluate the survival and growth
of recently-planted8 urban trees, as well as the many factors influencing
survival and growth.
Selection of variables to include in the protocol was informed by the lit-
erature review summarized above as well as existing urban tree inventory
170 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

methods, including the i-Tree Eco field methods (i-Tree version 4.0 of the
user’s manual was consulted for this work), the Standards for Urban For-
estry Data Collection (IUFRO et al. 2010), and the methods of New York
City’s Young Street Tree Mortality Study (NYC Parks et al. 2010; results
summarized by Lu et al. 2010). Individual variables and values of each
variable were debated by members of the Bloomington Urban Forestry
Research Group (BUFRG) over the course of a 6-month period following
the review of literature and inventory methods. Table 2 lists each of the
variables in the final protocol and, if applicable, the original source for
their methods. We adapted and modified variables from other inventory
methods to make sure that each variable could be successfully assessed
by minimally-trained data collectors. To this end, many variables in the
protocol require only simple, qualitative, visual assessments of the tree
and its environment, and not precise measurements. For instance, a simple
presence or absence assessment method, where the data collector only has
to determine whether or not a particular feature is present or absent on the
tree or nearby surrounding environment, is used for many variables. Vari-
ables that do ask for more precise quantification (e.g., measurements of
diameter, height, or distance) require use of only two or three simple tools:
a diameter tape and a digital range finder (hypsometer) or clinometer and
measuring tape.
The protocol was tested by several different parties (Table 3). A
preliminary list of variables was tested by members of BUFRG in the
summer of 2011. Since the final users of the protocol were to be mini-
mally-trained, non-professional data collectors, high school members of
KIB’s Youth Tree Team (YTT) tested the protocol during the summer of
2012; YTT used a version of the protocol adapted for use on ESRI’s Arc-
GIS iPhone mobile application to collect data for more than 700 recently-
planted street trees. YTT data collection team members were trained in
data collection methods during two 6-hour training days, and overseen
by a collegeaged YTT Leader who had participated in approximately 15
additional hours of data collection activities with members of BUFRG
during Protocol development. The YTT training procedures described
above are similar to those used in studies that have found high accuracy
for volunteercollected data (Bloniarz and Ryan 1996; Bancks 2014). The
protocol was also tested on slightly more mature trees planted between
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 171

2000 and 2011 on City of Bloomington right-of-ways; IU master’s stu-

dents collected data on over 1,000 street trees using paper-and-pencil in
the summer of 2012.
In addition to collection and evaluation of tree data using the pro-
tocol, testing also consisted of written daily field notes taken by YTT
members (Vogt et al. 2012) as well as extensive informal discussion
between members of the YTT team engaging in data collection and the
researchers. For instance, the original protocol called for collecting
presence or absence information on several different leaf conditions
(evidence of insects, rust, chlorosis, and other leaf condition notes);
however, based on written field notes from YTT members, we reduced
leaf condition variables to just one: chlorosis. We also clarified that to
be considered “present,” chlorosis must be evident on at least 25% of
the leaf surface area of the tree, and provided pictures and sketches
of chlorosis to help with identification and estimation. Written field
notes feedback also encouraged us to clarify instructions provided for
locating each tree. Additionally, at the end of the data collection sea-
son YTT members narrated their thinking while collecting data into an
audio recorder. This recording was used to verify that data collection
methods had not changed between the beginning and end of the sum-
mer, and slight modifications were made to variable descriptions and
instructions in the protocol based on decisions and strategies that data
collectors were using in the field. (For example, narration revealed that
data collectors were marking “incorrect mulching” for trees with very
old, degraded mulch, where only few bark chips were still visible. The
definitions of correct, incorrect, and no mulching in the protocol were
updated to clarify that this case would actually better be classified as
“no mulch,” given the biophysical implications of capturing informa-
tion about correct versus incorrect mulching.)
Version 1.1 is presented here. In the remainder of this paper, we briefly
describe the variables included in the protocol. The entire protocol (in
PDF form) is available as a supplementary online appendix to this arti-
cle, as well as on the BUFRG website (http://www.indiana.edu/~cipec/
research/bufrg_protocol.php) in both greyscale and color versions, along
with a quick reference guide for the field and customizable and printable
data collection sheets.
172 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

6.6.1 TREE CHARACTERISTICS

Biophysical variables (tree characteristics and local environmental variables)

compose the majority of the variables in most tree inventory protocols, includ-
ing this one, for a couple reasons: first, factors about the tree and immediate
surroundings are most easily observed by data collectors. Second, most tree
inventory methods used by urban foresters and arborists are informed by for-
est mensuration methods used in traditional forestry. Third, as noted above,
most research on urban tree survival and growth has emerged from the fields
of horticulture and arboriculture, and these fields are strongest in their assess-
ment of the impact of tree and environmental factors on growth.

6.6.1.1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

The most critical information collected in any inventory protocol is basic

identifying information about the tree. This includes a tree identification
number, some sort of location information, and species. An identification
number is a unique value for each tree in the inventory, useful for tracking
the same tree over time through multiple inventory years. Location infor-
mation should include enough information so that the physical location of
the tree in space can be found. Location may be an address number and
street name of the property adjacent to the tree, geographic coordinates
(I.e., GPS latitude and longitude), distance and direction of the tree from
the nearest street intersection, or any other way to precisely locate the tree.
Species is the biological name for the type of tree that was planted. Spe-
cies can be detailed, and include the cultivar or variety (e.g., autumn blaze
maple, Acer x freemanii ‘Jeffersred’), or could be limited to just the genus
(e.g., Acer spp.) of the tree planted, depending on the level of detail de-
sired for the inventory and the tree identification skills of data collectors.

6.6.1.2 SIZE

In order to measure growth of trees over time, we need information about

trees’ size. Size information included in the protocol is diameter at breast
 Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 173

Table 2. Original sources for variables included in the Planted Tree Re-Inventory
Protocol. Complete citations in Literature Cited.

VARIABLE NAME ADAPTED/MODIFIED FROM

(if applicable)
Tree characteristics
Identifying information
V1 Tree ID
V2 Location
V3
Size
V4 DBH IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 2-3
V5 Caliper
V6 Total height IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 3
V7 Height to crown IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 3-4
Canopy
V8 Crown dieback IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 8
V9 Crown exposure IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 4-5
V10 Chlorosis
Trunk
V11 Root flare IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 23
V12 Lower trunk damage
Overall condition
V13 Other damage
V14 Overall tree condition Fischer et al. 2007: appendix
Local environment
Near tree
V15 Utility interference IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 9
V16 Building interference IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 9
V17 Fences interference IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 9
V18 Sign interference IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 9
V19 Lighting interference IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 9
V20 Pedestrian traffic interference IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 9
V21 Road traffic interference IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 9
V22 Ground cover at base IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 14
V23 Ground cover under canopy IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 14
 174 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 2. Continued.

Planting area
V24 Planting area type
V25 Planting area relative to road
V26 Planting area width IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 15-16
V27 Planting area length
V28 Curb presence NYC Parks and Recreation et al. 2010: p. 20
Proximity to other things
V29 Number of trees in 10-m radius Iakovoglou et al. 2001: p. 75
V30 Number of trees in 20-m radius Iakovoglou et al. 2001: p. 75
V31 Number of trees in same planting area
V32 Distance to road IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 16
V33 Distance to building IUFRO et al. 2010: p. 9
Management
Maintenance
V34 Pruning NYC Parks and Recreation et al. 2010: p. 22
V35 Mulching
V36 Staking
Community
Evidence of care
V37 Water bag NYC Parks and Recreation et al. 2010: p. 22
V38 Bench NYC Parks and Recreation et al. 2010: p. 22
V39 Bird feeder NYC Parks and Recreation et al. 2010: p. 22
V40 Yard art NYC Parks and Recreation et al. 2010: p. 22
V41 Trash/debris NYC Parks and Recreation et al. 2010: p. 22

height, caliper, total height, and height to crown. Diameter at breast height
(DBH, or diameter measured at 4.5 ft or 1.3 m off the ground) is one of the
most commonly used metrics of size for trees in rural or urban areas. The
change in DBH over time is one way to calculate tree growth, and DBH
can also be used to calculate the total benefits provided by the tree (e.g.,
carbon storage). Caliper, or tree diameter 6 inches (15 cm) from the first
lateral root, can also be used to calculate tree growth. This is a particularly
convenient measure for recently-planted trees, because trees are often sold
from the nursery by caliper size; comparing current caliper with that from
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 175

Table 3. Protocol testing sites, trees, and data collectors. *Living trees indicates that
only trees remaining at the time of re-inventory were assessed using the Protocol.
Planted trees indicates that all trees planted were assessed (i.e., for trees removed
since planting, the Overall tree condition was assessed as “Missing” and only select
biophysical environment variables were collected).

Site Number Tree Trees planted by Data collectors Data

of trees* planting collection
years dates
Indianapolis 120 2006- Volunteers of Keep IU BUFRG June-Sept
living trees 2007 Indianapolis Beautiful researchers 2011
Bloomington 1,097 2000- City of Bloomington IU Master’s of May 2012
planted 2011 Parks and Recreation Science in Environ-
trees Division of Urban mental Science
Forestry students
Indianapolis 714 planted 2006- Volunteers of Keep High-school aged June-July
trees 2009 Indianapolis Beautiful Keep Indianapolis 2012
Beautiful’s Youth
Tree Team (YTT)
members led by a
collegeage YTT
leader

the tree at the time of planting is another means of calculating tree growth.
Total tree height and height to crown provide a metric of above ground
size, and can be combined to provide a simple proxy for crown or canopy
volume and potential for photosynthesis and growth.

6.6.1.3 CANOPY

Tree health and condition includes information about the canopy, trunk,
and entire tree. Information about the condition of the canopy (or leafy
top of the tree, also called the crown) is important for assessing the health
of the tree. Canopy information included in the protocol is crown dieback
rating, crown exposure rating, and presence of chlorosis. Crown dieback
and exposure are qualitative visual assessments, recorded on simple point
rating scales, using methods modified from the Urban Forestry Data Stan-
dards (IUFRO et al. 2010). Crown dieback is a qualitative assessment
of the percent of dead branches in the canopy relative to the total living
176 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

crown, assessed on a 0-6 scale. Crown exposure is a rating of how much

of the tree’s canopy is exposed to sunlight, based on how many sides of
the canopy are shaded by buildings or other trees, assessed on a 0-5 scale.
Chlorosis is a presence or absence metric, where “presence” implies that
leaf chlorosis is evident on at least 25% of the leaf surface area of the
entire tree.

6.6.1.4 TRUNK

Trunk condition metrics are equally as important as canopy condition in

assessing overall health of the tree. Trunk condition is related to the health
of its vascular tissue and the ability of a tree to successfully transfer nu-
trients and water between the root system and canopy. Trunk information
included in the protocol is presence of a root flare and presence of lower
trunk damage. A root flare, or gradual taper of the trunk of a tree as it
enters the ground, may be indicative of how deeply the tree was planted.9
The roots of trees planted too deeply may lack sufficient access to oxygen,
may be more at risk of water stress (e.g., Gilman 2004) or may be prone
to root girdling of the tree. Trees exhibiting lower trunk damage—such as
that caused by a lawn mower, weed-whacker, or even animals—may be
at greater risk of infection by fungus or disease. Repeated damage over
time and on all sides of the lower trunk, such as from a lawn mower, may
even girdle the tree, severing the vascular tissue and preventing water and
nutrient transfer.

6.6.1.5 TREE CONDITION

Presence of any other damage and determining an overall tree condition

rating are the final assessments of tree-level variables, made after both
canopy and trunk condition as well as all other aspects of the individual
tree have been examined. Other damage to the tree that may impact its
health, condition, survival or growth include: broken branches, branches
stripped of leaves or bark, damage to the upper trunk of the tree, a wire or
other item choking or girdling the tree, etc. Overall tree condition takes
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 177

into account the condition of the trunk and canopy. A deciduous tree in
good health and condition exhibits a full canopy of dark green leaves that
are not undersized for the current season, and a growth form appropriate
for its species, without dead branches or excessive water sprouts growing
out of the base or main trunk of the tree. Conifers in good health have full
boughs with dark green needles. Tree condition ratings should consider a
tree from all angles and from top to bottom. The protocol condition rat-
ings range from good to dead and include categories for stumps, sprouts,
or absent trees.

6.6.2 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

6.6.2.1 NEAR TREE ENVIRONMENT

In the local environment immediately around the tree, we can assess the
quality and quantity of growing space by assessing interference with in-
frastructure (utility, building, fences, sign, lighting, pedestrian traffic, and
road traffic) and type of ground cover (at the base of the tree, and under the
canopy). Interference with infrastructure is assessed according to whether
or not the tree is in conflict with aboveground utility wires or poles, build-
ings, fences, signs, or lighting at the time of re-inventory. Interference
with traffic refers to the presence of branches more than ½ inch (1 cm) in
diameter at or below 8 ft (2.4 m) above a pedestrian walkway or sidewalk
for pedestrian traffic, or, for road traffic interference, at or below 14 ft (4.3
m) above an active lane of traffic (i.e., not a parking lane). Trees that are
located in close enough proximity to infrastructure so as to conflict with it
may compete with this infrastructure for aboveground growing space, or
may require more frequent pruning to limit conflicts between branches and
the built environment. The type of ground cover around the tree is a quali-
tative assessment of the type of cover (e.g., bare soil, mulch, grass, etc.) at
the base of as well as under the canopy of the tree. Ground cover reflects
the surface conditions of the belowground growing environment, includ-
ing potential competition with other plants for water and nutrients, the
permeability of the area to infiltration of water, or even the likelihood of
surface soil disturbing activities (such as digging in an annual flowerbed).
178 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

6.6.2.2 PLANTING AREA CHARACTERISTICS

The quality and quantity of growing space is also related to the planting
area type, its position relative to the road, its length and width, and the
presence of a curb at the edge of the planting area. Planting area type refers
to the type of physical space in which the tree as planted; types of planting
areas include a tree lawn, median, shoulder, tree grate, tree pit, bumpout,
front yard, side yard, or other open area. Sketches of each type of planting
area are provided in the protocol. The size of the planting area as measured
by its surface area (length and width) is a proxy for available rooting space
below ground. In addition to the type and size, the position of the plant-
ing area relative to the road (i.e., above, even, or below the surface of the
road) as well as whether or not the planting area has a curb may impact the
quantity and quality of any runoff into the tree planting area.

6.6.2.3 PROXIMITY TO OTHER THINGS

Other living and nonliving things in the larger growing area of the tree can
also impact tree success. The protocol considers the number of trees in a
10-meter (33-ft) radius, a 20-meter (67-ft) radius, and the same planting
area, as well as the distance to the nearest road and building. The number
of other trees near the sample tree influence the amount of competition a
tree experiences, both above and below ground, for light, nutrients, water,
and growing space. The distance to the nearest road can tell us about po-
tential exposure to factors that may influence a tree’s health, condition or
growing potential, including the potential for automobile injury or road
spray contaminated by fuels, salts and other particles. The distance to the
nearest building can tell us about the potential exposure to radiant building
or for shading by the building.

6.6.3 MANAGEMENT VARIABLES

Most management and maintenance cannot be captured using on-the-

ground tree inventory methods, but might be better captured through
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 179

surveys or interviews of the individuals or groups responsible for the trees.

However, some maintenance is visible when looking at the tree during
an on-the-ground inventory. The protocol includes variables that consider
evidence of pruning, mulching, and staking on the tree, as well as whether
the maintenance activity appears to have been performed correctly or in-
correctly. For instance, correct pruning cuts should be a smooth, flat cut,
made just outside the branch collar for a branch off the main trunk of the
tree, or just after the branching for secondary branches in the crown. The
protocol includes sketches with examples of correct and incorrect prun-
ing and mulching, and complete text descriptions for correct and incorrect
pruning, mulching, and staking.

6.6.4 COMMUNITY VARIABLES

The last suite of variables included in the protocol considers the surround-
ing community as it is manifested in evidence of care around the tree. The
protocol includes four indicators of positive norms of care—presence or
absence of a water bag, bench, bird feeder, or yard art (adapted from the
list considered by the New York City Young Street Tree Mortality study
[NYC Parks et al. 2010])—and one indicator of a lack of care—presence
of trash or debris.

6.7 CONCLUSION

Data collected via the protocol has many uses, depending on the end user.
Tree planting organizations might use the data to help plan the locations
and management of future tree planting efforts. Municipal urban foresters
might use data on cohort survival rates to help determine an annual budget
for planting new trees. Researchers might use data to better understand
the myriad factors that influence urban tree outcomes and to create better
models of tree growth and survival over time and to improve estimates of
the benefits of the urban forest.
As urban areas continue to develop and redevelop, to expand and infill,
the number of non-planted (i.e., remnant) trees in cities will continue to
180 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

decrease, as relatively natural areas are replaced by designed landscapes

of buildings, roads, planted trees, and other infrastructure (both green and
grey). While cities and developers often maintain complete and detailed
plans of buildings and roads, detailed records of planted trees rarely ex-
ist. However, trees are an integral part of urban infrastructure. In order to
ensure they continue providing benefits to urban residents, we should keep
track of the location, survival and growth of the trees we plant so that they
can be efficiently managed and maintained throughout their lifetimes, and
then removed and replaced after they die. With better data about planted
urban trees, we can more efficiently allocate limited resources for manag-
ing and maintaining the urban forest.
The protocol methods presented in this paper can serve as a beginning
of a conversation between researchers, urban forestry practitioners, and
the public about the measurement of the factors that influence the success
of recently-planted urban trees. The protocol will continue to be used and
tested by various groups, and accuracy assessments of data collected by
citizen scientists should be conducted. We expect to continue to publish
new and updated versions of the protocol on the BUFRG website.

FOOTNOTES

1. The establishment phase is typically, 2 or 3 years for trees 3-5 cm (1-2”) in caliper at
planting.
2. Therefore, we do not include metrics commonly included in urban forest inven-
tory methods, such as maintenance requirement variables or hazard/risk assessment
methods, that may be both difficult for the non-expert to assess as well as not ap-
plicable to most immature trees.
3. KIB is not alone in their interest in tools for monitoring planted trees. In a survey
of 32 practitioner organizations already engaged in monitoring efforts, Roman et al.
(2013) observed a desire for simple protocols over those that are “complicated and
academic” (p. 296). In the same survey, practitioners cited challenges associated
with monitoring, including a lack of staff time and dedicated funding, finding and
using technology resources, and developing or choosing appropriate protocols (Ro-
man et al. 2013).
4. Shirk et al. (2012) define similar types of citizen science, and their classification
also includes contractual projects (communities ask professionals to investigate a
particular question) and collegial projects (non-professional individuals conduct
largely independent research which may or may not be recognized by typical scien-
tific authorities.
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 181

5. The integration of multiple disciplines into an approach based on the SES frame-
work has been advocated by several authors, including recently Epstein et al. (2013)
and Schlüter et al. (2014).
6. A modified version of the urban forests as social-ecological systems perspective is
presented in Vogt et al. (in review) and on the BUFRG webpage: http://www.indi-
ana.edu/~cipec/research/bufrg_about.php).
7. However, few of these components have been empirically evaluated to determine
their impact on urban forest outcomes (but see Kenney et al. 2011).
8. Re-inventorying trees during the establishment and semi-mature phases between
approximately 2 and 10 years after planting means that data collection could be
combined with any remaining young tree maintenance (mulching, stake removal,
training pruning, etc.).
9. This variable was collected at the suggestion of employees of Keep Indianapolis
Beautiful, Inc., who teach volunteers to plant trees at the correct depth by maintain-
ing the root flare.

REFERENCES

1. Anella, L., Hennessey, T. C., and Lorenzi, E. M. (2008). Growth of balled-and-

burlapped versus bare-root Trees in Oklahoma , U.S. Arboriculture & Urban For-
estry, 34(3), 200–203.
2. Arnold, C. L., & Gibbons, C. J. (1996). Impervious surface coverage: The emer-
gence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Asso-
ciation, 62(2), 243–258. doi:10.1080/01944369608975688
3. Austin, M. E. (2002). Partnership opportunities in neighborhood tree planting ini-
tiatives: Building from local knowledge. Journal of Arboriculture, 28(4), 178–186.
4. Bancks, N. (2014). Count us in! Accuracy of volunteers in inventory (survey) data
collection. 2014 Minnesota Shade Tree Short Course, 18-19 March 2014, St. Paul,
MN.
5. Berrang, P., Karnosky, D. F., and Stanton, B. J. (1985). Environmental factors
affecting tree health in New York City. Journal of Arboriculture, 11(6), 185–189.
6. Bloniarz, D. V, & Ryan, H. D. P. (1996). The use of volunteer initiatives in con-
ducting urban forest resource inventories. Journal of Arboriculture, 22(2), 75–82.
7. Bonney, R., Shirk, J. L., Phillips, T. B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H. L., Miller-Rush-
ing, A. J., and Parrish, J. K. (2014). Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343,
1436–1437.
8. Boyce, S. (2010). It Takes a Stewardship Village: Effect of Volunteer Tree Stew-
ardship on Urban Street Tree Mortality Rates, Cities and the Environment, 3(1),
1–8.
9. Buckstrup, M. J., and Bassuk, N. L. (2000). Transplanting success of balled-and-
burlapped versus bare-root trees in the urban landscape. Journal of Arboriculture,
26(6), 298–308.
10. Clark, J. R., and Matheny, N. (1991). Management of mature trees. Journal of Arbo-
riculture, 17(7), 173–184. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(92)90962-M
182 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

11. Clark, J. R., Matheny, N. P., Cross, G., and Wake, V. (1997). A model of urban forest
sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture, 23(1), 17–30.
12. Clarke, K. C. (2009). A citizen science campaign encouraging urban forest profes-
sionals to engage the public in the collection of tree phenological data. American
Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 5-9 December 2014, San Francisco, CA.
13. Costello, L. (2013). Urban trees and water: An overview of studies on irrigation
needs in the Western United States and a discussion regarding future research. Arbo-
riculture & Urban Forestry, 39(3), 132–135.
14. Cowett, F. D., Associate, P., and Bassuk, N. L. (2012). SWAT (Student Weekend Ar-
borist Team): A model for land grant institutions and cooperative extension systems
to conduct street tree inventories. Journal of Extension, 50(3), art. 3FEA9.
15. Cox, M., Arnold, G., and Villamayor Tomas, S. (2010). A review of design principles
for community-based natural resource. Ecology and Society, 15(4), art. 38. http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art38/
16. Dahmus, M. E., and Nelson, K. C. (2013). Yard stories: Examining residents’ con-
ceptions of their yards as part of the urban ecosystem in Minnesota. Urban Ecosys-
tems, 17(1), 173–194. doi:10.1007/s11252-013-0306-3
17. Day, S., Wiseman, P., Dickinson, S., and Harris, J. R. (2010). Tree root ecology in
the urban environment and implications for a sustainable rhizosphere. Arboriculture
& Urban Forestry, 36(4), 193–204.
18. Dickinson, J. L., Shirk, J., Bonter, D., Bonney, R., Crain, R. L., Martin, J., Phillips,
T., and Purcell, K. (2012). The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological
research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6),
291–297. doi:10.1890/110236
19. Epstein, G., Vogt, J. M., Mincey, S. K., Cox, M., and Fischer, B. (2013). Miss-
ing ecology: integrating ecological perspectives with the social-ecological system
framework. International Journal of the Commons, 7(2), 432–453. http://www.the-
commonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/article/view/371/331.
20. Evans, P. S., and Klett, J. E. (1985). The effects of dormant branch thinning on total
leaf, shoot, and root production from bare-root Prunus cerasifera “Newportii.” Jour-
nal of Arboriculture, 11(5), 149–151.
21. Gilman, E. F. (2001). Effect of nursery production method, irrigation, and inocula-
tion with mycorrhizae-forming fungi on establishment of Quercus virginiana. Jour-
nal of Arboriculture, 27(1), 30–39.
22. Gilman, E. F. (2004). Effects of Amendments, soil additives, and irrigation on tree
survival and growth. Journal of Arboriculture, 30(5), 301–310.
23. Gilman, E. F., and Beeson Jr., R. C. (1996). Production Method Affects Tree Estab-
lishment in the Landscape. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 14(2), 81–87.
24. Grabosky, J., and Gilman, E. (2004). Measurement and prediction of tree growth
reduction from tree planting space design in established parking lots. Journal of
Arboriculture, 30(3), 154–164.
25. Graves, W. R., Dana, M. N., and Joly, R. J. (1989). Influence of root-zone tem-
perature on growth of Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle. Journal of Environmental
Horticulture, 7(2), 79–82.
26. Grove, J. M., Cadenasso, M., Burch, W., Pickett, S., Schwarz, K., O’Neil-Dunne,
J., Wilson, M., Troy, A., and Boone, C. (2006). Data and methods comparing social
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 183

structure and vegetation structure of urban neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland.

Society & Natural Resources, 19(2), 117–136. doi:10.1080/08941920500394501
27. Holling, C.S. (1996). Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives
for people. Ecological Applications, 6(3), 733-735.
28. Iakovoglou, V., Thompson, J., and Burras, L. (2002). Characteristics of trees accord-
ing to community population level and by land use in the U.S. Midwest. Journal of
Arboriculture, 28(2), 59–69.
29. Iakovoglou, V., Thompson, J., Burras, L., and Kipper, R. (2001). Factors related to
tree growth across urban-rural gradients in the Midwest, USA. Urban Ecosystems,
5, 71–85.
30. International Tree Failure Database (ITFD). 2014. http://svinetfc8.fs.fed.us/natfdb/.
Accessed 18 April 2014.
31. International Union of Forest Research Organizations, International Society of
Arboriculture, United States Forest Service, & Urban Natural Resources Institute.
(2010). Standards for Urban Forestry Data Collection: A Field Guide, Draft 2.0. For-
estry (2.0 ed., p. 29). http://www.unri.org/standards/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/
Version-2.0-082010.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.
32. i-Tree. 2014. http://www.itreetools.org. Accessed 18 April 2014.
33. Jack-Scott, E., Piana, M., Troxel, B., Murphy-Dunning, C., and Ashton, M. S.
(2013). Stewardship success: How community group dynamics affect urban street
tree survival and growth. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 39(4), 189–196.
34. Jutras, P., Prasher, S. O., and Mehuys, G. R. (2009). Prediction of street tree mor-
phological parameters using artificial neural networks. Computers and Electronics
in Agriculture, 67(1-2), 9–17. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2009.02.008
35. Kenney, W. A., van Wassenaer, P. J. E., and Satel, A. L. (2011). Criteria and indica-
tors for strategic urban forest planning and management. Arboriculture & Urban
Forestry, 37(3), 108–117.
36. Koeser, A., Hauer, R., Norris, K., and Krouse, R. (2013). Factors influencing long-
term street tree survival in Milwaukee, WI, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Green-
ing, 12(4), 562-568. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2013.05.006
37. Kozlowski, T. T., and Pallardy, S. G. (1997). Growth Control in Woody Plants. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
38. Kramer, P. (1987). The role of water stress in tree growth. Journal of Arboriculture,
13(2), 33–38.
39. Krizek, D. T., and Dubik, S. P. (1987). Influence of water stress and restricted root
volume on growth and development of urban trees. Journal of Arboriculture, 13(2),
47–55.
40. Lambert, B. B., Harper, S. J., and Robinson, S. D. (2010). Effect of container size
at time of planting on tree growth rates for baldcypress (Taxodium distichum (L.)
Rich), red maple (Acer rubrum L.), and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.). Arbori-
culture & Urban Forestry, 36(2), 93–99.
41. Larson, K. L., Hall, S. J., Cook, E. M., Funke, B., Strawhacker, C. A., and Turner,
V. K. (2008). Social-ecological dynamics of residential landscapes: Human driv-
ers of management practices and ecological structure in an urban ecosystem con-
text. Tempe, AZ: Central Arizona Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research. http://
184 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

caplter.asu.edu/docs/papers/2008/CAPLTER/Larson_etal_2008.pdf. Accessed 18
April 2014.
42. Leibowitz, R. (2012). Urban tree growth and longevity: An international meeting and
research symposium white paper, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 38(5), 237–241.
43. Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A. N.,
Deadman, P., Kratz, T., Lubchenco, J., Ostrom, E., Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Red-
man, C. L., Schneider, S. H., and Taylor, W. W. (2007). Complexity of coupled hu-
man and natural systems. Science, 317(5844), 1513–6. doi:10.1126/science.1144004
44. Lu, J. W. T., Svendsen, E. S., Campbell, L. K., Greenfeld, J., Braden, J., King, K. L.,
and Falxa-Raymond, N. (2011). Biological, social, and urban design factors affect-
ing young street tree mortality in New York City. Cities and the Environment, 3(1),
1–15. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/5/
45. Morton Arboretum Soil Science (MASS) Laboratory. 2014. Morton Arboretum Soil
Science. http://www.masslaboratory.org/urban-site-index.html. Accessed 18 April
2014.
46. Miller, R. W., and Sylvester, W. A. (1981). An economic evaluation of the pruning
cycle. Journal of Arboriculture, 7(4), 109–112.
47. Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R., and Bonney, R. (2012). The history of public par-
ticipation in ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6),
285–290. doi:10.1890/110278
48. Mincey, S. K., Hutten, M., Fischer, B. C., Evans, T. P., Stewart, S. I., and Vogt, J.
M. (2013). Structuring institutional analysis for urban ecosystems: A key to sustain-
able urban forest management. Urban Ecosystems, 16(3), 553–571. doi:10.1007/
s11252-013-0286-3
49. Mincey, S. K., and Vogt, J. M. (2014). Watering strategy, collective action, and
neighborhoodplanted trees: A case study of Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S. Arboriculture
& Urban Forestry, 40(2), 84–95.
50. Nassauer, J. I., Wang, Z., and Dayrell, E. (2009). What will the neighbors think?
Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(3-4),
282–292. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010
51. National Audubon Society. 2014. Christmas Bird Count. http://birds.audubon.org/
christmasbird-count. Accessed 18 April 2014.
52. Nielsen, A. B., Östberg, J., and Delshammar, T. (2014). Review of urban tree in-
ventory methods used to collect data at single-tree level. Arboriculture & Urban
Forestry, 40(2), 96–111.
53. Nowak, D. J., McBride, J. R., and Beatty, R. A. (1990). Newly planted street tree
growth and mortality. Journal of Arboriculture, 16(5), 124–129.
54. NYC Parks. 2014. Young Street Tree Mortality. http://www.nycgovparks.org/trees/
ystm. Accessed 18 April 2014.
55. NYC Parks, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Rutgers University, &
Parsons, T. N. S. F. D. (2010). New York City’s Young Street Tree Mortality Study
Site Assessment Tools Description. October. New York City, NY. Retrieved from
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/trees_greenstreets/images/how_to_as-
sess_your_citys_st_survival_10-6-2010.pdf
56. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees 185

57. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.
58. Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-eco-
logical systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422. doi:10.1126/science.1172133
59. Ostrom, E., and Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: A multi-tiered diag-
nostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation, 37(04),
451–463. doi:10.1017/S0376892910000834
60. Peper, P. P., and McPherson, E. G. (2003). Evaluation of four methods for estimating
leaf area of isolated trees. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2, 19–29.
61. Rhoades, R. W., and Stipes, R. J. (1999). Growth of trees on the Virginia Tech cam-
pus in response to various factors. Journal of Arboriculture, 25(4), 211–217.
62. Roman, L. A. (2013). Urban tree mortality. Dissertation. University of California,
Berkeley.
63. Roman, L. A., McPherson, E. G., Scharenbroch, B. C., and Bartens, J. (2013). Iden-
tifying common practices and challenges for local urban tree monitoring programs
across the United States, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 39(6), 292–299.
64. Roman, L. A., and Scatena, F. N. (2011). Street tree survival rates: Meta-analysis of
previous studies and application to a field survey in Philadelphia, PA, USA. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(4), 269–274. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.05.008
65. Scharenbroch, B. C., Lloyd, J. E., and Johnson-Maynard, J. L. (2005). Distinguish-
ing urban soils with physical, chemical, and biological properties. Pedobiologia, 49,
283–296. doi:10.1016/j.pedobi.2004.12.002
66. Schlüter, M., Hinkel, J., Bots, P., and Arlinghaus, R. (2014). Application of the SES
framework for model-based analysis of the dynamics of social-ecological systems.
Ecology & Society, 19(1), art. 36. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss1/
art36/.
67. Shirk, J. L., H. L. Ballard, C. C. Wilderman, T. Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, E.
McCallie, M. Minarchek, B. V. Lewenstein, M. E. Krasny, and R. Bonney. (2012).
Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol-
ogy and Society, 17(2), 29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229
68. Smith, K. D., May, P. B., and Moore, G. M. (2001). The influence of compaction
and soil strength on the establishment of four Australian landscape trees. Journal of
Arboriculture, 27(1), 1–7.
69. Solfjeld, I., and Hansen, O. B. (2004). Post-transplant growth of five deciduous Nor-
dic tree species as affected by transplanting date and root pruning. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening, 2, 129–137.
70. Stoffberg, G. H., van Rooyen, M. W., van der Linde, M. J., and Groeneveld, H. T.
(2008). Predicting the growth in tree height and crown size of three street tree spe-
cies in the City of Tshwane, South Africa. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7(4),
259–264. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.002
71. Struve, D. K., Burchfield, L., and Maupin, C. (2000). Survival and growth of trans-
planted largeand small-caliper red oaks. Journal of Arboriculture, 26(3), 162–169.
72. Symes, P., and Connellan, G. (2013). Water management strategies for urban trees
in dry environments: Lessons for the future. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 39(3),
116–124.
186 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

73. Tattar, T. A. (1980). Non-infectious diseases of trees. Journal of Arboriculture, 6(1),

1-4.
74. Tretheway, R., Simon, M., McPherson, E. G., and Mathis, S. (1999). Volunteer-
Based Urban Forest Inventory and Monitoring Programs: Results from a Two-Day
Workshop, 17-18 February 1999, Sacramento, CA. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/pro-
grams/uesd/uep/products/5/cufr_90.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2014.
75. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2008). Reducing Urban
Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies: Urban Heat Island Basics. http://www.epa.
gov/heatisland/resources/compendium.htm. Accessed 18 April 2014.
76. Vogt J. M., Hauer, R. J., and Fischer, B. C. (In review). The costs of maintaining and
not maintaining trees: A review of the urban forestry and arboriculture literature.
77. Vogt, J. M., Mincey, S. K., Fischer, B. C., and Patterson, M. (2013). Planted Tree
Re-inventory Protocol, Version 1.0. Bloomington, IN: Bloomington Urban Forestry
Research Group at the Center for the study of Institutions, Population and Envi-
ronmental Change, Indiana University. http://www.indiana.edu/~cipec/research/bu-
frg_protocol Accessed 18 April 2014.
78. Vogt, J. M., Watkins, S. L., Mincey, S. K., Patterson, M., and Fischer, B. C. (In
review). Explaining planted-tree survival and growth in urban neighborhoods: A
social-ecological approach to studying recently-planted trees in Indianapolis.
79. Vogt, J. M., Wilson, M., and Swilik, J. (2012). Engaging high school students in ur-
ban tree growth research. Conference on Public Participation in Scientific Research
at the Ecological Society of American Annual Meeting, 3-4 August 2012, Portland,
OR.
80. University of Minnesota (UM) Department of Forest Resources, UM Extension
Service, and Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2014). Urban & Community
Forestry: Community Engagement and Preparedness Program. http://www.mntree-
source.com. Accessed 18 April 2014.
81. Urban Forest Map, Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, Philadelphia Parks and Rec-
reation, Township of Lower Merion, Azavea, and Delaware Valley Regional Plan-
ning Commission. (2014). PhillyTreeMap Beta. http://www.phillytreemap.org. Ac-
cessed 18 April 2014.
82. Urban Tree Growth and Longevity (UTGL) Working Group. (2014a). Urban Tree
Growth and Longevity. http://www.urbantreegrowth.org. Accessed 18 April 2014.
83. Urban Tree Growth and Longevity (UTGL) Working Group. (2014b). Urban Tree
Monitoring Protocol. http://www.urbantreegrowth.org/urban-tree-monitoring-pro-
tocol.html. Accessed 18 April 2014.
84. Whitcomb, C. E. (1979). Factors affecting the establishment of urban trees. Journal
of Arboriculture, 5(10), 217–219.
85. Zooniverse. 2014. GalaxyZoo. http://www.galaxyzoo.org. Accessed 18 April 2014.

The entire Planted Tree Re-Inventory Protocol is available online at http://www.

indiana.edu/~cipec/research/bufrg_protocol.php.
 PART IV

IMPROVING OUR UNDERSTANDING

OF URBAN FORESTS
CHAPTER 7

110 Years of Change In Urban Tree

Stocks and Associated Carbon Storage
DANIEL F. DÍAZ-PORRAS, KEVIN J. GASTON, and KARL L. EVANS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

It is important to document temporal changes in urban green space and

its associated vegetation, because of the rapidly expanding and dynamic
nature of urban areas, and the key role of this vegetation in supporting
urban biodiversity and providing ecosystem services (Seto et al. 2012;
Gaston et al. 2013). Trees, particularly large ones, are keystone structures
in many ecosystems, including urban areas (Lindenmayer et al. 2012; St-
agoll et al. 2012). In towns and cities, the abundance and nature of trees
plays a major role in determining the structure and composition of faunal
assemblages (Evans et al. 2009; Stagoll et al. 2012). Trees and shrubs also
play a key role in providing ecosystem services in urban areas, primarily
because they comprise a considerable proportion of the vegetation's bio-
mass (Davies et al. 2011; Roy et al. 2012). These benefits include a range

© 2014 The Authors. 110 Years of Change In Urban Tree Stocks and Associated Carbon Storage,
Ecology and Evolution 2014; 4(8):1413–1422, doi: 10.1002/ece3.1017. Creative Commons Attribu-
tion license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
190 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

of cultural services and improvements to human health and well-being

(Ulrich 1986; Kuo and Sullivan 2001; Maas et al. 2006; Fuller et al. 2007).
Urban vegetation also provides several regulating services including re-
ducing air pollution (Donovan et al. 2005), the urban heat island effect
(Lindberg and Grimmond 2011; Hall et al. 2012), noise pollution (Islam et
al. 2012), and flood risk (Stovin et al. 2008). Finally, urban trees make a
significant contribution to carbon sequestration (Nowak and Crane 2002).
Urban trees have historically faced a number of threats, and will con-
tinue to do so. Heat and drought stress seem likely to be amplified in urban
areas due to the urban heat island effect, reduced water infiltration into
soils due to the dominance of impervious surfaces, and soil compaction
(Sieghardt et al. 2005). The urban heat island effect can also contribute to
increased susceptibility of urban tree to pests (Meineke et al. 2013). Urban
trees may also suffer more from pests and exotic diseases than their rural
counterparts due to increased exposure to horticultural trade, for example,
Asian long-horned beetle Anoplophora glabripennis became established
in North America in urban areas and has only recently invaded rural ones
(Dodds and Orwig 2011). Whilst air pollution can reduce growth rates of
urban trees, there are some examples of increased growth rates in response
to higher CO2 concentrations in urban areas (Evans 2010). Finally, urban
trees are also more likely to be prevented from reaching their full growth
potential due to the association between height and the probability of dam-
aging urban infrastructure or blocking light.
Empirical data assessing changes in the nature and composition of ur-
ban green space are typically limited to use of remote-sensing data (e.g.,
Pauleit et al. 2005; Dallimer et al. 2011; Gillespie et al. 2012). Due to the
timing of the development of appropriate technologies, such studies are
inevitably restricted to a few recent decades; this is a small time period
relative to the age of many urban areas, and assessments over longer-time
periods are essential to provide a complete understanding of the impacts
of urbanization. In addition, remote-sensing technologies have not always
had sufficient capacity to distinguish individual components of green
space, such as trees and shrubs, or to record their size. Given the strong
relationship between ecosystem service provision and vegetation biomass
and thus tree size (see above), this further limits assessment of the dy-
namics of urban vegetation. Collections of historical photographs provide
110 Years of Change In Urban Tree Stocks 191

a valuable source of detailed data on past environmental conditions that

can be used to track long-term environmental change, which overcomes
these limitations (Pennisi 2013). This approach is time-consuming as it
requires finding a large number of dated historical images that include
the key items of interest, and then refinding the original location from
which these images were taken. Repeat photography has great value, how-
ever, and has been used to assess rates of glacial retreat, and changes in
plant growth rates, vegetation composition, and forest cover (Chen et al.
2011; Myers-Smith et al. 2011; Van Bogaert et al. 2011). Such studies
have rarely focused on urban areas, although Nowak (1993) used histori-
cal photographs in combination with other historical documents to assess
vegetation change in Oakland, California. Monge-Nájera and Pérez-Gó-
mez (2010) also used repeat photography to assess change in tree cover in
San Jose, Costa Rica, but could only find nine suitable historical images.
Here, we employ repeat photography to assess long-term changes in
the number and size of trees over a 110-year period using Sheffield, the
fifth largest urban area (c. 555,500 people; Office for National Statistics
2010) in the UK, as a case study. We then use these data to assess temporal
change in the contribution of the urban tree stock to aboveground carbon
storage. We also test whether the temporal dynamics in the stock of urban
trees is uniform across the urbanized region, or varies with the intensity of
urban development. This is important because urban areas are not homog-
enous (Davies et al. 2008), and the magnitude and intensity of change can
vary with urban form.

7.2 METHODS

7.2.1 OBTAINING AND REPEATING

HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPHS

We used a paired design and compared photographs taken in the 1900s and
1950s with those taken in 2010, although the two sets of historical images
were not taken in the same location. Our objective was to calculate broad
trends in the numbers of trees of different size categories to generate an
index of change in urban tree stocks. Urban Sheffield was defined as those
192 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

1 × 1 km squares with at least 25% hard surface. Historical photographs

were obtained from Sheffield's Local Studies Library online database
(http://www.picturesheffield.com), which contains approximately 35,000
images, primarily from the 1900s. All images taken between 1900 and
1909 (referred to as the 1900s) or between 1950 and 1959 (referred to as
the 1950s) were selected. The 1900s is the earliest decade for which suf-
ficient images were available, and the 1950s represents a period of intense
urban development following the Second World War.
We consider the set of historical photographs to represent an unbi-
ased haphazard sampling design that is sufficient for estimating gen-
eral trends in the urban tree stock for three reasons. First, the original
photographic locations seem highly unlikely to have been selected on
the basis of their tree cover. This is because the primary reason for
taking the photographs was to record people or buildings—often both
(e.g., photos of people taken outside their homes or work places). The
massive variation in tree cover recorded in the historical images is one
indication that positive or negative biases toward including trees in the
historical images are unlikely to be large. Second, the locations of the
historical images cover much of the focal urban region of Sheffield,
albeit with an inevitable concentration in older urban areas that were
urbanized in the 1900s and 1950s, and represent the full range of varia-
tion in urban form as assessed by the amount of green space currently
present in the area (Fig. 1; and see Results). Finally, it seems unlikely
that the location of the historical images would be biased according to
future trends in tree cover as these were unknown at the time the im-
ages were taken.
Aerial images and those that mainly comprised the inside of build-
ings or obscured views were excluded. The potential to obtain a current
image at precisely the same location as the historical image was assessed
using the street view tool of Google Earth using three criteria: (1) the
ability to use features in the historical image to pinpoint its exact loca-
tion, (2) that the historic landscape captured in the original image was
not currently obscured, and (3) that the site was accessible. When the
potential could not be assessed using the street view tool (e.g., inside
large parks), a site visit was conducted. Following these processes, 121
and 109 images were selected for the 1900s and 1950s, respectively.
110 Years of Change In Urban Tree Stocks 193

FIGURE 1: The location of the historical photographs from the 1900s (white circles)
and the 1950s (blue squares) in urban Sheffield. Base imagery is from Google Earth
and comprises a composite of images taken in 2008 and 2011.

Additional searches were made for images from unrepresented boroughs

taken during the contiguous decades, that is, within the 1890s and 1910s
for the 1900s, and within the 1940s and 1960s for the 1950s. This re-
sulted in a selection of 17 and 24 additional photographs, respectively,
for 1890–1919 and 1940–1969. The former is hereafter referred to as the
1900s (88% of images are from 1900–1909) and the latter as the 1950s
(82% of images are from 1950–1959).
194 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Fieldwork was carried out from June to early September 2010. Re-
peat photographs were taken using a 4.6× optical zoom digital camera
(12.2 megapixels) and matched the position and direction of historical
photographs as closely as possible. Each photographic location was geo-
referenced using a GPS. About 61 of the 271 historical photographs could
not be repeated due to a failure to find the precise location of the original
image or because the precise historical view could not be reconstructed.
This left 106 pairs comparing the 1900s with 2010, and 104 pairs compar-
ing the 1950s with 2010.

7.2.2 QUANTIFYING CHANGES IN THE TREE STOCK

All shrubs and trees present in the entire photograph were identified using
the following height categories: (1) <2 m, (2) 2–5 m, (3) 5–10 m, and (4)
>10 m. This was achieved by comparing the heights of individual trees
and shrubs, by eye, with standardized reference heights of other features
typically present in the urban landscape that were measured in the field;
in addition, people were assumed to be <2 m tall. Whilst use of these ref-
erence heights does not provide a precise measure of the height of focal
trees or shrubs, it provides an unbiased mechanism that can be applied to
both historical and current time periods with which each shrub/tree can be
accurately placed within a height category.
Aboveground dry-weight tree biomass was calculated using the allo-
metric equation from Davies et al. (2011): biomass (kg) = 0.566*(height
in meters)2.315, and summing across the total number of trees in each
height category. When our height categories were bounded, we used
their midpoint as an estimate of tree height, for the unbounded category
of trees >10 m, and we repeated calculations using a range of tree height
estimates (12, 15, and 18 m) that cover the full range of plausible mid-
points based on observed size distributions of urban trees in the U.K.
(Davies et al. 2011). The allometric equation that we used was devel-
oped for broad-leaved trees in urban Leicester, located 90 km south of
Sheffield and of similar urban form. This equation takes into account the
relative abundance of different tree species, and uses species, genus, or
110 Years of Change In Urban Tree Stocks 195

family-specific allometric relationships. This approach was adopted as

historical photographs were rarely of sufficient quality to allow trees to
be identified to species or genus. This will reduce the precision of our
estimates of tree biomass as there may be some shifts in composition of
the tree assemblage across time periods, but it does not prevent us from
generating sufficiently accurate estimates to calculate overall trends in
tree biomass and resultant carbon storage. This is because the form of
allometric equations is fairly similar across different broad-leaved tree
species, and broad-leaved trees comprised the vast majority of shrubs
and trees in the historical and repeated images. This concurs with the
regional and national pattern (Britt and Johnston 2008), and additional
data collected as part of biodiversity surveys in Sheffield, that found
that broad-leaved trees comprised 92.8% of trees. The five commonest
tree species were sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, ash Fraxinus excel-
sior, pedunculate oak Quercus robur, silver birch Betula pendula, and
cherry Prunus spp. These data were obtained in 2010 from 140 sam-
pling points selected using a random stratified design with regard to the
amount of green space as described by Bonnington et al. (in press). We
thus consider that our calculations provide a reasonably robust estimate
of relative temporal change in tree biomass. Aboveground tree biomass
(kg) was transformed to a carbon storage figure using the broadleaf con-
version factor of 0.48 (Milne and Brown 1997).

7.2.3 CALCULATING THE PERCENTAGE OF GREEN SPACE

We wished to assess how trends in urban tree cover varied across differ-
ent urban forms, which is most frequently measured by the amount of
green space, or its inverse the amount of hard surface present in a given
area. To achieve this, the amount of green space (i.e., vegetated surface,
the majority of which is grass) currently present in the 250 × 250-m grid
cell surrounding each photographic location was calculated using an OS
Master 1:10000 scale Georeferenced TIFF raster map for the 2005–2009
period obtained from the Digimap Ordnance Survey Collection (via http://
edina.ac.uk).
196 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

7.2.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSES

All analyses were conducted using SPSS 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) or
SAS vs 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). We have two sets of paired
photographs (1900s and 2010; 1950s and 2010), and the primary focus
was to exploit this paired experimental design. We thus used a matched
paired t-test to compare the urban tree stock (total number of trees, and
numbers in each height category) that was present in the 1900s with that
present in 2010, and to compare the tree stock in the 1950s with that pres-
ent in 2010 (data on differences in the number of trees did not differ from
a normal distribution; Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, P > 0.05 in all cases).
Photographic locations were different in the 1900s and 1950s and thus
do not involve a paired design, and differences in the number of trees in
these time periods did not follow a normal distribution. Changes in the
urban tree stock between the 1900s and 1950s were thus analyzed using
Mann–Whitney U-tests.
The percentage change in the number of shrubs/trees was calculated
(for the total number of trees and for each height category except for trees
> 10 m, see below) by adding one to the number of trees present to en-
able percentages to be calculated at sites with no trees. Percentages were
then square-root transformed to meet statistical assumptions of normality;
transformations were conducted on absolute values, and following trans-
formation values that were originally negative were multiplied by minus
one to preserve their original sign. We then used general linear models to
model the transformed percentage change in the number of shrubs/trees
as a function of the percentage of green space currently present in the sur-
rounding 250 × 250-m grid cell. We did so using general linear models that
include both linear and square terms as predictors, but removed the square
term from the final model unless it was statistically significant (P < 0.05).
When the square term was included in the final model, we conducted a
break point regression to assess the nature of the relationship between the
percentage increase in shrubs/trees and green space below and above the
turning point of the quadratic model. Moran's I values were consistently
very low (<0.01 for all response variables) indicating that the data con-
tained negligible spatial autocorrelation.
110 Years of Change In Urban Tree Stocks 197

7.3 RESULTS

7.3.1 1900S–2010

The total number of shrubs/trees increased by 50.5% (t = 6.20, df = 105, P

< 0.001; df = 105 in all cases; Fig. 2). Most size categories also exhibited
significant increases: <2 m (67.6%, t = 4.06, P = 0.0001), 5–10 m (33.4%, t =
2.01, P = 0.05), >10 m (214.7%, t = 3.36, P = 0.0001), but the 13.7% increase
in the number of shrubs/trees between 2–5 m was not significant (P = 0.39;
Fig. 2). Aboveground carbon storage in trees approximately doubled from the
1900s–2010, with the rate of increase being little influenced by the choice of
midpoint for the unbounded height category (i.e., trees > 10 m; Table 1A).

7.3.2 1950S–2010

The total number of shrubs/trees increased by 95.8% (t = 6.91, df = 103, P

< 0.001; df = 103 in all cases; Fig. 2). Most size categories also exhibited
significant increases: <2 m (65.8%, t = 3.05, P = 0.003), trees between
2–5 m (88.8%, t = 4.12, P = 0.001), trees between 5–10 m (151.2%, t =
7.24, P = 0.001); the 52.3% increase in the number of trees > 10 m was not
significant (P = 0.30; Fig. 2). From the 1950s–2010, aboveground carbon
storage in trees approximately doubled, with the choice of midpoint for the
unbounded height category again having little influence on the estimated
rate of change (Table 1B).

7.3.3 1900S–1950S

The total number of shrubs/trees declined by 37.5% (U = 4416.0, P = 0.01).

The numbers of shrubs/trees in each of the height categories also tended to
decline during this period, but these differences were only significant for
trees between 2–5 m in height (53.2%, U = 4066, P < 0.001), with other
differences not being significant: <2 m (23.7%, U = 5079, P = 0.295), 5–10
m (35.1%, U = 4942, P = 0.175), and >10 m (53.7%, U = 5083, P = 0.119).
198 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 1. Change in aboveground carbon storage of the urban tree stock in Sheffield
(U.K.) from (A) 1900 to 2010, and (b) 1950 to 2010. Biomass is calculated using the
allometric equation for broad-leaved trees in urban Leicester (U.K.) from Davies et
al. (2011) and converted to carbon storage following Milne and Brown (1997). Data
are calculated using the summed number of trees present in historical and repeated
photographs in four height categories (<2 m, 2–5 m, 5–10 m, > 10 m), and using the
midpoint of each height category. Ratios of change are broadly consistent regardless
of the midpoint used for the largest unbounded height category.

Height midpoint used for Aboveg- Aboveg- Carbon ratio

trees > 10 m round tree round tree (2010:1900)
carbon (kg) carbon (kg)
1900 2010
(A)
12 m 18142.8 35426.6 1.95
15 m 22599.2 48853.5 2.16
18 m 28399.6 66330.1 2.34
(B)
12 m 13663.1 29804.4 2.18
15 m 16209.6 33682.1 2.08
18 m 19524.1 38729.2 1.98

7.3.4 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE BY HEIGHT CLASS IN 2010

Pooling data from both sets of locations of historical images revealed that,
across the 3598 trees captured, 36% were <2 m tall, 22% were 2–5 m tall,
34% were 5–10 m tall, and 8% were greater than 10 m in height.

7.3.5 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CHANGES IN TREE STOCKS

AND AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE

Between the 1900s and 2010, the percentage increase in the total number
of shrubs and trees and of trees between 5 m and 10 m tall was negatively
associated with the amount of green space in the surrounding 250 × 250-m
grid cells (Fig. 3A,B; Table 2A). The percentage increase in shrubs/trees
that were <2 m and 2–5 m tall exhibited the same trend, but this was not
110 Years of Change In Urban Tree Stocks 199

FIGURE 2: The number of shrubs and trees in urban Sheffield present in the 1900s
(dark grey bars), 1950s (pale grey bars), and 2010 (white bars). Data are from 106
paired repeat photographs taken in the 1900s and 2010 (left-hand white bar in each
category), and 104 paired repeat photographs taken in the 1950s and 2010 (right-
hand white bar). Error bars represent standard errors.

statistically significant (Table 2). In contrast, the percentage increase in

the number of trees that were taller than 10 m was greatest in areas that
currently contained the most green space (Table 2A; Fig. 3C). Between the
1950s and 2010, the percentage increase in shrubs/trees that were <2 m tall
exhibited a unimodal relationship with green space (no other relationships
were statistically significant; Table 2B). Using a break point regression
around the turning point of this unimodal relationship revealed that there
was a significant positive association between the percentage increase in
shrubs/trees that were <2 m tall until green space exceeded c. 40% of the
surrounding 250 × 250-m grid cell (r2 = 15.5%; F1,40 = 7.34, P = 0.01;
parameter estimate 0.539 ± 0.200), after which the percentage increase
in shrubs/trees was not associated with the amount of green space (r2 =
0.015%; F1,60 = 0.94, P = 0.34; parameter estimate −0.110 ± 0.114).
 200

Table 2. Relationships between percentage change in tree stocks in urban Sheffield from (A) the 1900s–2010, and (B) the 1950s–
2010 in repeated historical photos and the amount of current green space in the surrounding 250 × 250-m grid cell. The percentage
change in tree stocks was square-root transformed prior to analysis. All data refer to linear terms unless otherwise indicated.

Height class Model r2, % Parameter estimate (±SE) F ratio; P value Equation
(A)
All trees 10.99 −0.189 ± 0.053 F1,104 = 12.84; P = 0.0005 Y = 20.302 −0.189x
<2 m 0.25 −0.029 ± 0.056 F1,104 = 0.26, P = 0.609 n/a
2–5 m 2.54 −0.081 ± 0.049 F1,104 = 2.71, P = 0.103 n/a
5–10 m 6.32 −0.128 ± 0.048 F1,104 = 7.02, P = 0.009 Y = 14.580−0.128x
>10 m 6.76 0.134 ± 0.049 F1,104 = 7.54, P = 0.007 Y = −1.345 + 0.134x
(B)
All trees 2.71 −0.103 ± 0.061 F1,102 = 2.84; P = 0.095 n/a
<2 m 4.92 Linear term: 0.307 ± 0.175 Linear term F1,101 = 0.79, P = 0.082; Y = 8.831 + 0.307x - 0.004x2
Square term: −0.004 ± 0.002 Square term F1,101 = 4.43, P = 0.034;

2–5 m 0.67 −0.035 ± 0.043 F1,102 = 0.69, P = 0.409 n/a

5–10 m 3.13 −0.083 ± 0.046 F1,102 = 3.29, P = 0.073 n/a
>10 m 0.12 −0.009 ± 0.023 F1,102 = 0.13, P = 0.718 n/a
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management
110 Years of Change In Urban Tree Stocks 201

FIGURE 3: Relationships between the percentage increase in shrubs/trees and the

amount of green space in the surrounding 250 × 250-m grid cell for (A) all shrubs/
trees between the 1900s and 2010, (B) trees that are 5–10 m tall between the 1900s
and 2010, (C) trees >10 m between the 1900s and 2010, and (D) trees <2 m between
the 1950s and 2010.
202 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

7.4 DISCUSSION

We demonstrate that repeat photography can yield valuable data for

long-term monitoring of urban tree stocks, and associated ecosystem ser-
vices. Between the 1900s and 2010, shrubs/trees within urban Sheffield
increased by over 50%. Equivalent studies conducted over comparable
time periods are rare, and none have been conducted in regions with the
long history of urbanization that characterizes our study, which further
hinders direct comparisons. It is notable though that studies conducted
in regions where forest cover is naturally limited, such as South-West
North America, tend to find increased urban tree cover. In Oakland, Cali-
fornia, for example, tree cover increased from approximately 5% during
the city's initial development (1850s–1890s) to approximately 20% in
1991 (Nowak 1993). Similarly, tree densities more than doubled from
the 1920s to the turn of the century at two urban sites near Los Angeles,
California, although a small number of urban areas had decreased tree
cover (Gillespie et al. 2012). In contrast, a 5% decrease in urban tree
cover occurred from the 1890s–2010 in San José, Costa Rica (Monge-
Nájera and Pérez-Gómez 2010): a region that naturally has a high level
of forest cover.
The significant increase in the number of urban shrubs/trees in Shef-
field since the 1900s is thus not unprecedented, but does represent one
of the most marked rates of increase documented to date. One factor
that may contribute to this is that in the early 1900s, past human activi-
ties had reduced tree cover across England to just 6%, and to less than
4% across Yorkshire, the county in which Sheffield is located (Forestry
Commission 2001). The increase in total shrubs/trees was even more
marked (c. 100%) from the 1950s–2010, due to a decrease in urban
tree cover in the first half of the twentieth century which contrasts
with a static trend in tree cover at the national level across this time
period (Forestry Commission 2001). This decrease from 1900 to 1950
in urban tree abundance is likely to be a consequence of the marked
urban intensification during this period, and bombing (and associated
redevelopment) during the Second World War. The pattern that we find
in Sheffield is similar to the initial trends in urban tree cover that arose
110 Years of Change In Urban Tree Stocks 203

in Baltimore, Maryland, with an initial decrease from 1914 to 1938,

which was then followed by an increase till the 1970s (Zhou et al.
2011). There has subsequently been a decline in urban tree cover in
Baltimore, resulting in no net change from 1914 to 2004. It should
thus not be assumed that the increase in urban tree cover that we docu-
ment in Sheffield will be maintained in the future, especially given
the numerous and increasing threats to urban trees that seem likely to
increase mortality rates (see Introduction).
We find clear evidence that small trees, that is, those less than two
meters tall, are now commoner in urban Sheffield than they were in
both the 1900s (68% increase) and 1950s (66% increase). Natural seed-
ling abundance and establishment is lower in urban woodlands than
rural ones, suggesting that natural regeneration is suppressed in urban
areas (Oldfield et al. 2013). It thus seems likely that the increase in
small trees since the 1900s and 1950s is at least partly driven by urban
tree planting initiatives. Whilst explanatory power is somewhat lim-
ited, there is a tendency for smaller trees to exhibit larger increases in
abundance in the areas with least green space, that is, the most inten-
sively urbanized areas. This strengthens the conclusion that urban tree
planting programmes have contributed to the increase in the number of
small trees, as natural regeneration is likely to be particularly low in
such sites.
The increase in the number of trees from the 1950s–2010 becomes
larger as tree size increases from <2 m (66%), to 2–5 m (89%), and to
5–10 m (150%). There is insufficient data on the annual height incre-
ments of broad-leaved trees in urban environments to estimate robustly
the age of these trees. Growth rates of Prunus, Acer, and Quercus spe-
cies growing in rural areas of the UK (Willoughby 2009), at similar cli-
matic conditions in rural Belgium (Ligot et al. 2013) and in urban North
America (Dereli et al. 2013), suggest though that annual growth rate
increments will vary from c. 20 cm per year for slower growing species
such as Quercus to 40 cm per year for other faster growing species.
These growth rates suggest that urban tree planting schemes that were
most frequent in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s (Land Use Consultants
1993; Urban Green Spaces Task Force 2002; Britt and Johnston 2008)
204 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

could also have contributed to the increased abundance of trees in the

2–5 m and 5–10 m height categories from the 1950s–2010.
The major increase (c. 200%) in the largest trees (>10 m) that oc-
curred from 1900 to 2010 was much less pronounced from 1950 to 2010.
This could imply that mortality/removal of larger trees have increased in
recent decades, but it also could arise from some variation in the num-
ber of larger trees found in 2010 at the locations of the historical photos
from the 1900s and 1950s. The occurrence of such stochastic variation
is partly driven by the extreme rarity of trees greater than 10 m tall; they
account for just 8% of urban trees in 2010. The typical height of mature
broad-leaved trees in the UK is much greater than 10 m, for example,
ash 20 m, sycamore 24 m, oak 30 m (Fitter and Peat 1994). These three
species were the commonest species in Sheffield in 2010 (see Introduc-
tion). Our data thus strongly suggest that urban regions are particularly
deprived of large old trees, but we still find increases in recent time peri-
ods. Moreover, we find a tendency for the largest trees to exhibit greater
rates of increase in the areas with most green space, that is, the least ur-
banized sites. This is presumably because the negative impacts of large
urban trees, such as root damage to buildings and street surfaces and the
blocking of light, are less likely to occur in the least urbanized sites. It
is particularly important to maintain these large trees because of the cru-
cial role they play in providing wildlife resources (Stagoll et al. 2012),
cultural ecosystem services (Jim 2004), and their disproportionate con-
tribution to provisioning and regulating services due to their increased
biomass (Akbari et al. 2001; Davies et al. 2011).
Space-for-time substitutions (Pickett 1989) are often used in urban
ecology to assess the consequences of increasing urbanization intensity
over time. The associations we find between rates of increase in tree num-
bers and urbanization intensity suggest that spatial urbanization gradients
may not always provide a reliable measure of change along temporal ur-
banization gradients. This has important implications for the use of space-
for-time swaps in urban systems.
Our data suggest that investment in urban tree planting pro-
grammes has contributed to the increase in the number of urban trees
110 Years of Change In Urban Tree Stocks 205

over our focal 110-year time period. Maintaining investment in such

programmes is thus advisable. This has been achieved in recent years
through the Big Tree Plant Campaign which aims to plant an additional
one million, mainly urban, trees in England between 2010 and 2015
(http://www.defra.gov.uk/bigtreep lant), but future commitments are
uncertain. Moreover, we find some evidence that the smallest trees
have increased in abundance the most in areas with little green space,
that is, those areas that we also find have the lowest rates of growth
in larger trees, which is probably a consequence of increased mortal-
ity, for example, tree removal to limit damage to urban infrastructure.
Urban tree planting programmes may thus make a larger contribu-
tion to future long-term increases in the abundance of old and large
trees by giving extra consideration to the potential of planting sites
to maintain such trees. Larger trees also contribute disproportionately
to ecosystem services, and a more comprehensive and holistic assess-
ment of their benefits may reduce removal rates in situations when
tree-associated damage is small relative to the benefits provided by
the focal tree. Tree preservation orders in North America have been
successful in protecting urban tree stocks when supported by sufficient
investment in management and enforcement (Hill et al. 2010; Landry
and Pu 2010). In the UK, tree preservation orders can only be applied
to trees with high amenity value. This is not precisely defined, but is
determined by the suitability of the trees for the focal site, their vis-
ibility, and impact, which is a function of factors such as their size,
rarity, and screening potential (Department for Communities and Lo-
cal Government 2006, 2012). Consequently, tree preservation orders
are unlikely to be granted for trees in areas with little green space and
thus a greater risk of damaging infrastructure or blocking light, or to
smaller trees even when surrounded by lots of green space. Enabling
preservation orders to be applied to such trees by considering their fu-
ture rather than just their current amenity value seems likely to reduce
tree mortality rates, and further increase the beneficial legacy of urban
tree planting programmes by increasing the proportion of such trees
that reach full maturity.
206 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

REFERENCES

1. Akbari, H., M. Pomerantz, and H. Taha. 2001. Cool surfaces and shade trees to
reduce energy use and improve air quality in urban areas. Sol. Energy 70:295–310.
2. Bonnington, C., K. J. Gaston, and K. L. Evans. In press. Squirrels in suburbia:
influence of urbanisation on the occurrence and distribution of a common exotic
mammal. Urban Ecosyst. doi: 10.1007/s11252-013-0331-2.
3. Britt, C., and M. Johnston. 2008. Trees in Towns II: a new survey of urban trees in
England and their condition and management. Department for Communities and
Local Government, London.
4. Chen, H., K. Yin, H. Wang, S. Zhong, N. Wu, F. Shi, et al. 2011. Detecting one-
hundred-year environmental changes in western China using seven-year repeat
photography. PLoS ONE 6:e25008.
5. Dallimer, M., Z. Tang, P. R. Bibby, P. Brindley, K. J. Gaston, and Z. G. Davies.
2011. Temporal changes in greenspace in a highly urbanised region. Biol. Lett.
7:763–766.
6. Davies, R. G., O. Barbosa, R. A. Fuller, J. Tratalos, N. Burke, D. Lewis, et al.
2008. City-wide relationships between green spaces, urban land use and topogra-
phy. Urban Ecosyst. 11:269–287.
7. Davies, Z. G., J. L. Edmondson, A. Heinemeyer, J. R. Leake, and K. J. Gaston.
2011. Mapping an urban ecosystem service: quantifying above-ground carbon
storage at a city-wide scale. J. Appl. Ecol. 48:1125–1134.
8. Department for Communities and Local Government. 2006. Tree Preservation
Orders: a guide to the law and good practice. Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
London.
9. Department for Communities and Local Government. 2012. Protected trees: a
guide to tree preservation procedures. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
10. Dereli, Z., C. Yücedağ, and J. M. Pearce. 2013. Simple and low-cost method of
planning for tree growth and lifetime effects on solar photovoltaic systems perfor-
mance. Sol. Energy 95:300–307.
11. Dodds, J., and D. A. Orwig. 2011. An invasive urban forest pest invades natural
environments — Asian long-horned beetle in northeastern US hardwood forests.
Can. J. For. Res. 41:1729–1742.
12. Donovan, R. G., H. E. Stewart, S. M. Owen, A. R. Mackenzie, and C. N. Hewitt.
2005. Development and application of an urban tree air quality score for photo-
chemical pollution episodes using the Birmingham, United Kingdom, area as a
case study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:6730–6738.
13. Evans, K. L. 2010. Urbanisation and individual species. Pp. 53–87 in Gaston. KJ,
ed. Urban ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Evans, K. L., S. E. Newson, and K. J. Gaston. 2009. Habitat influences on urban
avian assemblages. Ibis 151:19–39.
15. Fitter, A. H., and H. J. Peat. 1994. The ecological flora database. J. Ecol.
82:415–425.
110 Years of Change In Urban Tree Stocks 207

16. Forestry Commission. 2001. Inventory report for England. National Inventory of
Woodland and Trees. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
17. Fuller, R. A., K. N. Irvine, P. Devine-Wright, P. H. Warren, and K. J. Gaston.
2007. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett.
3:390–394.
18. Gaston, K. J., M. L. Ávila-Jiménez, and J. L. Edmondson. 2013. Managing urban
ecosystems for goods and services. J. Appl. Ecol. 50:830–840.
19. Gillespie, T. W., S. Pincetl, S. Brossard, J. Smith, S. Saatchi, D. Pataki, et al. 2012.
A time series of urban forestry in Los Angeles. Urban Ecosyst. 15:233–246.
20. Hall, J. M., J. F. Handley, and A. R. Ennos. 2012. The potential of tree planting
to climate-proof high density residential areas in Manchester, UK. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 104:140–417.
21. Hill, E., J. H. Dorfman, and E. Kramer. 2010. Evaluating the impact of govern-
ment land use policies on tree canopy coverage. Land Use Policy 27:407–414.
22. Islam, M. N., K. S. Rahman, M. M. Bahar, M. A. Habib, K. Ando, and N. Hattori.
2012. Pollution attenuation by roadside greenbelt in and around urban areas. Ur-
ban For. Urban Greening 11:460–464.
23. Jim, C. Y. 2004. Evaluation of heritage trees for conservation and management in
Guangzhou city (China). Environ. Manage. 33:74–86.
24. Kuo, F. E., and W. C. Sullivan. 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city -
does vegetation reduce crime? Environ. Behav. 33:343–367.
25. Land Use Consultants. 1993. Trees in towns. HMSO, London, U.K.
26. Landry, S., and R. Pu. 2010. The impact of land development regulation on resi-
dential tree cover: an empirical evaluation using high-resolution IKONOS imag-
ery. Landsc. Urban Plan. 94:94–104.
27. Ligot, G., P. Balandier, A. Fayolle, P. Lejeune, and H. Claessens. 2013. Height
competition between Quercus petraea and Fagus sylvatica natural regeneration in
mixed and uneven-aged stands. For. Ecol. Manage. 304:391–398.
28. Lindberg, F., and C. Grimmond. 2011. Nature of vegetation and building morphol-
ogy characteristics across a city: influence on shadow patterns and mean radiant
temperatures in London. Urban Ecosyst. 14:617–634.
29. Lindenmayer, D. B., W. F. Laurance, and J. F. Franklin. 2012. Global decline in
large old trees. Science 338:1305–1306.
30. Maas, J., R. A. Verheij, P. P. Groenewegen, S. de Vries, and P. Spreeuwenberg.
2006. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol.
Community Health 60:587–592.
31. Meineke, E. K., R. R. Dunn, J. O. Sexton, and S. D. Frank. 2013. Urban warming
drives insect pest abundance on street trees. PLoS ONE 8:e59687.
32. Milne, R., and T. A. Brown. 1997. Carbon in the vegetation and soils of Great
Britain. J. Environ. Manage. 49:413–433.
33. Monge-Nájera, J., and G. Pérez-Gómez. 2010. Urban vegetation change after a
hundred years in a tropical city (San José de Costa Rica). Revista de Biología
Tropical 58:1367–1386.
208 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

34. Myers-Smith, I. H., D. S. Hik, C. Kennedy, D. Cooley, J. F. Johnstone, A. J. Ken-

ney, et al. 2011. Expansion of canopy-forming willows over the twentieth century
on Herschel Island, Yukon Territory, Canada. Ambio 40:610–623.
35. Nowak, D. J. 1993. Historical vegetation change in Oakland and its implications
for urban forest management. J. Arboric. 19:313–319.
36. Nowak, D. J., and D. E. Crane. 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban
trees in the USA. Environ. Pollut. 116:381–389.
37. Office for National Statistics (2010) Population Estimates for UK, England and
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland mid-2010 Population Estimates. Avail-
able at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-
uk&#x2013;england-and-wales&#x2013;scotland-and-northern-ireland/mid-
2010-population-estimates/index.html (accessed 30 September 2011).
38. Oldfield, E. E., R. J. Warren, A. J. Felson, and M. A. Bradford. 2013. FORUM: chal-
lenges and future directions in urban afforestation. J. Appl. Ecol. 50:1169–1177.
39. Pauleit, S., R. Ennos, and Y. Golding. 2005. Modeling the environmental impacts
of urban land use and land cover change—a study in Merseyside, UK. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 71:295–310.
40. Pennisi, E. 2013. Worth a thousand words. Science 341:482.
41. Pickett, S. T. A. (1989) Space-for-time substitution as an alternative to long-term
studies. Pp. 110–135 in G. E. Likens, ed. Long-term studies in ecology: approaches
and alternatives. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.
42. Roy, S., J. Byrne, and C. Pickering. 2012. A systematic quantitative review of ur-
ban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic
zones. Urban For. Urban Greening 11:351–363.
43. Seto, K. C., B. Güneralp, and L. R. Hutyra. 2012. Global forecasts of urban expan-
sion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 109:16083–16088.
44. Sieghardt, M., E. Mursch-Radlgruber, E. Paoletti, E. Couenberg, A. Dimitrako-
poulus, F. Rego, et al. 2005. The abiotic urban environment: impact of urban grow-
ing conditions on urban vegetation. Pp. 281–323 in C. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nils-
son, T. B. Randrup, J. Schipperijn, eds. Urban forests and trees. Springer, Berlin.
45. Stagoll, K., D. B. Lindenmayer, E. Knight, J. Fischer, and A. D. Manning. 2012.
Large trees are keystone structures in urban parks. Conserv. Lett. 5:115–122.
46. Stovin, V. R., A. Jorgensen, and A. Clayden. 2008. Street trees and stormwater
management. Arboricultural J. 30:297–310.
47. Ulrich, R. S. 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 13:29–44.
48. Urban Green Spaces Task Force. 2002. Green spaces, better places: final Report of
the urban green spaces taskforce. DTLR, London.
49. Van Bogaert, R., K. Haneca, J. Hoogesteger, C. Jonasson, M. De Dapper, and T.
V. Callaghan. 2011. A century of tree line changes in sub-Arctic Sweden shows
local and regional variability and only a minor influence of 20th century climate
warming. J. Biogeogr. 38:907–921.
110 Years of Change In Urban Tree Stocks 209

50. Willoughby, I. 2009. The effect of duration of vegetation management on broad-

leaved woodland creation by direct seeding. Forestry 82:343–359.
51. Zhou, W., G. Huang, and M. L. Cadenasso. 2011. 90 years of forest cover change
in an urbanizing watershed: spatial and temporal dynamics. Landscape Ecol.
26:645–659.
CHAPTER 8

Biological, Social, and Urban Design

Factors Affecting Young Street Tree
Mortality in New York City
JACQUELINE W.T. LU, ERIKA S. SVENDSEN,
LINDSAY K. CAMPBELL, JENNIFER GREENFELD, JESSIE BRADEN,
KRISTEN L. KING, and NANCY FALXA-RAYMOND

8.1 INTRODUCTION

It is understood that the establishment period following planting of an ur-

ban street tree is crucial to its survival (Richards 1979; Gilbertson and
Bradshaw 1990), yet little is known about the factors or relationships that
ultimately contribute to tree mortality or survival. Improving the survival
of young street trees can do more to reduce replacement needs than will
investments to maintain older trees (Richards 1979). This study of young
street trees planted throughout neighborhoods in New York City provides
a context in which to understand how biological, social, and urban design
factors impact the establishment of new street trees through a multi-disci-
plinary site assessment framework that examines the conditions of the ur-
ban street. In this study, we present our rationale, methods, and descriptive
statistics on the subject in an effort to contribute to the literature on street

© Lu, J.W.T., E.S. Svendsen, L.K. Campbell, J. Greenfeld, J. Braden, K.L. King, N. Falxa-Raymond.
2010. Biological, Social, and Urban Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality in New York
City. Cities and the Environment. 3(1):article 5. http://escholarship.bc.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/5.Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). Used with the permission
of the authors.
212 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

tree health and as a means to inform similar practitioner-based efforts in

other urban areas.
One of the fundamental challenges to city managers and civic groups
is ensuring the survival of newly-planted street trees in places as dy-
namic, heterogeneous, and diverse as cities. Population growth, vehicu-
lar traffic, poor air quality, and building and sidewalk designs all present
challenges to urban street trees, yet trees must reach maturity in order
to maximize proven biophysical and social benefits (Dwyer et al. 1992).
While there is much research on soil regimes, nursery stock, and species
selection, survival rates still vary widely—from 34.7% to 99.7% accord-
ing to a recent review of the literature (Roman 2006). As cities around
the United States increase their investment in tree planting via programs
such as MillionTreesNYC, Million Trees Los Angeles, and Keep India-
napolis Beautiful, urban forest managers must be able to ensure young
trees’ best chance of survival.
Other published work on tree mortality provides insight into factors
impacting the life of an urban street tree. One early study analyzes street
trees in three Boston neighborhoods that differ both socioeconomically
and demographically and reports a 26% mortality rate of 136 trees planted
two to four years prior on one commercial street (Foster and Blaine 1978).
The authors also observed low rates of vandalism, high rates of automo-
bile damage, and the potential for tree stakes to damage newly-planted
trees. Localized effects could also be at play in the findings of an Oak-
land study that assesses street tree growth and mortality of 480 volunteer-
planted trees along a 5.4-mile stretch of one boulevard; after two years,
34% of the trees were dead or removed (Nowak et al. 1990). Although
the authors find differences in mortality related to adjacent land uses, it
is uncertain if the mortality here is high overall due to conditions local to
the boulevard; if the trees were planted incorrectly by the volunteers; or
if the trees were too small to withstand minor stresses that may not affect
trees of a larger caliper; or some other factor. Another study with a lo-
cal focus reports on environmental factors influencing 1,000 urban street
trees in New York City (Berrang et al. 1985). Because all of the trees in
this study are sited directly around electrical power facilities, it is difficult
to determine if their observations are a result of this adjacent land use or
if they can be applied across the urban landscape. Observational studies
Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality 213

such as these give insight into potential factors influencing the survival of
newly-planted trees, but have yet to be tested on a city-wide scale. This
study examines similarities and differences among a wide range of site
conditions and neighborhoods.
The published study with the largest sample size reports on observa-
tions of 10,000 newly-planted trees in northern England and finds 9.7%
mortality after one year (Gilbertson and Bradshaw 1985). The researchers
draw attention to the many factors potentially affecting mortality levels
such as stock quality, planting technique, and maintenance regime, but do
not attempt to directly link any of these phenomena to tree mortality rates.
A similar study tracks four groups of newly-planted trees during their first
year in urban Brussels (Impens and Delcarte 1979). The average mortality
rate after one year is 11.3%, but detailed information that describes the
size, species, or specific location of the trees is not addressed by the study.
A second study about the survival of newly-planted urban trees in
Northern England reports on constant, in-situ monitoring of the study
trees, which has the potential to provide more detailed information about
precisely when and how the tree died (Gilbertson and Bradshaw 1990).
The authors found 22.7% mortality after three growing seasons in the in-
ner-city compared with 17% in greater Liverpool. Although the difference
is assumed to be linked to the inhospitable environment of the study co-
hort, vandalism is not a primary cause of tree death in inner city Liverpool.
Instead, biological factors such as species tolerance, transplant stress, wa-
ter stress, and weed competition are deemed most crucial for urban tree
establishment (Gilbertson and Bradshaw 1990).
The methods used in urban tree mortality research are broad and varied,
making it difficult to compare rates of survival, but several key observa-
tions can be gleaned from these prior studies that likely have implications
on mortality rates. Vandalism, as measured by the observation of broken
branches in the canopy or a broken main stem, is an important factor in
the mortality of urban trees (Gilbertson and Bradshaw 1985; Nowak et al.
1990; Pauleit et al. 2002; Roman 2006); adjacent land use can negatively
affect street tree populations (Nowak et al. 2004; Roman 2006); and some
species of trees fare much better than others as street trees (Gilbertson and
Bradshaw 1990; Miller and Miller 1991; Sydnor et al. 1999; Pauleit et al.
2002). Few studies have analyzed the role of physical urban design factors
214 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

such as traffic volume or the tree’s location within the streetscape on mor-
tality rates. Previous studies have not fully investigated the contribution
of social or stewardship factors including sociability of the area proximate
to the tree (e.g. seating, gardens, front yards) or signs of direct tree care
and stewardship (e.g. weeding, mulching, gardening in tree bed), to young
street tree success. The goal of this study is twofold, to develop an assess-
ment tool that includes biological, social, and urban design factors and
apply it across a wide range of land uses and neighborhood settings to gain
insight into the multiple pathways and processes impacting the health of
young street trees.

8.2 METHODOLOGY

8.2.1 SAMPLING PLAN

The 13,405 trees analyzed in this study were pulled from a larger sample of
45,094 trees using a partial inventory technique based on stratified random
sampling (Sun and Bassuk 1991; Jaenson et al. 1992). The sample was strat-
ified by time in-ground and land use in order to get a random and compre-
hensive sample of trees in each of these groups. At the time of field survey,
all trees had been in the ground between 3 and 9 years. For the stratified ran-
dom sample, the trees planted from spring 1999 to fall 2003 were grouped
into three planting periods. The sample was also stratified using aggregated
land use classes from the New York City Primary Land Use Tax Lot Output
(PLUTO) data set (NYC Department of City Planning 2005); the original
land use types were grouped into One & Two Family Residential, Multi-
family Residential; Mixed, Commercial and Public Institutions; Industrial,
Utility & Parking; and Open Space & Vacant Land. During field surveys we
found that the land use information in PLUTO was not up-to-date or accu-
rate. Forty eight percent of the tree planting locations visited had actual land
uses that differed from the PLUTO data. Because of issues encountered with
the accuracy of the PLUTO database, we present our results using the land
use types observed for the tree in the field. We also readjusted our stratified
sample to account for the distribution of field-verified land use.
Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality 215

8.2.2 FIELD METHODS

In order to efficiently visit and record data on 13,405 trees across all five
boroughs of New York City, a grid map series at roughly 1:10,000 was
produced using ArcGIS. A custom data collection form designed in Pen-
dragon Forms allowed survey questions to be loaded on a Palm Pilot for
mobile data collection. These field data were directly synchronized into
Microsoft Excel. In this study, the data were collected at multiple scales—
the tree level, then the building level, and at the block level. In order to
facilitate easy repetition of data collection, all variables were optimized
for simple field observation and require no laboratory analysis or precise
measurements. The data are organized into the three groups of relevant
information: biological factors that may affect young street trees, urban
design factors, and sociability/stewardship factors. Some of the variables
we collected can apply to more than one tier—for example, presence or
absence of a tree guard can be both a physical design and a stewardship
factor, depending on whether they are routinely installed as part of munici-
pal tree planting.
These methods were based upon social site assessment models used
for natural resource management (Freudenburg 1986) with city forest-
ers taking an active role in training and supervising researchers in the
field. All fieldwork was conducted by 20 interns hired and trained by the
New York City Department of Parks & Recreation (NYC Parks) and the
USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station (NRS). Data collection
took place over the summers of 2006 and 2007 in hundreds of New York
City neighborhoods. Recording the presence or absence of observable
phenomena, the team used a combined study approach and developed
a data collection framework that resulted in the collection of over forty
items of data at the location of each tree. Street tree locations varied
widely, from high-rise areas, to low-rise brownstone neighborhoods, to
single family structures in suburban settings. For the purposes of this
analysis, missing trees were counted as dead, following the precedent
of previous studies (Gilbertson and Bradshaw 1990; Miller and Miller
1991; Pauleit et al. 2002).
216 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

8.2.3 BIOLOGICAL FACTORS

Table 1 lists the biological factors that may have an effect on the success
and failure of young street trees. If the tree cannot obtain its minimum
biological requirements, it will not thrive, regardless of the urban context
in which it was planted. This first layer of data collection provides im-
portant clues to the overall health of the tree. The data items listed below
may indicate tree health, growth rates, damage and decay, or soil health or
identify biological stressors affecting establishment. They are most useful
in determining the overall health of a living street tree; if a tree is dead
or missing from where it was planted, it is not possible to collect many
of these data items. In light of the developing awareness in an objective
methodology in appraising tree health (Bond 2010) and linking urban tree
evaluations into the forest inventory analysis (FIA) through the ongoing
International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) Urban
Forestry Data Standards effort, our approach is certainly subject to change
as methods become standardized. Soil compaction was measured by ap-
plying pressure to the soil with a screwdriver tip; if the screwdriver easily
entered the soil, the soil was said to be uncompacted.

8.2.4 SOCIABILITY/STEWARDSHIP FACTORS

The social factors which potentially influence young street tree mortality
are listed in Table 2. Our data collection methodology includes recording
direct signs of tree stewardship at the level of each tree (i.e. planting in
tree pits, adding mulch), which are indicators that individuals or groups
are caring for a tree. At the building and neighborhood level, we observed
off-tree signs of stewardship such as the presence of home decorations,
front yard gardens, and murals. These factors are considered―“cues to
care” that provide evidence that individual and/or community-level stew-
ardship is taking place (Nassauer 1995). A well-cared for urban street tree
and pit area is considered to be a sign of active local stewardship. We also
collected data on practices that could have conflicting effects on a tree’s
health; for example, tree lights could retard tree growth by strangling the
Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality 217

Table 1. Biological factors potentially affecting young street trees in NYC.

Data Item Response type

water pooling in tree pit presence/absence
soil compaction presence/absence
animal waste presence/absence
sucker growth presence/absence
evidence of leaf chlorosis presence/absence
evidence of insect damage presence/absence
evidence of dieback presence/absence
guiding wires girdling tree presence/absence
guard/grate girdling tree presence/absence
broken branches presence/absence
unnatural lean presence/absence
trunk wound presence/absence
pit soil level categorical
planting depth categorical
species categorical
diameter at breast height categorical

tree, but also could draw attention to the presence of a tree thereby trig-
gering stewardship.
Data were collected about neighborhood sociability to ascertain
whether the tree is incorporated into active street life. For example,
benches are built into tree pits, seating is arranged under trees’ cano-
pies, or play equipment is often proximate to the tree. At the neighbor-
hood level, signs of sociability indicate more―“eyes upon the street”
(Jacobs 1961) or the orientation of urban space to enhance community
awareness and engagement. This sociability can influence tree survival
via multiple pathways, such as through prevention of tree vandalism.
Moreover, these signs of sociability can be considered indicators of
community street life and may relate to stewardship over time. Given
a study that collects observational data at one moment in time, it is
important to use these proximate measures of social life as indicators
218 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 2. Sociability/stewardship factors potentially affecting street trees in NYC.

Data Item Response type

Tree/Tree pit pit off curb (at least 12" presence/absence
level away)
curb intact presence/absence
tree grate presence/absence
block paving in tree pit presence/absence
tree guard* presence/absence
tree pit type categorical
presence/condition of block presence/absence; categorical
pavers
tree pit size (square feet) number
Building level ground floor door presence/absence
awning on adjacent building presence/absence
scaffolding on adjacent presence/absence
building
number of building stories number
land use classification categorical
Streetscape median strip on street presence/absence
level on-street parking presence/absence
bus stop nearby (< 5') presence/absence
driveway nearby (< 5') presence/absence
bike rack nearby presence/absence
sidewalk condition categorical
traffic volume categorical
tree placement in slope categorical
sidewalk width number
number of traffic lanes number
% pavement within drip line number

* the variable presence of a tree guard can also apply to the sociability/stewardship
category.

that stewardship may have occurred historically. Areas of community

street activity include facilities such as places of worship and schools,
which are known to sponsor local stewardship activities. Drawing
Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality 219

upon the work of Wilson and Kelling (1982), negative indicators were
also observed, such as the presence of broken windows, vacant lots and
buildings, and (non-mural) graffiti. Known as the―“broken-window
theory,” the presence of vacant buildings and lots strewn with gar-
bage tend to attract more visible disorder on and around neighborhood
streets. Researchers documented the presence and absence of disorder
around each street tree.
One difference in this section of data is that it is possible for some
items to have two response types. For example, if a front yard is present
(presence/absence), it may be valuable to note what type of yard (categori-
cal; i.e. paved, grass). The same can be said for gardens, building security,
murals, and public facilities. Collecting this second tier of data gives re-
searchers the ability to strengthen an analysis of the dynamic social factors
affecting street tree mortality.

8.2.5 URBAN DESIGN FACTORS

This study suggests that physical urban design factors influence the suc-
cess of young street trees; this category includes information at three dif-
ferent levels: tree/tree pit, building, and streetscape (listed in Table 3).
The factors measured at the level of the tree and tree pit itself are more
directly connected with the tree success or failure, while others, such as
the presence of a bike rack nearby and the width of the sidewalk, are more
exploratory in nature and may only provide insights into potential influ-
ences. All factors comprise the physical urban context into which the tree
has been planted. They are the result of urban design, zoning practices,
or unplanned piecemeal development and they affect the flow of pedes-
trians, bicycles, and motor vehicles through the environment surrounding
the tree. At the same time, these factors also affect airflow, sunlight, and
wind speed that can impact the growing conditions of trees (McGrath et
al. 2007).
Most of these data are collected in the presence/absence format, but
some other responses are categorical in nature. For example, pit type could
be characterized as a sidewalk cutout or tree lawn; block paving status
can range from good to raised or altogether missing; traffic volume could
220 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 3. Urban design factors potentially affecting street trees in NYC.

Data Item Response type

Tree/Tree tree care-related signage presence/absence
pit level stakes present, but no wires presence/absence
walled tree well presence/absence
tree pit plantings presence/absence
tree guard* presence/absence
tree pit paved to tree trunk presence/absence
mulch in tree pit presence/absence
gravel in tree pit presence/absence
bench near/around pit presence/absence
bird feeder in tree or tree pit presence/absence
irrigation bag presence/absence
evidence of weeding of tree pit presence/absence
litter in tree pit presence/absence
evidence of pruning presence/absence
debris in canopy of tree presence/absence
electrical outlet in tree pit presence/absence
lights in or around tree presence/absence
Building level seating area associated with building presence/absence
play equipment in yard of building presence/absence
flag on building presence/absence
decorations on door of building presence/absence
flower planters presence/absence
building has front yard (type) presence/absence; categorical
building has garden (type) presence/absence; categorical
building security (type) presence/absence; categorical
Streetscape graffiti on adjacent buildings presence/absence
broken/missing windows presence/absence
mural on adjacent building (type) presence/absence; categorical
public facilities on block (type) presence/absence; categorical
block-level vacancies categorical

* the variable presence of a tree guard can also apply to the urban design category.
Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality 221

be low, medium, or high; and sidewalk condition could be good, cracked,

poor condition, etc.

8.3 FINDINGS FROM DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

The following descriptive statistical analyses examine the effects of time

since planting, land use, and selected biological, social, and urban design
factors on urban young street tree mortality. Contingency tables and chi-
square analyses were used to assess the effect of each variable, with the
simplifying assumption that variables are independent and do not interact
with each other. Although in reality our dataset contains many nested, cor-
related and confounding variables, as practitioners we are interested in
evaluating the contributions of each variable from a management perspec-
tive and for refining planting policies and site selection procedures. For-
mal analysis incorporating combinations of and interactions between these
factors is ongoing and will be treated in future manuscripts.

8.3.1 TIME SINCE PLANTING

As previously mentioned, it is widely assumed in the literature that there is

some time after planting in which the mortality rates of street tree popula-
tions stabilize. In order to determine if and possibly when this is occurring
in New York City, we performed a preliminary analysis to determine if
time since planting is related to street tree mortality. Our data do in fact
suggest this type of trend, as the rate of tree loss for trees inspected 6-8
and 8-9 years after planting are nearly identical. Contingency table analy-
sis found years since planting to have a significant influence on tree sur-
vival (Pearson’s X2=24.65, df=2, p<0.001). The decrease in survival rate
between the first two time periods is the most marked, which reflects the
immediate difficulty that young street trees face after being transplanted
into the urban landscape. The two-year survival rate for these young street
trees was calculated using operational contract data.
222 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 4. Young street tree survival by years since planting.

Years since Alive Not Alive Total

planting sample size
No. of trees % No. of trees %
2 years after 41,169 91.3% 3,925 8.7% 45,094
planting*
3-6 years after 1,891 78.2% 526 21.8% 2,417
planting
6-8 years after 3,690 73.0% 1,363 27.0% 5,053
planting
8-9 years after 4,381 73.8% 1,554 26.2% 5,935
planting
Total 9,962 74.3% 3,443 25.7% 13,405

* 2 year survival rate is based on contractual guarantee inspection data and is only
provided for reference.

8.3.2 LAND USE

Because previous research highlighted the importance of adjacent land use

in young street tree mortality, we performed an additional analysis exam-
ining this phenomenon in New York City. For this analysis, observed land
uses were grouped into five categories: one/two family residential; multi-
family residential; mixed, commercial, and public institutions; industrial,
utility, and parking; and open space/vacant land.
In New York City, young street trees in one and two family residential
areas have the highest survival rate (Table 5), while industrial areas and
open space/vacant land had the lowest rates of street tree survival (ranging
from 60.3% to 62.9%). Pearson’s chi-square test found land use group to
have a significant influence on tree survival (X2=455.432, df=4,p<0.001).
This data suggests that neighboring human activities do have an effect on
young street tree survival and our results are similar to those found in other
studies (e.g. Nowak et al. 1990; Nowak et al. 2004).
Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality 223

Table 5. Young street tree survival by years since planting.

Land Use Group Alive Not Alive Total

sample size
No. of trees % No. of trees %
One/Two Family 4,821 82.7% 1,009 17.3% 5,830
Residential
Multi-Family 2,232 72.3% 856 27.7% 3,088
Residential
Mixed, Commer- 388 62.9% 229 37.1% 617
cial and Public
Institutions
Industrial, Utility 1,903 66.2% 972 33.8% 2,875
and Parking
Open Space and 545 60.3% 359 39.7% 904
Vacant Land
Total 9,889 74.3% 3,425 25.7% 13,314

* 2 year survival rate is based on contractual guarantee inspection data and is only
provided for reference.

8.3.3 BIOLOGICAL, SOCIABILITY/STEWARDSHIP,

AND URBAN DESIGN FACTORS

As mentioned previously, we looked at how individual or groups of vari-

ables affected survival rates through a series of two-way contingency ta-
bles. The results presented here begin to lay out the type of processes at
work in the urban forest. Our initial results are summarized in Tables 6
through 8.

8.3.3.1 BIOLOGICAL FACTORS

Previous research has shown that species does matter with respect to the
mortality of urban street trees, and this study reinforces that idea that there
are significant differences in survival rates between species (Table 6). Of
224 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 6. Young street tree survival by years since planting.

Independent Variable Alive Not % X2 df p -value

Alive Survival value
Tree species (>1% of all planted trees)
Pyrus calleryana 1,863 381 83.0%
Gleditsia triacanthos 1,274 332 79.3%
Tilia cordata 617 168 78.6%
Quercus palustris 639 177 78.3%
Zelkova serrata 537 149 78.3%
Tilia tomentosa 143 41 77.7%
Quercus rubra 145 42 77.5%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 268 85 75.9% 178.611 18 <0.001
Prunus cerasifera (Purpleleaf plum) 113 37 75.3%
Acer rubrum 245 81 75.2%
Prunus serotina (Kwanzan cherry) 266 88 75.1%
Japanese pagoda tree 310 109 74.0%
Prunus virginiana (Shubert cherry) 452 184 71.1%
Tilia tomentosa 477 204 70.0%
Acer campestre 170 73 70.0%
Liquidambar styraciflua 171 77 69.0%
Prunus spp. 210 107 66.2%
Gingko biloba 370 189 66.2%
Plantanus acerifolia 112 68 62.2%
Presence of animal scat in tree pit or near tree
Present 627 139 81.9% 24.19 1 <0.001
Not present 9,335 3,301 73.9%

the trees planted that comprise greater than one percent of the total, cal-
lery pear (Pyrus calleryana) is the most successful. Although the entire
suite of species that NYC Parks plants are known to be tolerant of urban
conditions, some have higher tolerances than others. Anecdotally, one of
the most common stressors that an urban street tree faces believed to face
is deposition of animal waste in the tree pit, yet in our results the presence
of scat was unexpectedly associated with higher survival, underscoring
Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality 225

how these simplistic analyses based on one-time observations should be

interpreted with caution.

8.3.3.2 SOCIABILITY/ STEWARDSHIP FACTORS

These variables can help to elucidate the level of engagement that an indi-
vidual or local community group has with trees in the urban landscape. In
terms of sociability, trees with adjacent seating or an adjacent front yard
were all more likely to survive in the urban environment (Table 7). Our
data also show that a tree is more likely to survive if the building in front
of which it is planted has a garden or planters/window boxes. If a garden
is present, though, the type or visible level of garden care does not have
any bearing on young street tree survival. Our interpretation of these re-
sults is that either (1) the mere presence of adjacent stewardship of other
natural amenities (lawns, gardens) is adequate to engage local residents
in the care of maintenance of their street trees; or (2) presence of signs of
off-tree stewardship may be an indicator of on-tree stewardship that has
occurred historically.
A stewardship index was constructed from factors that directly affect
the area in and around the tree pit, including: presence of signage, plant-
ings in pits, mulch, and evidence of weeding. This stewardship index is
significantly correlated with tree survival. Planting in the tree pit was
the most often observed stewardship behavior (1,039 trees), followed by
mulch (962 trees), weeding (317 trees), and signage (232 trees). Evidence
of active, direct tree stewardship is a positive indicator or predictor of
street tree survival.

8.3.3.3 URBAN DESIGN FACTORS

Our research indicates that the urban context into which street trees are
planted is an important factor in their success and failure (Table 8). Street
trees have a greater chance at survival when planted in lawn strips rather
than sidewalk cutouts. In our data the size of sidewalk cut out pits does not
have a significant influence on the survival of young street trees. Given
226 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 7. Young street tree survival and select sociability/stewardship factors

Independent Variable Alive Not % Survival X2 value df p -value

Alive
Presence of seating near tree
With seating 694 135 83.7% 28.44 1 <0.001
No seating 8,719 2,824 75.5%
Presence of front yard near tree
Yard present 5,246 1,170 81.8% 236.40 1 <0.001
No yard 4,167 1,789 70.0%
Presence of a garden near tree
Garden present 3,266 607 84.3% 210.59 1 <0.001
No garden 6,147 2,352 72.3%
Garden type (if present)
Natural 3,345 623 84.3% 1.04 1 0.308
Plastic 12 4 75.0%
Garden care (if present)
Good 3,201 580 84.7% 4.40 1 0.036
Poor 155 41 79.1%
Presence of planters or window boxes
Present 1,623 244 86.9% 142.19 1 <0.001
Not present 7,790 2,715 74.2%
Presence of stewardship signs*
4 signs 20 0 100.0%
3 signs 112 3 97.4%
2 signs 328 11 96.8% 412.36 4 <0.001
1 sign 1,325 122 91.6%
None 8,177 3,307 71.2%

* signs of stewardship include presence of signage on or near the tree; plantings in

street tree pits; mulch placed in pit; and evidence of weeding.

that larger tree pits yield greater volumes of uncompacted soil for the roots
to grow and greater surface area for water to enter the tree pit, one would
expect that street trees would fare much better in large tree pits. One pos-
sible interpretation of this result is that tree pit size is not as important in
the early life of a young street tree, but will become a limiting factor as the
tree begins to grow out of its spot in the sidewalk.
Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality 227

Table 8. Young street tree survival and select sociability/stewardship factors

Independent Variable Alive Not % Survival X2 value df p -value

Alive
Pit type
Lawn 3,548 992 78.1%
Sidewalk 5,917 2,196 72.9% 58.43 2 <0.001
Continuous 397 193 67.3%
Presence of perimeter tree guard
With guard 1,121 83 93.1% 116.42 1 <0.001
No guard 8,841 2,150 80.4%
Tree Pit Size (sidewalk trees only)
55+ sq. ft 42 7 85.7%
45 to <55 sq. ft 160 29 84.7%
15 to <25 sq. ft 3,066 570 84.3%
05 to <15 sq. ft 336 70 82.8% 7.48 5 0.188
35 to <45 sq. ft 266 58 82.1%
25 to <35 sq. ft 2,007 446 81.8%
Tree location
Located on curb 9,413 2,959 76.1% 262.78 1 <0.001
Located on median 549 484 53.1%
Observed traffic volume
Light 6,785 1,842 78.6%
Moderate 2,224 1,026 68.4% 280.49 2 <0.001
Heavy 806 530 60.3%

Installing a perimeter tree pit guard prevents vandalism and vehicular

damage, prevents animal waste deposition, and is visually representative
of a tree that is being cared for by someone. It is likely because of a com-
bination these factors that trees in pits with perimeter guards have a greater
chance at success than trees in unprotected pits. The presence/absence of
tree guards can also be considered as a sociability/stewardship factor, not
just a physical design variable. This is because while the mechanism for
reduced mortality for street trees with tree guards are physical (by prevent-
ing soil compaction or inadvertent contact to the tree by cars), tree guards
are typically installed privately and not by NYC Parks, and therefore also
represents an act of stewardship. This may vary in other urban areas.
228 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

The physical location of the tree within the urban streetscape is also
significant. Trees planted in street medians have a poor chance at survival
when compared to trees planted at the curbside. Traffic volume also has an
effect on young street tree mortality, with trees in low traffic areas faring
better than those planted in moderate or high traffic thoroughfares.
Another finding not explored here but worthy of discussion is that of
missing trees. Of the over 13,000 trees visited in this study, nearly twenty
percent of them were not present from their planted location while only
six percent were standing dead. Although these two groups were collapsed
for the purpose of discussing overall mortality, their large number war-
ranted further analysis. We looked at whether or not the populations of
standing and dead trees were significantly different with respect to some
of our variables and found the following: trash in the tree pit is more com-
mon with dead trees than missing; missing trees are more likely when a
sidewalk is less than five feet wide; trees are more likely to be missing
than standing dead in a lawn strip than any other pit type. Missing trees
are not statistically linked to the following: street slope, presence of street
parking, sidewalk condition, or traffic volume. Urban forest managers in
New York City agree that there are several possibilities of the fate of those
missing trees: vandalism, vehicular collision, or tree removal without sub-
sequent replacement but, regardless of the pathway, these missing trees
are dead.

8.4 DISCUSSION

The highly local and specific nature of other published street tree mortality
studies inspired this study to examine which factors may affect mortality
in New York City. New York City’s street tree planting mortality rates are
lower than those published for other cities (see Figure 1). Some possible
reasons for this distinction are: trees planted in New York City are planted
by experienced contractors working under the supervision of trained for-
esters, while other tree planting programs frequently use volunteers with
little or no planting experience (e.g. Nowak et al. 1990) or aren’t work-
ing with strict contract specifications; and larger caliper trees (2.5-3”) are
planted in New York City, while smaller stock was planted in other loca-
tions (Nowak et al. 1990; Gilbertson and Bradshaw 1990).
Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality 229

FIGURE 1: Other newly-planted street tree mortality studies (Aggregated from

Roman, 2006), including the results from New York City.

In this manuscript we present a socio-ecological-design framework for

future young street tree mortality research, with the intention of facilitat-
ing the replication of this type of study in other urban areas. Based on this
work we have developed a Site Assessment Tools Description (available
at http://www.nyc.gov/parks/ystm), a step-by-step guide for city managers
and researchers on how to assess early street tree survival and mortality.
Our hope is that other cities will replicate at least part of this study and
over time build up data sets which will allow for cross-city comparisons.
These preliminary results provide an initial understanding of some
of the factors that are important in the success and failure of young
street trees planted in New York City, and provides direct feedback that
managers can use to refine NYC Parks’ planting practices and policies.
Variation in planting survival rates by species has important implications
for the long-term dynamics of New York City’s street tree population.
In terms of a tree’s urban design and neighborhood context, this study
confirms the observations of many urban foresters that curbside trees
planted in lawn strips and in low-vehicular traffic areas are more likely
to survive. This study also quantifies the disproportionately high mortal-
ity rates of trees that are planted in street medians compared to trees lo-
cated on the curb. Based on this result, NYC Parks has already changed
230 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

their planting policies for median trees, and is planting trees in only the
widest street medians, where adverse factors like collisions, salt expo-
sure, and minimal soil volume are less likely. Similarly, our observation
of the effectiveness of tree guards in protecting young street trees is cor-
roborated by the experiences of NYC’s practicing urban foresters. Such
demonstrated effectiveness may justify the expense of securing street
tree guards at the time of planting.
Our results suggest that civic stewardship and neighborhood socia-
bility is a critical complement to municipal management and investment
in new street tree plantings. However, we have only started to explore
how the data we collected could be used to develop more comprehen-
sive indices representing stewardship or neighborhood sociability. The
mechanisms that relate the signs of neighborhood sociability—or even
of other non-tree signs of stewardship—to improved tree survival cannot
be revealed through this study. While we hypothesize that active pres-
ence of residents on the street can serve to help ensure that vandalism
of trees does not occur, other qualitative methods such as interviews and
repeated social observational studies would be required to evaluate this
hypothesis. Moreover, this study cannot determine directionality of ob-
served relationships. For example, the presence of stewardship activities
in nearby lawns and gardens may either inspire the care of street trees,
or the presence of the new tree itself may encourage other acts of local
stewardship along the street.
The initial results presented here offer an important basis for ur-
ban planning programs as well as for researchers interested in further
exploring factors affecting tree canopy restoration efforts in the urban
environment. This is just the beginning of what we will be able to
learn from the data we collected using this integrated socio-ecologi-
cal framework. The current MillionTreesNYC campaign aims to plant
street trees in every available and feasible sidewalk location across
a wide range of site types in New York City, but at other times and
in other places, difficult choices must be made in terms of street tree
planting locations. Taken together, these biological, social, and urban
design factors can be weighed by urban foresters when designing and
selecting the locations for street tree plantings and developing commu-
nity stewardship programs. Further analysis of our data set will assess
Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality 231

the relative importance of these and the remaining data variables that
were collected during the field survey of these trees. As cities such
as New York continue to develop and implement comprehensive tree
planting campaigns, these findings provide insight in the field of natu-
ral resource management on the relationship between locations and
vulnerability; stewardship and sustainability.

REFERENCES

1. Berrang, P., D.F. Karnosky, and B.J. Stanton. 1985. Environmental factors affect-
ing tree health in New York City. Journal of Arboriculture 11(6):185-189.
2. Dwyer J.F., E.G. McPherson, H.W. Schroeder, and R.A. Rowntree. 1992. Assessing
the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture. 18(5):227-234.
3. Fisher, D.R., E.S. Svendsen, and L.K. Campbell. 2007. Toward a framework for
mapping urban environmental stewardship. International Symposium on Soci-
ety and Resource Management, published abstract. http://www.docstoc.com/
docs/50284639/List-of-Oral-Presentations-ISSRM-2007-(listed-in-alphabetical
(accessed 01/28/2011).
4. Foster, R.S. and J. Blaine. 1978. Urban tree survival: trees in the sidewalk. Journal
of Arboriculture 4(1): 14-17.
5. Freudenburg, W.R., 1986. Social impact assessment. Annual Review of Sociology
12:451-478.
6. Gilbertson, P. and A.D. Bradshaw. 1985. Tree survival in cities: the extent and
nature of the problem. Arboricultural Journal 9:131-142.
7. Gilbertson, P. and A.D. Bradshaw. 1990. The survival of newly-planted trees in
inner cities. Arboricultural Journal 14:287-309.
8. Impens, R.A. and E. Delcarte. 1979. Survey of urban trees in Brussels, Belgium.
Journal of Arboriculture 5(8):169-176.
9. Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 1992 edition, Vintage
Books, New York.
10. Jaenson, R., N. Bassuk, S. Schwager, and D. Headley. 1992. A statistical method for
the accurate and rapid sampling of urban street tree populations. Journal of Arbori-
culture 18(4):171-183.
11. McGrath, B., V. Marshall, M.L. Cadenasso, J.M. Grove, S.T.A. Pickett, R. Plunz,
and J. Towers. 2007. Designing Patch Dynamics. Columbia University, School of
Architecture, Planning and Preservation. New York. 250 pp.
12. Miller, R.H. and R.W. Miller. 1991. Planting survival of selected street tree taxa.
Journal of Arboriculture 17(7):185-191.
13. Nassauer, J.I. 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal
14(2):161-169.
14. Nowak, D.J., J.R. McBride, and R.A. Beatty. 1990. Newly planted street tree growth
and mortality. Journal of Arboriculture 16 (5):124-129.
232 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

15. Nowak, D.J., M. Kuroda, and D.E. Crane. 2004. Tree mortality rates and tree popu-
lation projections in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Urban Forestry and Urban Green-
ing 2:139-147.
16. NYC Department of City Planning. 2005. MapPLUTO (Release 04C): NYC Depart-
ment of City Planning.
17. Pauleit, S., N. Jones, G. Garcia-Martin, J.L. Garcia-Valdecantos, L.M. Rivière, L.
Vidal-Beaudet, M. Bodson, and T.B. Randrup. 2002. Tree establishment practice
in cities and towns -- Results from a European survey. Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening 5(3):111-120.
18. Richards, N.A. 1979. Modeling survival and consequent replacement needs in a
street tree population. Journal of Arboriculture 5(11):251-255.
19. Roman, L. 2006. Trends in street tree survival: Philadelphia, PA. University of Penn-
sylvania, Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Master of Environmental
Studies Capstone Project. 30 pp. http://repository.upenn.edu/mes_capstones/4/. (ac-
cessed 01/28/2011).
20. Sydnor, D., J. Chatfield, D. Todd, and D. Balser,. 1999. Ohio street tree evaluation
project. Ohio State University and Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Bulletin
877-99. http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/forestry/urban/ostep/ostepintro/tabid/5546/De-
fault.aspx. (accessed 05/01/2010).
21. Sun, W.-Q. and N. Bassuk. 1991. Approach to determine effective sampling size for
urban street tree survey. Landscape and Urban Planning 20(4):277-283.
22. Wilson, J.Q. and G. Kelling. 1982. The police and neighborhood safety: Broken
windows. Atlantic Monthly 127:29-38.
CHAPTER 9

Tree Diversity in Southern California's

Urban Forest: The Interacting Roles of
Social and Environmental Variables
MEGHAN L. AVOLIO, DIANE E. PATAKI, THOMAS W. GILLESPIE,
G. DARREL JENERETTE, HEATHER R. MCCARTHY,
STEPHANIE PINCETL, and LORRAINE WELLER CLARKE

9.1 INTRODUCTION

Urban forests are unique in that they are novel assemblages of native and
exotic tree species (Kunick, 1987; Jim, 1993; Sjöman et al., 2012; Aronson
et al., 2015) that are influenced by both biophysical (e.g., climatic factors)
and human drivers (e.g., management and planting preferences; Sanders,
1984; Kunick, 1987; Talarchek, 1990). Accordingly, both socio-economic
and environmental drivers are necessary to explain patterns of urban for-
est composition and cover. Within different cities, studies have found a
negative relationship between tree cover and population density (Iverson
and Cook, 2000; Clarke et al., 2013), a positive relationship between tree
cover and income (Talarchek, 1990; Iverson and Cook, 2000; Lowry et al.,
2011; Clarke et al., 2013), a positive relationship between tree cover and
home or neighborhood age (Lowry et al., 2011), and a postivie relationship

© The authors (2015); Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest: The Interacting Roles of
Social and Environmental Variables. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3:73. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2015.00073. Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
234 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

between tree cover and education (Heynen and Lindsey, 2003; Luck et al.,
2009; Kendal et al., 2012b). To our knowledge, fewer studies have found
relationship with urban forests and environmental drivers. In Salt Lake
Valley, UT, Lowry et al. (2011) found greater tree cover in areas of higher
precipitation, while in Los Angeles, CA, Clarke et al. (2013) found no
relationship between tree cover and distance from the coast, an integrative
measure of environmental conditions. Heynen and Lindsey (2003) found
greater tree cover in areas with higher stream density and steeper slopes
across urban areas in central Indiana. In addition to overall tree cover, un-
derstanding how sociological and biophysical drivers affect species rich-
ness and measures of community diversity is necessary for understanding
the composition and drivers of urban forests.
Controls of diversity have been investigated in natural systems world-
wide (Gaston, 2000), and the factors that influence diversity can vary
depending on the scale being investigated (Whittaker et al., 2001; Field
et al., 2009). Many drivers have analogs in urban ecosystems. Area is a
key determinant of diversity, where larger areas can support more species
(Gaston, 2000; Whittaker et al., 2001). In cities, population density can be
indicative of available area for vegetation, as the aerial extent of vegeta-
tion generally declines with population density within cities (Jenerette et
al., 2007). Time since disturbance is an important determinant of diversity
(Whittaker et al., 2001), in that species richness increases during primary
succession (Anderson, 2007). In cities, species richness has been shown
to increase with time since development (Martin et al., 2004; Boone et
al., 2009; Kirkpatrick et al., 2011; Clarke et al., 2013). This may be seen
as analogous to time since disturbance, and therefore there are parallels
between processes of community assembly in more natural vs. urban eco-
systems. Household income has also been shown to positively correlate
with species richness (Hope et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2004; Cook et al.,
2012) and this relationship has been termed the “luxury effect” (Hope et
al., 2003). However, how this relationship might be integrated into exist-
ing theories about ecological determinants of diversity in natural systems
is less clear. Although, relationships between education and tree cover
have been found, to our knowledge no study has linked education to biodi-
versity. How these different drivers of diversity influence tree diversity at
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 235

different scales, from plot to neighborhood, municipal and larger regional

scales, has not been investigated.
The urban forest as a whole can be considered a mosaic of smaller
land parcels or patches, either public or private, that each have their own
unique set of drivers (Sanders, 1984; Zipperer et al., 1997). On a large
scale, municipalities or districts within cities have different levels of tree
diversity (Jim and Liu, 2001a; Bourne and Conway, 2013). Within these
governmental designations, tree diversity, richness, and species identity
can also differ among land use types (e.g., commercial vs. transportation;
Bourne and Conway, 2013; Clarke et al., 2013) and private (e.g., resi-
dential) vs. public trees (e.g., street trees) that are typically managed by
the municipality (Maco and McPherson, 2002). Both residential and street
trees have their own unique set of drivers (Roman and Scatena, 2011;
Pincetl et al., 2012), which is reflected in street and residential trees hav-
ing different traits and species composition (Jim, 1993; Kirkpatrick et al.,
2011). Differences between street and residential trees likely reflect the
different planting pressures and preferences of the city and private land
owners (Jim, 1993; Kirkpatrick et al., 2011). Residential and street trees
are chosen based on management requirements and desires for specific
attributes (McBride and Jacobs, 1976), which change over time (McBride
and Jacobs, 1976; Kunick, 1987; Pearce, 2013). Thus, there are multiple
spatial scales, from municipalities to residential parcels, at which human
preferences shape tree communities.
As ecosystems are transformed to urban areas, a series of filters change
the composition of the component plant species, both limiting which spe-
cies can survive in the new urban environment and adding desirable spe-
cies that are planted (Williams et al., 2009). In arid and semi-arid cities,
trees are not a key component of the native ecosystem and urban trees
are planted as the city is built. In comparison, in mesic areas where trees
are native, trees were removed as the city is built. Thus, key to predicting
patterns of urban biodiversity is to understand resident preferences and
how these preferences are reflected in plant assemblages, especially in arid
and semi-arid cities. While studies have noted that the high proportion of
flowering or fruit trees reflect resident desires for these traits (Jim, 1993;
Cook et al., 2012), no study, to our knowledge, has directly linked resident
preferences with patterns of urban tree diversity. In Australia, Kendal et al.
236 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

(2012a) found that homeowner garden preferences were correlated with

garden plant traits, and these relationships were stronger for residents who
owned their homes for longer periods of time. It is unknown, however, if
there are similar patterns across larger regional scales and for other types
of planted urban vegetation.
Here, we investigated patterns of urban tree community composition
in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area of southern California to determine
whether these patterns are correlated with resident preferences. In a previ-
ous study, over 1000 residents across southern California were surveyed
about their preferences for tree attributes (Pataki et al., 2013; Avolio et
al., 2015). Low-income residents had a higher preference for fruit trees,
and higher income residents expressed greater preferences to have trees in
their yard than low-income residents (Avolio et al., 2015). Additionally,
preferences for tree attributes were affected by local climatic conditions.
For example, residents who lived in hotter areas had a greater preference
for shade trees, and residents who lived in drier areas had a greater prefer-
ence for trees that used less water (Avolio et al., 2015). Overall, certain
tree attributes were more important than others, with aesthetics and provi-
sion of shade ranked particularly highly (Pataki et al., 2013; Avolio et al.,
2015), however, we do not know whether resident preferences for tree
attributes are actually reflected in compositional patterns of urban forests.
Traits are increasingly used in ecological studies (McGill et al., 2006)
to understand plant distributions and responses to environmental change
(Reich et al., 1997; Díaz et al., 1998) and urbanization (Vallet et al., 2010).
Traits commonly used in ecological studies (Cornelissen et al., 2003),
however, are not necessarily best suited for urban research, as many of
these traits have no direct correlate with attributes chosen by city man-
agers or residents (e.g., aesthetic attributes). To overcome this potential
limitation, Pataki et al. (2013) proposed “ecosystem service-based traits”
that are linked to known resident preferences, including: water require-
ments, size at maturity, and presence of showy flowers. Similarly, Zhang
and Jim (2014), used similar traits and called them “ecological amenities,”
evaluating whether urban trees provided seasonal changes in foliage color,
shading, and edible fruit. In Taipei, Jim and Chen (2008) found that the
main function of certain tree communities was to beautify the surround-
ing area. In Guangzhou, China, Jim and Liu (2001b) found that the most
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 237

important ecological amenity in roadsides was shade, while in parks it was

flower or fruit provision, demonstrating that different areas are managed to
provide different functions. Thus, studying tree traits that are important for
land mangers (e.g., city parks departments, residential home owners) may
be key to a predictive understanding of community composition patterns
of urban forests.
We had three objectives in this study. Our first objective was to investi-
gate the relative importance of socio-economic and environmental factors
in determining patterns of community diversity and cover of the urban
forest in southern California at county and regional scales. Our second
objective was to determine whether there are discernable spatial patterns
in urban forest species composition and the distribution of traits. We hy-
pothesized that there would be differences among counties and tree types
(street vs. residential trees) in species composition and functional trait
richness because of different actors involved in making planting decisions.
We also hypothesized that traits would be more useful for differentiating
between counties and tree types than species composition because the ma-
jority of trees in LA are planted rather than naturally regenerating. We pro-
pose that planted trees may largely be chosen for specific traits (ecosystem
service-based traits) rather than for species composition per se. Our third
objective was to evaluate whether residents' preferences for specific tree
attributes are reflected in the composition of the urban tree community, for
example, whether there are more shade trees in hotter neighborhoods. An
understanding of these patterns can contribute to general theories of spe-
cies assemblages in cultivated gardens and planted urban forests.

9.2 METHODS

9.2.1 STUDY LOCATION AND DATA COLLECTION

Urban forest composition was inventoried across three southern California

counties: Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside in 2010 and 2011. Within
each county 12 or 13 neighborhoods (37 in total) were selected to span
a range of income and age of development within each county, which
were determined using historical records and census tract data (Figure 1;
238 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Supplementary Table 1). Neighborhood boundaries were determined from

local on-line sources (Supplementary Table 1), and on average there were
7.5 census tracts per neighborhood (Supplementary Table 1). In Los An-
geles, all neighborhoods where trees were surveyed were in the city of
Los Angeles, while in Orange and Riverside counties, the neighborhoods
where trees were surveyed spanned 11 and 4 cities, respectively. In Riv-
erside, seven of the neighborhoods were in the City of Riverside. In each
neighborhood, ten 22.4 m in diameter circular plots (0.04 hectare) were
randomly placed. Data was collected according to the protocol in the Ur-
ban FOREst Effects (UFORE) model, now iTree Eco (USDA, 2011). This
involves counting and identifying each tree and the overall tree cover of
each plot. Land use type (i.e., park, residential, commercial) was also clas-
sified according to the iTree criteria and each tree was designated as either
a street tree or not. Of the species recorded, seven were shrubs or vines
that were trained to grow as trees and were excluded from our analyses
(for example, Bougainvillea glabra).

9.2.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES

The plots were geocoded (ArcGIS 9.2, ESRI, 2006) and overlaid with
environmental and socio-economic variables. Climate variables (tempera-
ture, annual maximum; precipitation, average annual) were acquired from
the PRISM Climate Group at Oregon State University at a 1 km pixel size
(Corvallis, OR, 2012) and averaged over a 30 year period (1981–2010).
Population density at the tract level were taken from the 2010 U.S. cen-
sus demographic profile 1 (DP1). Median family income, year the homes
were built and proportion of the population with a college degree or higher
were taken at the block group level from the American Community Survey
from 2006–2011 (United States Census Bureau, 2012). The average of all
plots in a neighborhood were used for all subsequent analyses. Across all
counties, the neighborhoods spanned a range of both environmental and
socio-economic factors (Table 1), none of which were correlated with one-
another (Supplementary Figure 1), except income and education. Overall,
Riverside was hotter and drier than Los Angeles and Orange counties (Ta-
ble 1); both Orange and Riverside were more recently developed than Los
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 239

FIGURE 1: Locations of sampled plots across the 37 neighborhoods and three

counties. The plots are clustered in neighborhoods.

Angeles; Orange County had a higher income than Riverside; and there
was the higher population density in Los Angeles (Table 1).

9.2.3 ECOSYSTEM SERVICE-BASED TRAITS

AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Based on a previous survey of residents in southern California, we fo-

cused on ecosystem service-based traits that were found to be important to
residents (Pataki et al., 2013; Avolio et al., 2015; Supplementary Table 2).
240 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 1. Differences among counties.

F- P-value LosAngeles Orange Riverside

value (n = 13) (n = 12) (n = 12)
# Trees 0.4ha−1 10.25 < 0.001 19±1.7A 24±2.6A 12±1.3B
Tree Cover(%) 0.18 10.835 14±1.7 15±1.6 14±1.7
Tree Richness 6.19 0.005 9±0.62AB 12±1.15A 8±0.71B
Precipitation (mm) 45.86 < 0.001 417±13.7 A
336±9.4 B
269±8.8C
Temperature (C) 23.06 < 0.001 28±0.9B 27±0.9 B
34±0.1A
Income (USD) 3.18 0.054 87±965, 12, 783AB 116±769, 14, 374A 74±044, 7962B
Year homes built 5.70 0.007 1961±2.7 B
1974±4.1 A
1978±4.7A
Population density 3.84 0.031 5033±1153 A
3301±717 AB
1833±254B
(people km−2)
Education 2.206 0.126 0.704±0.05 0.800±0.06 0.640±0.04

Shown are the F- and P-values from One-Way ANOVAs and the mean ± S.E. for each
response variable. Letters indicated significant differences at p ≤ 0.05 among the counties
as determined by Tukey’s HSD. Education is the proportion of the population with a
college degree or higher.

Trait data for each tree species were collected from three sources: Univer-
sity of Florida's horticultural database (http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/database/
trees/trees_scientific.shtml), California Polytechnic State University's Ur-
ban Forest Ecosystems Institute database (http://selectree.calpoly.edu/),
and from Sunset's Western Garden Book (Brenzel, 2001). Traits were clas-
sified at the species rather than the individual tree level. For example, a
species that will provide a high degree of shade at maturity was counted
as a shade tree, regardless of its current size and how much shade it actu-
ally provided. We utilized this method with the assumption that trees are
likely procured and planted for their advertised traits, usually at maturity,
and younger trees when they are planted might not yet possess the desired
traits. See Supplementary Table 2 for a list of the ecosystem service-based
traits used in this paper, traits are bolded and italicized here. The provi-
sion of shade had three categories with three being the highest shading
potential. Flowering had three categories; 0 for species that did not flower
(i.e., coniferous trees) or species with inconspicuous flowers (i.e., maple
trees), (1) for trees whose flowers are visible (i.e., citrus trees) and (2) for
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 241

trees that had large showy flowers (i.e., Jacaranda trees). We used two
categories for fruiting depending on whether the species provides an ed-
ible product. We also used two categories for fall color depending on the
presence of showy fall foliage. We used two categories of fruit showiness
that depended on whether the fruit or berries are very visible. Overall,
we derived a general category of “showiness” as an integrative measure
of beauty. We calculated overall showiness as the sum of the flowering,
fall color and showy fruit categories. Higher numbers indicated that a tree
was more visually distinctive. Growth rate had three categories: 1 ≤ 38
cm year−1, 2 = 39–76 cm year−1, and 3 ≥ 77 cm year−1. Water requirement
was derived from the Western Garden Book (Brenzel, 2001) with a scale
of 0–3. Zero was little to no water needs, (1) was used for species reported
to require less than regular watering (every 2–3 weeks), (2) was used for
species reported to need regular watering, and (3) was for species reported
to require wet soils. Most of the species in this study were 1–3. Damaging
roots were quantified with three categories depending on the degree to
which roots could cause damage to the yard and sidewalk. The tendency
to drop litter was quantified with two binary categories as well as NA
for species for which there was insufficient information. The phenology
of leaves was categorized as deciduous, evergreen or semi-evergreen. We
also derived an index of tree maintenance as the sum of fruiting, high
water requirement (water requirement > 2), dropping of debris, and de-
ciduousness which ranged from 0 to 4. Native and palm both had two
categories depending on whether the species was native to southern Cali-
fornia or a palm species, respectively. Lastly, leaf color, leaf type (broad,
needle, scaly), and flower color were determined, leaf color did not take
into account if the leaf changed colors in the fall. Trees that did not flower
or have visible flowers had NA for flower color.

9.2.4 TREE TYPES

We used the Calflora (www.calflora.org) database to determine tree spe-

cies (as defined by Calflora) that can regenerate naturally and have been
recorded in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties (136 native spe-
cies and 113 exotic species). The Calflora does not consider elevation, and
242 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

species that are native only to higher elevation areas are still considered
native when sampled at lower elevations. Any species we recorded that
was not in the Calflora database we considered cultivated and not able to
regenerate naturally in southern California.

9.2.5 DATA ANALYSIS

All data analyses were conducted in R (R Core Development Team, Vi-

enna, Austria) and statistical significance was considered at α = 0.05. En-
vironmental and socio-economic data were averaged across all plots at the
neighborhood level. Tree data from each plot were summed at the neigh-
borhood level because the iTree plots were small and many contained only
1 tree species. Thus, we considered all 10 iTree plots as necessary to ad-
equately sample a single neighborhood, and the unit of replication was the
neighborhood. The components of the urban forest were measured three
ways: (1) all trees in all land use types, (2) street trees only across all land
use types, and (3) non-street trees in plots where the land use was classified
residential or multi-family. These three categories are hereafter referred to
as “all tree,” “street tree,” and “residential tree” data, respectively. We cal-
culated tree richness, Shannon's diversity, evenness (Shannon's diversity/
log (species richness) and Whittaker's Index for beta diversity in the Vegan
package (Oksanen et al., 2013). Three neighborhoods had no street trees
and two neighborhoods had no residential trees; thus these were excluded
from the appropriate analyses. Tree cover was summed across all 10 plots
and divided by 1000, and thus is percent cover.
For traits, we evaluated the proportion of trees in each neighborhood
that had specific traits (e.g., proportion of trees that provided high shade).
We quantified the proportion of trees that had the highest shading potential
(3), the highest water requirement (3), the presence of visible and recog-
nizable flowers (1 or 2), the fastest growth rate (3), the most destructive
root systems (3), a showiness variable of > 1, and maintenance value > 2.
All other traits were binary. We performed stepwise multiple regressions
with residential trees only to assess the degree to which expressed prefer-
ences of residents matched attributes of the urban forest. We performed
a functional trait analysis to determine the functional dispersion of each
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 243

neighborhood with dbFD in the FD package (Laliberté and Legendre,

2010), which takes into account both the dissimilarity of traits as well as
the abundance of each species. For these analyses, we used Gower dis-
similarity to determine how much neighborhoods differed in tree traits.
Gower allows for both continuous and categorical traits to be analyzed
simultaneously, thus all traits were included in these analyses.
One-Way ANOVAs were used to determine differences among counties
in their urban forest, environmental and socio-economic variables. Two-
Way ANOVAs were used to determine whether there were differences
between street and residential trees across the three counties for both mea-
sures of diversity and traits. We used Tukey's HSD for all post-hoc testing.
To study relationships between environmental and socio-economic drivers
with the urban forest we performed forward and backwards stepwise mul-
tiple regressions using the MASS package (Venables and Ripley, 2002).
We used the relaimpo package to calculate partial regression coefficients
(Groemping, 2006). Although income and education were correlated, they
were never both selected for inclusion in a final multiple regression model,
which eliminated any problems of collinearity.
We tested for multivariate differences in street and residential trees as
well as street trees in the different counties based on species composition
and trait data with non-metric multidimensional scaling using metaMDS
in the Vegan package (Oksanen et al., 2013). For neighborhood differ-
ences based on species composition we used Bray-Curtis dissimilarity,
while for traits we used Euclidian distance based on the proportion of trees
with a particular trait. Using the adonis function in the Vegan package, we
performed permutational multivariate ANOVA to test whether the patterns
of community and trait dissimilarity were significant. Lastly, to determine
the relationship between geographic distance among neighborhoods and
tree community similarity based on both presence/absence species data
and traits, we performed Mantel correlations using the Vegan package.
Geographic distances were calculated in ArcGIS using the measure tool.
Species composition differences among neighborhoods were calculated
using Jaccard dissimilarity and trait differences (all proportional traits)
were calculated using Euclidean distance. We performed Mantel correla-
tions for all trees, street trees, and residential trees.
244 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

9.3 RESULTS

9.3.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S URBAN FOREST

Overall we found 114 trees species in the surveyed neighborhoods. Us-

ing the classifications provided by Calflora, we found that of these spe-
cies 7% were native, 46.5% were exotic but can regenerate naturally, and
46.5% were exotics that cannot reproduce naturally and must be planted
and maintained by residents. We found 64 tree species in Los Angeles
County, 75 in Orange County and 45 in Riverside County. All counties
had similar beta diversity (~0.835) and demonstrated high turnover in spe-
cies across neighborhoods within a county. The most common tree spe-
cies was Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) followed by queen
palm (Arecastrum romanzoffianum) and Mediterranean cypress (Cupres-
sus sempervirens). Of these three most common species, W. robusta and
C. sempervirens can reproduce naturally, while A. romanzoffianum cannot.
However, most of the trees we encountered were planted by residents or
the city and were not growing spontaneously. We found that the most com-
mon tree species varied by county as well as tree type (street or residential;
Figure 2). Only one of the most common species was native, Quercus
agrifolia. There were also differences among counties where Orange and
Los Angeles counties had a greater number of trees per neighborhood than
Riverside County, and neighborhoods in Orange County had greater tree
richness than Riverside (Table 1). We also found some differences in land
use type where residential areas had the greatest number of tree species
and tree cover while utility areas had the fewest number of species and
vacant lots had the least tree cover (Table 2).

9.3.2 DETERMINANTS OF URBAN FOREST

STRUCTURE AND RICHNESS

Overall, socio-economic drivers had a greater effect on urban forest struc-

ture than environmental drivers, with neighborhood income, year the
neighborhood was built, and proportion of residents with a college degree
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 245

FIGURE 2: Rank abundance curves for the 15 most common street and residential
trees across the three counties. Also shown are whether the species is native (N), is
exotic but can reproduce naturally or spontaneously (ES), or is an exotic species that
must be cultivated (EC). The names of most common 5–7 species are provided. Note
that although many of the trees are exotic but can reproduce spontaneously, the
majority of trees were still planted. This is especially true for the street trees. Species
codes: Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Arcu); Arecastrum romanzoffianum
(Arro); Cinnamomum camphora (Cica); Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Cuan); Cupressus
sempervirens (Cuse); Ficus benjamina (Fibe); Koelreuteria bipinnata (Kobi); Ligustrum
japonicum (Lija); Liquidambar styraciflua (List); Magnolia grandiflora (Magr);
Melaleuca quinquenervia (Mequ); Metrosideros excelsus (Meex); Pinus canariensis
(Pica); Platanus x acerifolia (Plxac); Podocarpus gracilior (Pogr); Prunus cerasifera
(Prce); Pyrus calleryana (Pyca); Quercus agrifolia (Quag); Quercus ilex (Quil); Ulmus
parvifolia (Ulpa); Schinus molle (Scmo); Washingtonia robusta (Waro).
246 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

FIGURE 2: Continued.

or higher being the most important (Table 3). We also found that drivers
differed depending on scale, either across all counties or within counties
(Table 3). There were more trees in wealthier neighborhoods (Figure 3,
Table 2) across all counties and Orange County, and there were also more
trees in older neighborhoods in Orange County (Figure 3, Table 3). There
was greater tree cover in more educated neighborhoods (Figure 3, Table 3)
across all counties, and within Riverside County there was greater cover in
older neighborhoods (Figure 3, Table 3). Across all counties and in Orange
County alone there was greater richness in wealthier neighborhoods, and
in Orange County only there was greater richness in older neighborhoods
(Figure 3, Table 3). In Los Angeles County only, there was greater tree
richness in neighborhoods where residents were more educated (Figure 3,
Table 3). Across all counties, functional dispersion was not explained by
any environmental or socio-economic drivers, but was negatively related
to income in Riverside County only (Figure 3, Table 3).

9.3.3 PATTERNS OF URBAN FOREST DIVERSITY,

COMPOSITION, AND TRAITS

When only looking at street and residential trees across the three counties,
we found an interaction between county and tree type for tree richness
247

Table 2. Patterns of tree community diversity by land-use type across three counties in southern California.
County Landuse N Alpha diversity Beta Gamma # of stems % Tree
diversity diversity cover
Richness Evenness H′
All Commercial 55 1.16 (0.07) 0.105 (0.04) 0.094 (0.04) 0.595 (0.01) 21 0.78 (0.18) 3.63 (0.79)
All Institutional 19 1.16 (0.12) 0.105 (0.07) 0.094 (0.07) 0.464 (0.04) 7 0.79(0.32) 10.26 (4.09)
All Park 14 1.64 (0.22) 0.393 (0.13) 0.358 (0.12) 0.942 (0.02) 16 3.34(1.16) 33.93 (7.54)
All Transport. 13 1.23 (0.17) 0.148 (0.10) 0.133 (0.09) 0.628 (0.06) 7 2.69 (1.31) 10.38 (4.29)
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest

All Utility 5 1.4(0.24) 0.356 (0.22) 0.247 (0.15) 0.700 (0.15) 4 1.80 (1.11) 13.00 (9.69)
All Vacant 25 1.08 (0.05) 0.073 (0.05) 0.051 (0.03) 0.300 (0.03) 6 0.32 (0.17) 2.80 (1.44)
All Multi-family 42 1.67 (0.15) 0.390 (0.07) 0.351 (0.07) 0.930 (0.01) 37 2.53 (0.37) 15.83 (1.93)
All Residential 188 1.54 (0.06) 0.366 (0.03) 0.302 (0.03) 0.960 (0.001) 90 2.18 (0.16) 18.37 (1.16)
LA Residential 56 1.52 (0.11) 0.322 (0.06) 0.271 (0.05) 0.962 (0.004) 44 2.30 (0.38) 19.01 (2.03)
OC Residential 66 1.73 (0.10) 0.510 (0.06) 0.418 (0.05) 0.969 (0.003) 60 2.65 (0.25) 16.28 (1.82)
RI Residential 66 1.36(0.08) 0.260 (0.05) 0.211 (0.05) 0.948 (0.004) 39 1.62 (0.17) 19.92 (2.14)
N is the number of iTree plots that were classified as each land use type. Please note that this is not at the neighborhood scale but
considers each iTree plot separately.Beta diversity was measured as the Whittaker Index.Shown are means and standard error in
parentheses of all the plots in use land use class.
248 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 3. Relationships of between characteristics of the urban forest for all trees with
socio-economic and environmental drivers.

Model Adj. R2 Temp. Precip. Pop. Income Yr. Built Edu.

(AIC) Den.
NUMBER OF TREES
Los Angeles n.s.
Orange 0.732** (40.1) 0.044 0.028 0.345** 0.411**
Riverside n.s.
All counties 0.302** (146.6) 0.082* 0.259**
TREE COVER
Los Angeles n.s.
Orange n.s.
Riverside 0.778** (−83.1) 0.151 0.144 0.523**
All counties 0.236** (−211.2) 0.122 0.052 0.124*
RICHNESS
Los Angeles 0.509* (15.1) 0.063 0.054 0.514**
Orange 0.762* (19.6) 0.087* 0.051 0.024 0.084* 0.624**
Riverside n.s.
All counties 0.261** (82.8) 0.039 0.184** 0.100
FUNCTIONAL DISPERSION
Los Angeles n.s.
Orange n.s.
Riverside 0.506** (−93.8) 0.075 0.086 0.493*
All counties n.s.

Models were run for each county separately and for all counties together. If an explanatory
factor was not included in the final model the cell is left blank. Otherwise, relative
importance of the factor is reported. For the significant explanatory variables, a cell shaded
dark gray is a positive relationship and light gray is a negative relationship between the
explanatory factor and measures of the urban tree community. For the overall model, and
relative importance of individual factors significance is shown as: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

(Table 4; Figure 4A), where in both Los Angeles and Riverside there was
similar tree richness between street and residential trees, but in Orange
County there was greater tree richness of residential trees compared with
street trees. There was an effect of county for proportion of shade trees
(Table 4), where there were more shade trees in Riverside compared with
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 249

FIGURE 3: Overall patterns of urban forest characteristics in urbanized southern

California. Data are for all neighborhoods across the three counties. A regression line
is only shown for significant relationships. Black thick lines are the relationships across
all counties, and thinner gray-scale lines are the relationships within each county.
 250

Table 4. Differences between counties and tree type (street or residential) in community diversity and traits.

Factor d.f. Rich. Even. Div.(H’) Func. Shade Fruit Flow. Showy Fast gr. Dam. High High
Disp. rt. rts. water maint.
req.
County 2 3.45 2.36 1.88 1.78 4.92 2.54 1.25 0.10 1.43 2.92 2.60 1.77
(0.04) (0.10) (0.16) (0.18) (0.01) (0.09) (0.29) (0.91) (0.25) (0.06) (0.08) (0.17)
Type 1 8.11 0.83 3.29 1.08 4.18 4.94 2.27 0.32 1.01 2.18 14.2 5.63
(0.01) (0.37) (0.07) (0.30) (0.05) (0.03) (0.14) (0.57) (0.31) (0.15) (<0.01) (0.02)
CxT 2 3.48 0.74 5.14 0.91 2.19 1.87 0.72 1.50 0.15 1.92 0.38 1.35
(0.04) (0.48) (0.01) (0.41) (0.12) (0.16) (0.49) (0.23) (0.86) (0.15) (0.69) (0.35)

Shown are the F- and P-values from Two-Way ANOVAs. Significant values are bolded.
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 251

Los Angeles (data not shown). We found more differences between tree
types (street and residential trees) than among counties based on their
traits (Table 4). A greater proportion of street trees provided shade com-
pared with residential trees (Table 4; Figure 4B), while a greater propor-
tion of residential trees provided fruit compared with street trees (Table 4).
We also found that a greater proportion of residential trees had high water
requirements (Table 4; Figure 4C) and a greater proportion had higher
maintenance needs (Table 4; Figure 4D) compared with street trees.
There were no differences in species composition (Figure 5A; p =
0.488) between street and residential trees, although we were able to de-
tect overall trait differences between street and residential trees (Figure
5C; p = 0.009). Similarly, we tested for differences among counties in
street tree composition. For both species composition (Figure 5B; p =
0.133) and traits (Figure 5D; p = 0.534) there were no differences in street
trees among counties.
Neighborhoods that were closer together did not have more similar tree
communities for all trees (r = 0.0336, p = 0.224) and residential trees only
(r = 0.0144, p = 0.350). For street trees only, we found that neighborhoods
that were close together did have more similar tree species composition
(r = 0.0774, p = 0.050). There were no distinguishable patterns in trait
similarity and distance among neighborhoods for all trees (r = −0.0345,
p = 0.749), street trees (r = −0.0697, p = 0.994), or residential trees (r =
−0.018, p = 0.593).

9.3.4 LINKS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES AND

RESIDENTIAL TREES COMMUNITIES

We found more residential trees in higher income neighborhoods (Table 5)

and that temperature alone explained 26% of variation in the proportion of
shade trees, where hotter neighborhoods had a greater proportion of shade
trees (Table 5; Figure 6). There was a higher proportion of fruiting trees
in older neighborhoods, more flowering trees in neighborhoods where
residents were more educated, and a lower proportion of showy trees in
neighborhoods with higher population densities (Table 5). For undesirable
traits, we found a greater proportion of trees with damaging roots in hotter,
252 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

FIGURE 4: Patterns of community diversity across counties and tree types in species
richness (A), proportion of shade trees (B), proportion of trees with high water
requirements (C), and proportion of trees that are high maintenance (D). Shown are
means ± standard error. Letters denote significant differences p ≤ 0.05.

drier neighborhoods (Table 5). Lastly, we found a lower proportion of high

maintenance trees in newer neighborhoods (Table 5).

9.4 DISCUSSION

Urban ecosystems are increasing in area worldwide (Grimm et al., 2008)

and yet, we have relatively little ecological theory to understand what
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 253

FIGURE 5: Differentiation of tree types across counties (street and residential) and
counties (street trees only). We were unable to differentiate between street and
residential trees (A, stress = 0.149), or between counties (B, stress = 0.104) using
species composition data. Using trait data, we were able to detect differences
between street and residential trees (C, stress = 0.198), but not counties using all
traits (D, stress = 0.157). Species data is shown in circles and trait data in triangles.

controls population and community processes in urban forests. The cur-

rent lack of understanding is associated with the complex and varied ways
residents shape urban plant communities. In semi-arid and arid cities, ur-
banization increases the number of trees overall, and this pattern appears
to be quite generalizable (McBride and Jacobs, 1976; Zipperer et al., 1997;
Jenerette et al., 2013). Given that a large proportion of trees in these cities
are planted, it seems reasonable to assume that sociological drivers are im-
portant determinants of richness and that attributes of these trees should be
related to the preferences and management concerns of the actors who se-
lect trees. Here, we found that a new set of ecosystem service-based traits
are very useful for understanding drivers of urban forest composition.
 254

Table 5. Relationships of residential trees’ functional dispersion, number of trees, and proportion of trees with a particular trait and
socio-economic and environmental drivers.

Model Adj. R2 Temp. Precip. Pop. Den. Income Yr. Built Edu.
(AIC)
Functional dispersion n.s.
Number of trees 0.159* (121.7) 0.035 0.173**
Shade trees 0.264** (−97.9) 0.285**
Fruiting trees 0.198** (−113.4) 0.078 0.019 0.183* 0.030
Flowering trees 0.091* (−93.7) 0.118*
Showy trees 0.170** (−93.9) 0.034 0.185**
Trees with damaging roots 0.283** (−120.75) 0.159** 0.158** 0.034 0.016
High water needs trees n.s.
Fast growing trees n.s.
High maintenance trees 0.109* (−116.7) 0.135*

If an explanatory factor was not included in the final model the cell is left blank. Otherwise, the significance p-value of the factor is reported.
For the significant explanatory variables, a cell shaded dark gray is a positive relationship and light gray is a negative relationship between the
explanatory factor and measures of the urban tree community.For the overall model, and relative importance of individual factors significance
is shown as: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 255

FIGURE 6: The relationship between the proportion of trees that provide significant
shade and local neighborhood temperature of residential trees. See Table 4 for
significance.

9.4.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S URBAN FOREST

We found over 10 fold more exotic species than native species in southern
California. Southern California is naturally an ecosystem where trees were
not a dominant feature of the landscape at low elevations prior to urbaniza-
tion (Rundel and Gustafson, 2005), and a general trend of more exotic tree
species in urban areas has been found elsewhere (Aronson et al., 2015).
The vegetation of southern California was surveyed in the 1980's (Miller
and Winer, 1984) and street trees were surveyed in 1990's (Lesser, 1996).
In 1984, the most common trees were California fan palm (Washingto-
nia filifera), Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), and Monterey pine
(Pinus radiata; Miller and Winer, 1984). All three species were found in
our study; however, now the most common species is the exotic Mexican
fan palm (W. robusta) and Monterey pine was not very common. In 1996,
256 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

the most common street trees were American sweetgum (Liquidambar sty-
raciflua), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandifolia), and holly oak (Quer-
cus ilex; Lesser, 1996), and the most recently planted street trees were
American sweetgum; crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), and London
planetree (Platanus x acerifolia; Lesser, 1996). Of the most commonly
planted species in 1996 both American sweetgum and London planetree
were among the five most common species. Many of the species that dom-
inated our survey in 2010 were not as common 20–30 years ago, which
may reflect the changing nature of resident preferences and species that
are available in nurseries, which do change over time (Pincetl et al., 2013).

9.4.2 DETERMINANTS OF URBAN FOREST

STRUCTURE AND RICHNESS

In contrast to Kendal et al. (2012b), who found that biophysical factors

explained patterns of richness, we found that only socio-economic fac-
tors were significant, which is similar to patterns in Phoenix, AZ (Hope et
al., 2003). One possible reason for this is the location of this research in
southern California. Southern California has historically been described as
a “Garden of Eden” (Pincetl et al., 2013). The temperatures are mild and
with rampant irrigation urban plants are not reliant on rainwater. This is
one possible reason why we did not find an effect of precipitation; trees
are heavily irrigated in southern California (Pataki et al., 2011). The effect
of climate and environmental conditions is most likely much stronger in
cities where temperatures are more extreme.
Similar to other studies, we found greater species richness in higher
income neighborhoods (Hope et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2004), although
to our knowledge this is the first study to find this pattern when focusing
on trees only. In a previous study that focused on the city of Los Angeles,
Clarke et al. (2013) found that tree diversity was interactively affected
by both development age and household income, where older, wealthier
neighborhoods had the highest richness and new low income neighbor-
hoods had the lowest richness. In southern California, maintenance costs
of trees include irrigation (Pataki et al., 2011), which may enable wealthier
areas to have greater tree cover (Jenerette et al., 2013). Income can also
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 257

result in greater richness through complex social interactions, termed the

“ecology of prestige” (Grove et al., 2006, 2014), whereby homeowner's
desire to create an aesthetic that is associated with wealth. In addition to
income, we found a marginally significant effect of neighborhood age (p
= 0.06) with higher diversity in older neighborhoods. In Orange County,
however, neighborhood age was the best predictor of richness and ex-
plained over 60% of variation in species richness. In Los Angeles County
we found education was the best predictor or richness, explaining 62% of
variation in richness. To our knowledge we are the first study to link edu-
cation to biodiversity, other studies have found an effect of education on
tree cover only (Heynen and Lindsey, 2003; Luck et al., 2009; Kendal et
al., 2012b). In Los Angles, income was not included in the final multiple-
regression model, suggesting that the education effect is not that these
residents had more money. Instead, our findings suggests that education
could be affecting ones attitude toward the importance of urban forests
and trees in general, resulting in more pro-environmental behavior (Chen
et al., 2011). Lastly, we did not find an effect of population density, per-
haps because most neighborhoods were characterized by relatively high
population density (Figure 1) and thus there was not much variation in
this driver.
We also found the scale at which we were looking, within or across
counties, affected drivers of the urban forest. For example, we were un-
able to detect a relationship between tree richness and socio-economic or
environmental variables in Riverside County. This suggests that similar
to natural areas, the scale at which diversity is assessed can be an impor-
tant determinant of the associated drivers (Whittaker et al., 2001; Field et
al., 2009). Hence, at the county scale there is reduced range of values to
correlate with diversity relative to the regional scale, similar to findings
in natural ecosystems (Field et al., 2009) in which drivers of diversity
are more difficult to detect at smaller spatial scales. For example, there
was a reduced range of neighborhood ages in Los Angles compared with
Riverside and Orange Counties. Further, while we chose neighborhoods
to span a range of income and age, we only sampled 10 neighborhoods
per county, and perhaps a more exhaustive sampling would have revealed
more patterns.
258 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

9.4.3 PATTERNS OF URBAN FOREST DIVERSITY,

COMPOSITION, AND TRAITS

We found differences among counties, land use types, and street and resi-
dential trees in multiple measures of community diversity. Among land
use types we found the highest species richness in parks and residential
properties and the lowest in vacant lots and intuitional properties (Table
2). We also found differences between street and residential trees and an
interaction with county, where there was greater richness of residential
trees in Orange County but not in Los Angeles and Riverside Counties.
Jim (1993) also found greater residential tree diversity than street tree di-
versity within a neighborhood of Hong Kong. Overall, we found differ-
ent levels of species richness depending on land use types and tree types
(residential vs. street), which may reflect the many different managers and
drivers of the urban forest.
We postulate that residents may be less concerned with individual spe-
cies, with which they are often unfamiliar, and more concerned with the
functional and visual attributes that species provide. Trait identification
and classification may be more informative than species identity and rich-
ness. When we compared traits of residential and street trees we found that
residential areas had a greater proportion of fruiting trees and street trees
had lower water requirements and needed less maintenance, but there was
no significant difference in species composition between street and resi-
dential trees. Taken together, residents may plant trees more for provision-
ing ecosystem services while city managers are more concerned with tree
water requirements and maintenance.
Neighborhoods that were closer together had more similar street tree
species than neighborhoods farther apart. Although patterns of spatial
auto-correlation are commonly found in natural ecosystems (Koerner and
Collins, 2013), previous studies on urban vegetation did not find evidence
of spatial auto-correlation (Hope et al., 2003; Clarke et al., 2013). We only
found evidence of spatial auto-correlation with street trees, not all trees or
residential trees, which could be caused by similar planting choices within
municipalities or neighborhoods closer together may have been developed
at similar times and reflect the planting preferences of that time period.
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 259

Overall, our findings suggest that neighborhoods within cities might have
more similar tree communities than neighborhoods in different cities.

9.4.4 LINKS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES AND

RESIDENTIAL TREES COMMUNITIES

Avolio et al. (2015) surveyed of preferences of residents across five south-

ern California counties, including Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside.
This survey included residents in the neighborhoods studied here, however,
we are not able to link preferences of residents in those specific neighbor-
hoods with traits of trees in their neighborhood due to limitation of the da-
taset. Based on previous findings about the preferences of urban residents
in southern California for specific tree attributes, we hypothesized that
these preferences would shape the traits of the urban forest. For example,
wealthier residents in southern California ranked the importance of hav-
ing trees in their yard more highly than lower income residents (Avolio et
al., 2015), and correspondingly we found more residential trees in higher
income neighborhoods than lower income neighborhoods. Residents that
lived in hotter areas had a greater preference for shade trees (Avolio et
al., 2015), and here we found more shade trees in hotter neighborhoods.
This is contrary to patterns expected based on biophysical drivers of forest
processes alone, in that leaf area generally declines with increasing tem-
perature (Cornelissen et al., 2003). Hence, planting preferences may com-
pletely overcome biophysical drivers and limitations. Although residents
in more arid areas had a greater preference for trees that required less wa-
ter (Avolio et al., 2015), we did not find that drier neighborhoods had more
drought tolerant trees; tree watering requirements were not explained by
any of the independent variables. This may be partially explained by the
low cost of water in southern California, such that irrigation requirements
may not have historically played an important role in decision-making
about trees. Similarly, although provision of fruit was more important
to low income than high-income residents (Avolio et al., 2015), here we
found that the proportion of fruit trees was not related to income. A pos-
sible cause of this mismatch between resident preferences and traits of the
urban forest is that monetary limitations may restrict the ability of lower
260 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

income residents to create tree communities that match their preferences.

By comparing stated preferences with patterns of urban forest diversity
and traits we found that resident preferences are reflected in traits of the
urban forest, and that the strength of this relationship may be modified by
resident's income.

9.5 CONCLUSION

In southern California we found a diverse urban forest primarily composed

of exotic species. Overall, socio-economic variables better explained vari-
ation in species richness, number of trees, tree cover, and functional dis-
persion than environmental variables. Additionally, we found that within
county drivers of the urban forest were not the same at larger geographic
scales, highlighting the need for ecologists to study the scale at which
drivers of urban diversity are most influential. We found linkages between
resident preferences for specific tree attributes and the actual distribu-
tion of functional traits in the urban forest. For example, we found that
residents in hotter neighborhoods have a greater tendency to prefer shade
trees, and currently this is manifest in more shade trees in hotter neighbor-
hoods. Overall our results show that the majority of tree species in the
urbanized region of southern California are exotic species, about half of
which need to be actively planted by humans for their survival. As such,
the attributes or traits that residents and managers use to select which spe-
cies to plant are key to understanding patterns of urban vegetation.

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, K. (2007). Temporal patterns in rates of community change during suc-

cession. Am. Nat. 169, 780–793. doi: 10.1086/516653
2. Aronson, M. F. J., Handel, S. N., La Puma, I. P., and Clemants, S. E. (2015).
Urbanization promotes non-native woody species and diverse plant assemblages
in the New York metropolitan region. Urban Ecosyst. 18, 31–45. doi: 10.1007/
s11252-014-0382-z
3. Avolio, M. L., Pataki, D. E., Pincetl, S., Gillespie, T. W., Jenerette, G. D., and
McCarthy, H. R. (2015). Understanding preferences for tree attributes: the relative
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 261

effects of socio-economic and local environmental factors. Urban Ecosyst. 18,

73–86. doi: 10.1007/s11252-014-0388-6
4. Boone, C. G., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Schwarz, K., and Buckley, G.
L. (2009). Landscape, vegetation characteristics, and group identity in an urban
and suburban watershed: why the 60s matter. Urban Ecosyst. 13, 255–271. doi:
10.1007/s11252-009-0118-7
5. Bourne, K. S., and Conway, T. M. (2013). The influence of land use type and mu-
nicipal context on urban tree species diversity. Urban Ecosyst. 17, 329–348. doi:
10.1007/s11252-013-0317-0
6. Brenzel, K. N. (ed). (2001). Sunset Western Garden Book, 7th Edn. Menlo Park,
CA: Sunset Published Co.
7. Chen, X., Peterson, M. N., Hull, V., Lu, C., Lee, G. D., Hong, D., et al. (2011). Ef-
fects of attitudinal and sociodemographic factors on pro-environmental behaviour
in urban China. Eniron. Conserv. 38, 45–52. doi: 10.1017/S037689291000086X
8. Clarke, L. W., Jenerette, G. D., and Davila, A. (2013). The luxury of vegetation
and the legacy of tree biodiversity in Los Angeles, CA. Landsc. Urban Plan. 116,
48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.006
9. Cook, E. M., Hall, S. J., and Larson, K. L. (2012). Residential landscapes as
social-ecological systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between
people and their home environment. Urban Ecosyst. 15, 19–52. doi: 10.1007/
s11252-011-0197-0
10. Cornelissen, J. H. C., Lavorel, S., Garnier, E., Díaz, S., Buchmann, N., Gurvich,
D. E., et al. (2003). A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measure-
ment of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 51, 335–380. doi: 10.1071/
BT02124
11. Díaz, S., Cabido, M., and Casanoves, F. (1998). Plant functional traits and envi-
ronmental filters at a regional scale. J. Veg. Sci. 9, 113–122. doi: 10.2307/3237229
12. Field, R., Hawkins, B. A., Cornell, H. V., Currie, D. J., Diniz-Filho, A. F., Guégan,
J.-F., et al. (2009). Spatial species-richness gradients across scales: a meta-analy-
sis. J. Biogeogr. 36, 132–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.01963.x
13. Gaston, K. J. (2000). Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 40, 220–227. doi:
10.1038/35012228
14. Grimm, N. B., Faeth, S. H., Golubiewski, N. E., Redman, C. L., Wu, J., Bai, X.,
et al. (2008). Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319, 756–760. doi:
10.1126/science.1150195
15. Groemping, U. (2006). Relative importance for linear regression in r: the package
relaimpo. J. Stat. Softw. 17, 1–27.
16. Grove, J. M., Locke, D. H., and O'Neil-Dunne, J. P. M. (2014). An ecology of
prestige in New York City: examining the relationships among population den-
sity, socio-economic status, group identity, and residential canopy cover. Environ.
Manage. 54, 402–419. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0310-2
17. Grove, J. M., Troy, A. R., O'Neil-Dunne, J. P. M., Burch, W. R. Jr., Cadenasso,
M. L., and Pickett, S. T. A. (2006). Characterization of households and its im-
plications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 9, 578–597. doi:
10.1007/s10021-006-0116-z
262 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

18. Heynen, N., and Lindsey, G. (2003). Correlates of urban forest canopy cover:
implications for local public works. Public Works Manag. Policy. 8, 33–47. doi:
10.1177/1087724X03008001004
19. Hope, D., Gries, C., Zhu, W., Fagan, W. F., Redman, C. L., Grimm, N. B., et al.
(2003). Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
100, 8788–8792. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1537557100
20. Iverson, L., and Cook, E. (2000). Urban forest cover of the Chicago region and
its relation to household density and income. Urban Ecosyst. 4, 105–124. doi:
10.1023/A:1011307327314
21. Jenerette, G. D., Harlan, S. L., Brazel, A., Jones, N., Larissa, L., and Stefanov, W.
L. (2007). Regional relationships between surface temperature, vegetation, and
human settlement in a rapidly urbanizing ecosystem. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 353–365.
doi: 10.1007/s10980-006-9032-z
22. Jenerette, G. D., Miller, G., Buyantuev, A., Pataki, D. E., Gillespie, T. W., and
Pincetl, S. (2013). Urban vegetation and income segregation in drylands: a synthe-
sis of seven metropolitan regions in the southwestern United States. Environ. Res.
Lett. 8:044001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044001
23. Jim, C. Y., and Chen, W. Y. (2008). Pattern and divergence of tree communi-
ties in Taipei's main urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 84, 312–323. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.001
24. Jim, C. Y., and Liu, H. T. (2001a). Patterns and dynamics of urban forests in rela-
tion to land use and development history in Guangzhou City, China. Geogr. J. 167,
358–375. doi: 10.1111/1475-4959.00031
25. Jim, C. Y., and Liu, H. T. (2001b). Species diversity of three major urban forest
types in Guangzhou City, China. For. Ecol. Manage. 146, 99–114. doi: 10.1016/
S0378-1127(00)00449-7
26. Jim, C. Y. (1993). Trees and landscape of a suburban residential neighbourhood in
Hong Kong. Landsc. Urban Plan. 23, 119–143. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(93)90112-Q
27. Kendal, D., Williams, K. J. H., and Williams, N. S. G. (2012a). Plant traits link
people's plant preferences to the composition of their gardens. Landsc. Urban.
Plan. 105, 34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.023
28. Kendal, D., Williams, N. S. G., and Williams, K. J. H. (2012b). Drivers of diver-
sity and tree cover in gardens, parks and streetscapes in an Australian city. Urban
For. Urban Green. 11, 257–265. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.03.005
29. Kirkpatrick, J. B., Daniels, G. D., and Davison, A. (2011). Temporal and spatial
variation in garden and street trees in six eastern Australian cities. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 101, 244–252. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.029
30. Koerner, S. E., and Collins, S. L. (2013). Small-scale patch structure in North
American and South African grasslands responds differently to fire and grazing.
Landsc. Ecol. 28, 1293–1306. doi: 10.1007/s10980-013-9866-0
31. Kunick, W. (1987). Woody vegetation in settlements. Landsc. Urban Plan. 14,
57–78. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(87)90006-5
32. Laliberté, E., and Legendre, P. (2010). A distance-based framework for mea-
suring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91, 299–305. doi:
10.1890/08-2244.1
Tree Diversity in Southern California's Urban Forest 263

33. Lesser, L. (1996). Street tree diversity and DBH in Southern California. J. Arboric.
22, 180–186.
34. Lowry, J. H., Baker, M. E., and Ramsey, R. D. (2011). Determinants of urban
tree canopy in residential neighborhoods: Household characteristics, urban
form, and the geophysical landscape. Urban Ecosyst. 15, 247–266. doi: 10.1007/
s11252-011-0185-4
35. Luck, G. W., Smallbone, L. T., and O'Brien, R. (2009). Socio-economics and
vegetation change in urban ecosystems: patterns in space and time. Ecosyst. 12,
604–620. doi: 10.1007/s10021-009-9244-6
36. Maco, S., and McPherson, E. (2002). Assessing canopy cover over streets and
sidewalks in street tree populations. J. Arboric. 28, 270–277.
37. Martin, C. A., Warren, P. S., and Kinzig, A. P. (2004). Neighborhood socioeco-
nomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential
neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc. Urban Plan.
69, 355–368. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.034
38. McBride, J., and Jacobs, D. (1976). Urban forest development: a case study, Menlo
Park, California. Urban Ecol. 2, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/0304-4009(76)90002-4
39. McGill, B. J., Enquist, B. J., Weiher, E., and Westoby, M. (2006). Rebuilding
community ecology from functional traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 178–185. doi:
10.1016/j.tree.2006.02.002
40. Miller, P., and Winer, A. (1984). Composition and dominance in Los Angeles Ba-
sin urban vegetation. Urban Ecol. 8, 29–54. doi: 10.1016/0304-4009(84)90005-6
41. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O'Hara, R.
B., et al. (2013). vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.0-9.
Available online at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
42. Pataki, D., McCarthy, H., Gillespie, T., Jenerette, G. D., and Pincetl, S. (2013).
A trait-based ecology of the Los Angeles urban forest. Ecosphere 4:art72. doi:
10.1890/ES13-00017.1
43. Pataki, D. E., McCarthy, H. R., Litvak, E., and Pincetl, S. (2011). Transpiration of
urban forests in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Ecol. Appl. 21, 661–677. doi:
10.1890/09-1717.1
44. Pearce, L. (2013). Using size class distributions of species to deduce the composi-
tional dynamics of the private urban forest. Arboric. Urban For. 39, 74–84.
45. Pincetl, S., Gillespie, T., Pataki, D. E., Saatchi, S., and Saphores, J.-D. (2012).
Urban tree planting programs, function or fashion? Los Angeles and urban tree
planting campaigns. GeoJournal 78, 475–493. doi: 10.1007/s10708-012-9446-x
46. Pincetl, S., Prabhu, S. S., Gillespie, T. W., Jenerette, G. D., and Pataki, D. E. (2013).
The evolution of tree nursery offerings in Los Angeles County over the last 110
years. Landsc. Urban Plan. 118, 10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.05.002
47. Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B., and Ellsworth, D. S. (1997). From tropics to tundra:
global convergence in plant functioning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94, 13730–
13734. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.25.13730
48. Roman, L. A., and Scatena, F. N. (2011). Street tree survival rates: meta-analysis
of previous studies and application to a field survey in Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Urban For. Urban Green. 10, 269–274. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.05.008
264 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

49. Rundel, P. W., and Gustafson, R. (2005). Introduction to the Plant Life of Southern
California. University of California Press, Los Angeles.
50. Sanders, R. (1984). Some determinants of urban forest structure. Urban Ecol. 8,
13–27. doi: 10.1016/0304-4009(84)90004-4
51. Sjöman, H., Östberg, J., and Bühler, O. (2012). Diversity and distribution of the
urban tree population in ten major Nordic cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 11,
31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.09.004
52. Talarchek, G. (1990). The urban forest of New Orleans: an exploratory analysis of
relationships. Urban Geogr. 11, 65–86. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.11.1.65
53. Vallet, J., Daniel, H., Beaujouan, V., Rozé, F., and Pavoine, S. (2010). Using bio-
logical traits to assess how urbanization filters plant species of small woodlands.
Appl. Veg. Sci. 13, 412–424. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2010.01087.x
54. Venables, W. N., and Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S. New
York, NY: Springer.
55. Whittaker, R. J., Willis, K. J., and Field, R. (2001). Scale and species richness: to-
wards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. J. Biogeogr. 28, 453–470.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2001.00563.x
56. Williams, N. S., Schwartz, M. W., Vesk, P. A., McCarthy, M. A., Hahs, A. K., Clem-
ants, S. E., et al. (2009). A conceptual framework for predicting the effects of urban
environments on floras. J. Ecol. 97, 4–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01460.x
57. Zhang, H., and Jim, C. Y. (2014). Species diversity and performance assessment
of trees in domestic gardens. Landsc. Urban Plan. 128, 23–34. doi: 10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2014.04.017
58. Zipperer, W., Sisinni, S., Pouyat, R., and Foresman, T. (1997). Urban tree cover: an
ecological perspective. Urban Ecosyst. 1, 229–246. doi: 10.1023/A:1018587830636
CHAPTER 10

Assessing the Effects of the Urban Forest

Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC
on the Structure and Functioning of
New York City Ecosystems
P. TIMON MCPHEARSON, MICHAEL FELLER,
ALEXANDER FELSON, RICHARD KARTY, JACQUELINE W.T. LU,
MATTHEW I. PALMER, and TIM WENSKUS

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Urban areas are complex combinations of ecological remnants with vary-

ing states of human development. Urbanized areas cover only 1% to 6%
of Earth’s surface, yet they have massive ecological footprints (Rees and
Wackernagel 1996) and complex and often indirect effects on surrounding
ecosystems (Alberti et al. 2003). Urbanized land already covers more area
than the combined total of national and state parks and areas preserved by
The Nature Conservancy (McKinney 2002). Urban areas continue to ex-
pand as populations increase. For example, New York City (NYC) expects
to add nearly 1 million residents by 2030 to an already densely populated
city. Additionally, 70% of all humans globally are predicted to live in cities
by 2050 (US Census Bureau 2000). Given these trends, one of the primary

© McPhearson, P.T., M. Feller, A. Felson, R. Karty, J.W.T. Lu, M.I. Palmer and T. Wenskus. 2010.
Assessing the Effects of the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC on the Structure
and Functioning of the New York City Ecosystems. Cities and the Environment 3(1):article 7. http://
escholarship.bc.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/7. Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/3.0/). Used with the permission of the authors.
266 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

dynamics that must be understood at a local, regional, and global scale is

the effect of humans on the ecology of urban systems (Machlis et al. 1997;
Pickett and Grove 2009).
The contemporary ecological paradigm recognizes that humans are in-
tegral parts of ecosystems exerting direct and indirect influences on the
functioning of ecological systems (Egerton 1993; McDonnell and Pickett
1993; Holling 1994; Cronon 1995; Alberti et al. 2003; Turner et al. 2004).
However, the study of urban ecosystems is still a relatively new pursuit
in ecology (Pickett et al. 2001; Pickett and Grove 2009). The need to un-
derstand the intricacies of urban ecosystems emerges from the increasing
fraction of humanity that calls cities home and from the disproportionate
impact cities have on both regional and global systems (Collins et al. 2000;
Grimm et al. 2000; Pickett et al. 2008). A more nuanced understanding
of urban ecosystems, including socio-ecological dynamics, would allow
ecologists to use socio-ecological theory to explain and predict urban dy-
namics (Pickett et al. 2008). Similarly, understanding of urban ecological
patterns and processes would allow for improved, adaptive management
of cities for healthier and more resilient socio-ecosystems.
There are a number of important examples of ecosystem research in
NYC. Early groundwork for an understanding of cities as socio-ecological
systems was laid by William H. Whyte’s social ecology program in NYC
(Whyte 1980; 1988) and continues to be developed by many others (Platt
2006). In addition, the urban to rural gradient studies developed two de-
cades ago (McDonnell and Pickett 1990; McDonnell et al. 1997) and re-
visited over the years (Gregg et al. 2003) made significant contributions
to urban ecology. Here we discuss an initial step towards a greater under-
standing of NYC as an urban ecosystem through a multi-institutional, in-
terdisciplinary, long-term research study of the dynamics of urban forested
ecosystems through the installation of long-term urban forest research
plots across NYC.

10.2 PLANYC 2030 / MILLIONTREESNYC

On Earth Day 2007 NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced PlaNYC,

a comprehensive longterm sustainability plan for New York City (City
Assessing the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC 267

of New York 2007). PlaNYC includes 127 ambitious sustainability initia-

tives, one of which is the MillionTreesNYC (MTNYC) Initiative, a public-
private partnership between the NYC Department of Parks & Recreation
(NYC Parks) and the New York Restoration Project (NYRP), with the goal
of planting one million trees by 2017. Since the launch of MTNYC, pub-
lic, private and non-profit organizations have organized nearly 4,000 citi-
zen volunteers to plant trees across NYC and inspired planting campaigns
in other U.S. cities. One aspect of MTNYC directs the planting of nearly
400,000 trees to establish 2,000 acres of new forest on NYC parkland and
other public open spaces with the goal of creating multi-story, ecologically
functioning forests. This large-scale afforestation effort provides the basis
for a citywide ecological research project discussed here.

10.3 THE ECOLOGICAL VALUE OF URBAN FORESTS

Urban forests provide cities with numerous ecological benefits including:

regulating local surface and air temperatures, filtering pollution from the
local atmosphere which may positively impact the health of urban resi-
dents, trapping rainwater during heavy storms which prevents pollution
of local waterways, and storing and sequestering atmospheric carbon di-
oxide. One recent study by the U.S. Forest Service put the compensatory
value of NYC’s forest at over $5 billion (Nowak at el. 2007) using the
Urban Forest Effects Model (UFORE) and data collected in 1997 on the
city’s forest. UFORE estimated that NYC’s forest stores 1.35 million tons
of carbon, a service valued at $24.9 million. The forest sequesters an ad-
ditional 42,300 tons of carbon per year (valued at $779,000 per year) and
about 2,202 tons of air pollution per year (valued at $10.6 million per year;
Nowak et al. 2007).
We suggest that increased information on the structure and functioning
of the urban forest can be used to improve and augment support for urban
forest management programs and to integrate urban forests within plans to
improve environmental quality in the NYC area. Now in its third year, the
city has already added over 300,000 young trees to existing urban parks,
private lands, and city streets (Figure 1). But will planting trees result in the
268 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

kinds of complex multi-story structures and ecological functioning desired

of forests? How will various planting strategies affect these outcomes?

10.4 ESTABLISHING LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS IN NYC

NYC Parks’ Natural Resources Group (NRG) has a long history of cou-
pling ecological research and monitoring with applied urban vegetation
management and ecological restoration practices. This has included grant
funding and collaboration with universities. For the MTNYC effort, NYC
Parks in 2008 worked with EDAW | AECOM, a consulting firm, and with
the MTNYC Advisory Board’s Research and Evaluation Subcommittee
to establish a large-scale research project designed as functional parkland
(Felson and Pickett 2005). The goal was to study the short and long-term
impacts of the MTNYC tree planting strategies on ecosystem structure and
functioning in a couple key NYC parks. More recently, researchers joined
with NYC Parks to develop a more comprehensive citywide research proj-
ect. The project represents a partnership between NRG, The New School’s
Tishman Environment and Design Center (TEDC), Columbia University’s
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology (E3B),
and the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
This research leverages the large-scale tree planting activities of the
MTNYC campaign to create structured experimental study plot treatments
in order to understand the effects of MTNYC’s forest restoration efforts
on the structure and functioning of urban parkland in NYC (Figure 2). We
define forest restoration here as the cumulative management activities of
invasive plant removal, dense tree and shrub planting, and soil amend-
ment as motivated and designed by NYC Parks in parks citywide. Moti-
vating questions for our research include: How do variations in planting
practices affect the development trajectories of new forest communities?
How long will it take for forest canopy closure under different manage-
ment practices, and how does closure rate affect invasive plant popula-
tion dynamics? How do planting decisions and restoration practices affect
overall forest restoration success, as measured by canopy closure and rate
of invasive plant establishment? What are the implications of expected
heterogeneity in soil nutrients for plant dynamics and productivity and
Assessing the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC 269

FIGURE 1: MillionTreesNYC Tree Planting Since 2007. MillionTreesNYC plants

trees in parks, privately held land, along streets, and other areas around the city with
the goal of adding one million trees to NYC by 2017. Source: MillionTreesNYC.org

how might soils be in turn affected as the plant community develops? The
goal of the research is to work towards understanding several of these key
management questions through a multi-year study to provide baseline sci-
entific data to inform park design and forest management. We will monitor
survivorship and growth of individual trees and measure canopy density
270 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

FIGURE 2: Permanent Plot Design. Experimental research plots consist of a 30m

x 30m plot with four 15m x 15m nested subplots in a block design with two main
treatments, High and Low Diversity and Understory (w/Shrubs, Herbs) or No
Understory (w/o Shrubs, Herbs). Trees are planted four feet on center (shown as
green dots). Vegetation and soil data is annually sampled in a 10m x 10m plot nested
within the 15m x 15m subplots to minimize edge effects between subplot treatments.
Diversity and understory treatments are randomly applied to the subplots when the
plot is established. The arrangement of the subplots varies in some parks based on
the size and shape of the area being restored.

at the stand level, as well as assess the understory vegetation and changes
to soils, both as they exist at the initiation of the restoration and as they
develop over time.
Assessing the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC 271

10.5 URBAN VEGETATION AND SOIL ANALYSIS

Long-term study of forest restoration and regeneration is critical to under-

standing forest dynamics in urban ecosystems. Urban vegetation and soil
studies are important to understand urban biodiversity, climate modifica-
tion, carbon dynamics, and pollution and water absorption functions of
soil. We are particularly interested in the role of exotic and invasive spe-
cies, which have received particular attention in urban ecology (Pickett et
al. 2001). In an earlier urban-to-rural gradient study in NYC, the number
of exotics in the seedling and sapling size classes of woody species was
greater in urban and suburban oakdominated stands (Rudnicky and Mc-
Donnell 1989). There is growing evidence that the presence of exotics is
enhanced along pathways in rural recreation areas (Rapoport 1993) and in
urban parks (Drayton and Primack 1996). In Boston’s Middlesex Fells, a
400 ha urban woodland park inventoried for plants in 1894, a re-census
of the flora in 1993 showed that the majority of new species recorded on
the site were exotic species and that native species had declined by nearly
10% (Drayton and Primack 1996). By studying vegetation in a large num-
ber of heterogeneous sites across the city, we hope to build a more com-
prehensive picture of invasive plant population dynamics and their effects
on the ecological dynamics of NYC forests.
Understanding the ecological and management controls on plant di-
versity is critical for understanding how ecosystems function. The rela-
tionship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning has been an area
of intense debate in the ecological sciences (Naeem 2002). It has been
argued from theory and empirically demonstrated that biodiversity should
increase the functioning of ecosystems (Loreau et al. 2002; Cardinale et al.
2006). However, depending on the functional characteristic measured, this
prediction has not held up in all empirical investigations of the relation-
ship (Jiang et al. 2008). In urban ecosystems the question is even murkier.
We are examining this relationship in a subset of afforested parks in NYC
forest ecosystems by looking specifically at changes in diversity over time
and the relationship between diversity, forest development, and ecosystem
functions such as net primary productivity and soil carbon storage.
Assessing baseline and changing soil conditions is also essential
for prioritizing further ecosystemscale research in urban forests and
272 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

for understanding the impacts of soils on vegetation dynamics and res-

toration outcomes in urban areas. Urban soils are known to be highly
heterogeneous (Pouyat et al. 2007). However, soils in NYC are poorly
understood and a simultaneous investigation of both citywide (New York
City Soil Survey 2005) and local, plot-scale soils will provide critical
data for building a more comprehensive understanding of urban ecosys-
tem dynamics. This research is designed to assess how soil heterogeneity
varies across space and time in NYC’s forested ecosystems and the ef-
fects of this heterogeneity on vegetation dynamics. This project will fo-
cus first on characterizing the heterogeneity within and among research
plots, thereby providing data on variation in soil nutrients, metals, and
carbon at local and regional scales. We are interested in whether soil
heterogeneity within study plots impacts the survivorship and growth of
trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species planted in the MTNYC campaign
and whether heterogeneity across sites can help to explain potential vari-
ation in species performance.
Most soil studies in urban areas have focused on disturbed and hu-
man-constructed soils along streets and in highly developed areas (Craul
and Klein 1980; Patterson et al. 1980; Short et al. 1986; Jim 1993, 1998;
Pouyat et al. 2007). As a result “urban soils” typically have been viewed
as drastically disturbed soil material of low fertility (Craul 1999). Yet
other potentially influential factors associated with urban land trans-
formations have received limited attention. In fact, the characteristics
of soil can vary greatly across the urban landscape, including not only
highly disturbed, but also relatively undisturbed soils that are modified
by management and urban environmental factors (Schleuß et al. 1998;
Pouyat et al. 2003). Urban soil research that describes the differences
in surface soil properties among various land uses and cover types will
be useful in differentiating relatively intact remnant soils from highly
disturbed and managed soils, and for assessing impacts of soil on veg-
etation dynamics in long- term research plots. In addition, those soil
properties associated with specific management strategies (such as those
employed in MTNYC) and intensity of use may be useful as diagnostic
properties to differentiate human impacts on surface soil characteristics
in urban landscapes (Pouyat et al. 2007).
Assessing the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC 273

10.6 HYPOTHESES

We examine the dynamic interactions between plants, soils, and manage-

ment practices in permanent forest restoration plots, focusing on how they
change over time. This research is guided by three overarching hypotheses:

1) Forest restoration will enhance urban forest functioning (e.g., net

primary productivity and soil fertility) over time at the plot scale
and citywide.
2) Forest restoration will increase the biological diversity of urban
forests over time at the plot scale and citywide.
3) Forest restoration will decrease the abundance and distribution of
invasive species over time at the plot scale and citywide.

10.7 METHODS

Evaluating park planting and management designs requires experimental

treatments that can be implemented across sometimes very different park
settings with adequate replication. Study plots need to be large enough to
capture relevant dynamics but small enough to fit into interstitial restora-
tion areas in existing parks. Methodological approaches also require sim-
plicity given the multiple participants, including researchers, volunteers,
local community members, and NYC Parks personnel. Plot size also needs
to be reasonably small to allow efficient sampling on an annual basis as
the number of plots increases with time (plots and thus replication increase
over time as more reforestation sites are designated by NYC Parks & Rec-
reation). The plot size should also reflect the need for permanent plots to
facilitate additional field studies and subsequent research projects while
meeting the goals of the current study.
Research collaborators chose 900 m2 plots (Figure 2), which are simi-
lar in scale to other forest studies such as the U.S. Forest Service Forest
Inventory and Analysis Program (U.S. Forest Service 2007). Long-term
experimental research plots utilize a nested design to allow scientists to
evaluate the importance of varying levels of tree diversity and understory
274 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

on reforestation dynamics. Research plots are a randomized complete

block design with four 15m x 15m subplots nested within each 30m x 30m
full plot with two treatments (High Tree Diversity/Low Tree Diversity
and Understory/No Understory) in a factorial experimental design (Figure
2). Treatments are designed to test how varying levels of tree diversity
combined with understory or no understory treatments affect long-term
restoration outcomes. Within each subplot is a 10m x 10m sampling plot.
The subplot is centered within the treatment plot to minimize edge ef-
fects. Therefore, all vegetation and soil sampling takes place at the 10m x
10m subplot scale. Subplot corners are marked with permanently installed
rebar with GPS coordinates recorded at plot corners. Site selection for
permanent plots was based on availability of forest restoration sites of
appropriate size (large enough to accommodate a 900 m2 research plot)
and canopy openness (in order to limit variation caused by shading from
mature trees).
Subplots are planted, in coordination with NRG field crew leaders,
MTNYC personnel, volunteers, and contractors, with 7.6 L (2-gallon)
container trees (tree height varies from 0.5 - 1.0meters) in high (6 spe-
cies) and low (2 species) diversity treatment configurations randomized
across blocks within the full plot. The diversity levels were chosen to span
the range of tree species richness typically found in areas of similar size
in existing NYC urban forests. The understory treatment contains 3.8 L
(1-gallon) shrubs planted at a density of 36 shrubs per subplot (Figure 2).
Tree and shrub species were chosen based on known or expected adap-
tations to particular urban park conditions, local biophysical character-
istics of site type, availability from local nurseries, and park landscape
design parameters in collaboration with NYC Parks ecologists to establish
standardized planting palettes for both mesic and hydric site types across
the city. Mesic sites include six tree species (Quercus rubra, Nyssa syl-
vatica, Amelanchier canadensis, Prunus serotina, Quercus coccinea, and
Celtis occidentalis) and six shrub species (Sambucus canadensis, Lindera
benzoin, Aronia arbutifolia, Rosa virginiana, Viburnum acerifolium, and
Hamamelis virginiana). Hydric sites also include six tree species (Quer-
cus palustris, Nyssa sylvatica, Quercus bicolor, Liquidambar styraciflua,
Platanus occidentalis, and Diospyros virginiana) and six shrub species
(Cornus amomum, Clethra alnifolia, Viburnum dentatum, Rosa palustris,
Assessing the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC 275

Cephalanthus occidentalis, and Ilex verticillata). Tree and shrub den-

sity follows the current planting practices of NYC Parks, where trees are
planted with approximately 1.2 m (four foot) spacing and shrubs (Figure
2). The expectation is that as the canopy closes, invasive plants will be
shaded out in a natural process of competition with native trees for light,
nutrients and water.
An important part of this study involves recording recent manage-
ment history on all study sites, which typically involves invasive plant
removal (by chemical sprays, selective cutting, and mowing) as a site
preparation strategy. Invasive removal is a critical but costly preparation
for tree seedling establishment in urban parks often dominated by invasive
plant species. Invasive species management has become an area of in-
tense focus and expense for NYC Parks. Current urban invasives removed
as part of forest restoration efforts include Artemisia vulgaris (mugwort),
Phragmites australis (common reed), Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose),
Ampelopsis brevipedunculata (porcelain berry), Ailanthus altissima (tree
of heaven), Fallopia japonica (Japanese knotweed), and Celastrus orbicu-
latus (Asiatic bittersweet). Management practices may also include soil
amendments such as mulching newly planted trees and watering during
the susceptible periods of early tree establishment. This project includes
extensive interaction with NYC Parks staff to document recent (past three
years) and current management at the research sites in order to understand
the ecosystem management practices which may affect the experimental
response variables.
Annual monitoring of vegetation and soils in permanent field plots will
allow us to accumulate a time series of vegetation and soil dynamics data
in order to follow community development among experimental treat-
ments. Pilot research plots were installed in April 2009 to refine the ex-
perimental design and data collection methodology discussed above. The
pilot sites were also vital to developing research protocols to coordinate
NYC Parks’ site preparation and management practices and MTNYC tree
planting events with plot installation and data collection. Permanent long-
term research plots were installed beginning in Summer 2009. Plot instal-
lation includes collecting pre-planting baseline vegetation and soil data.
As of October 2010, permanent experimental plots have been established
in the following parks: Roy Wilkins and Alley Pond in Queens; Clove
276 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Lakes and Conference House in Staten Island; Pelham Bay in the Bronx;
Canarsie and Marine in Brooklyn. We plan to add additional plots in sub-
sequent years, expanding until MTNYC sites that meet the requirements
of the research design are exhausted.
Plot scale analyses rely on both pre- and post-planting vegetation
and soil assessment in order to monitor responses to experimental treat-
ments. Annual vegetation and soil monitoring are completed in July
and August (in order to maximize the potential to identify the largest
proportion of plants within a single field visit), prior to scheduled for-
est restoration plantings in the fall (usually October). Vegetation data
collection includes surveying trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants at
the 10m x 10m subplot scale at all sites. We sampled the presence and
percent cover of all existing vegetation at the plot scale, which allows
us to address questions about tree and shrub growth, regeneration and
productivity, mortality, recruitment, density, invasive species dynam-
ics, and other related metrics of vegetation structure and function. By
examining tree, shrub, and herb dynamics over time, this project will
establish the baseline database for further interdisciplinary analyses of
other ecological, social, and economic impacts of forest restoration on
urban ecosystems.
Tree and shrub cover is monitored using two line transects, 1cm wide
by ~14.1m long, drawn diagonally from subplot corners, along which the
total number of centimeters intercepted by individuals is recorded (Figure
3). The line intercept method has been used in other restoration studies in
NYC parklands and has been used successfully in previous pilot studies
with a high level of accuracy. The line intercept method is also used to as-
sess the herbaceous plant community by stretching four 1cm wide x 10m
long transects (H1-H4) one meter in from each subplot corner (Figure 3)
and recording the total area that herbs intercept the line for a total of 4000
cm2 cover per subplot. Shrubs are also assessed for cover and location,
and size (dbh) of trees, if any, are recorded. Nearby canopy cover is mea-
sured using a spherical densiometer since trees near plots may impact light
availability and therefore vegetation responses near plot edges. All vegeta-
tion measures are assessed annually and preliminary baseline vegetation
results are presented below.
Assessing the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC 277

FIGURE 3: Subplot Annual Sampling Design. Vegetation and soil sampling occurs in
each 10m x 10m subplots. D1-D4 refer to spherical densiometer measurements taken
to assess canopy cover at each plot corner. P1-P10 are locations for high resolution
soil samples, leaf litter measurements, and soil penetrometer readings taken every
2.36 meters along diagonals and twice offset from center. S1-S5 are locations for
soil sampling locations used for composite samples. H1-H4 are transects used for
percent cover assessment of vegetation including shrubs and herbs. Tx and Ty refer
to diagonal transects used to establish soil sampling locations for each subplot.

We acquired soil samples within each subplot using two techniques:

(i) by taking ten undisturbed 5-cm-diameter by 10-cm-deep samples (P1-
P10; Figure 3) from one randomly chosen subplot in each full plot per
site for high resolution soil analysis; and (ii) by taking a composite soil
278 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

sample from 0-10cm depth, composited from 5 locations within each

subplot (S1-S5; Figure 3), taken with a sampling probe. Soil monitoring
in both pre- and post-planting phases includes assessing physical and
chemical characteristics including all major nutrient, heavy metal, and
carbon analyses, leaf litter depth, soil compaction, and pH. Subsamples
of the pre-planted dry-sieved soil were analyzed for all major nutrients
(P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, Zn, Al, NO3), total and organic carbon, and heavy
metals (Al, Ca, Co, Cu, Cr, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, P, Pb, S, Ti, V) at
Cornell University’s Nutrient Analysis Laboratory. However, initial soil
results are not presented here. Fall 2009 site descriptions including gen-
eral soil type descriptions are included in Appendix 1.

10.8 ANALYSES

Plant diversity and percent cover from plant data collected in July and August
2009 was analyzed from five of the six sites that were planted with MTNYC
trees in October 2009 in Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn (Alley Pond, Pelham
Bay, Roy Wilkins, Marine and Canarsie Park). Clove Lakes Park in Staten
Island was added late and was not sampled in 2009. For each site, species
abundance (cm2) was summed across all transects. Total abundance across
all species for a single 1cm x 10m transect could exceed 1000 cm2 because
multiple species could occupy the same space as measured by vertical pro-
jection of the transect boundary (1cm x 10m) onto the ground. Proportions
of introduced and invasive species at each site were calculated based on
species counts, using nativity and invasive status information from USDA
(2010) and Uva et al. (1997). Species coverage at each site was calculated
by dividing each species’ abundance by 16000 cm2, the total sampled area at
each site. Shannon diversity index (Shannon 1948) and evenness (Magurran
1988) were calculated using these cover values.

10.9 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Permanent research plots in seven different parks across Brooklyn, Queens,

Bronx, and Staten Island have been installed and sampled to date. We
Assessing the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC 279

show here preliminary vegetation diversity and percent cover results from
the five permanent plots assessed in 2009. Plant diversity varied across
the five sites with Shannon diversity highest in the Orchard Beach site
in Pelham Bay Park, Bronx and species richness highest in Roy Wilkins
Park, Queens (Table 1; see Appendix 2 for a complete species list). We
have not yet investigated drivers of variation in species richness across
our sites, though we expect site history and anthropogenic disturbance to
be important. Similar studies along an urban-rural gradient in Germany
found that non-native species richness was correlated with various indica-
tors of anthropogenic disturbance, though native species richness was not
(Brunzel et al. 2009).
Invasive species are of particular concern to forest restoration in NYC
because of their ability to outcompete tree seedlings and, therefore, inhibit
canopy development in MTNYC forest restoration sites. In initial analy-
ses, all sites were dominated by invasive species prior to tree planting,
with the highest proportion of vegetative cover by invasives in Marine
Park, Brooklyn (91%), and the lowest in Canarsie Park, Brooklyn (71%;
Figure 4). Interestingly, though all sites were dominated by invasive spe-
cies, not all invasives were non-native. Initial surveys revealed that three
sites (Alley Pond, Marine, Roy Wilkins Parks) dominated by non-native
species, one site, Canarsie Park, had relatively equal cover of natives and
non-natives, and the Pelham Bay site was dominated by natives, though
the majority were still largely invasive (Figure 4).
The most abundant individual species in all study plots were invasive.
For example, Artemisia vulgaris (Mugwort), a common non-native inva-
sive (Barney et al. 2008, 2009) being combated in parks and private land
throughout NYC, was the most abundant species in Canarsie, Marine, and
Roy Wilkins Park, and second most abundant at Alley Pond Park. Fallopia
japonica (Japanese knotweed) was the most abundant species in the Pel-
ham Bay Park site. Rank abundance plots show the relatively steep curves
for Alley Pond and Canarsie Park, which indicate how a small number of
species dominate the sites, with abundance quickly dropping off among
the lower-ranked, less-abundant species (Figure 5). Conversely, the less-
steep curve in the rank abundance plot for Pelham Bay indicates a higher
degree of evenness, with smaller differences between the more- and less-
abundant species. We expect this research will provide direct measures of
280 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

Table 1. Diversity Across Fall 2009 Sites. Diversity is shown for Fall 2009 study sites
(Alley Pond (1 plot), Canarsie (1 plot), Marine Park (calculated from 2 subplots),
Pelham Bay (1 plot), Roy Wilkins (2 subplots)). Richness is total number of species
found at a site. Diversity is Shannon Diversity, and evenness is calculated by dividing
Shannon diversity by maximum possible diversity.

Site Richness Diversity Evenness

Alley Pond 22 0.65 0.48
Canarsie Beach 23 0.69 0.51
Marine Park 19 0.81 0.63
Pelham Bay 28 0.95 0.66
Roy Wilkins 31 0.80 0.54

invasive species dynamics by linking plot scale data to a growing citywide

analysis of the effect of management strategy on plant diversity and abun-
dance. Additionally, aggregated vegetation data will allow an analysis of
how community dynamics in different patches in the city change over time
due to understory and tree diversity treatment variables.

10.10 CONCLUSION

The MTNYC reforestation experimental plots are a long-term project de-

signed to understand the controls on urban ecosystem structure and func-
tion in forest restoration sites, and how ecosystem management practices
may affect these controls. We focus on the abiotic and biotic drivers that
may impact structure and function in urban forest vegetation and soils.
The study is organized around repeated measurements of 900 m2 plots
to provide a framework for scaling up in space and time. Study plots are
located in parks throughout NYC (Appendix 3) and are sampled both be-
fore trees and understory species are planted, and annually thereafter in
order to assess ecosystem change over time. Long-term study of urban
ecosystems is critical to the future of urban ecology. Over the next several
Assessing the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC 281

FIGURE 4A: The proportion of native and introduced plant abundance expressed as
a percent of total abundance (y-axis)

FIGURE 4B: The proportion of invasive and non-invasive plant abundance expressed
as a percent of total abundance (y-axis). Abundance is calculated by measuring percent
cover along transects in research plots in Alley Pond and Roy Wilkins Parks (Queens),
Canarsie and Marine Parks (Brooklyn), and Pelham Bay Park (Bronx) (x-axis).
282 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

FIGURE 5: Rank Abundance for Fall 2009 Sites. The rank abundance plot shown with
rank on the X-axis and abundance on the Y-axis for each site. Rank is a sequential
number assigned to each species in decreasing order of abundance, within each site.
For each site, the most-abundant species has a rank of one.

years, this project will focus on analyzing vegetation and soil data from
the experimental research plots to better understand the development of
urban forest ecosystems. This study will also provide a baseline of in-
tensive data for future ecological research within NYC. We have found
Assessing the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC 283

interesting vegetation patterns among sites across the city and expect with
further analysis and integration of soil analyses to begin explaining these
patterns. These analyses will provide new data for understanding the ef-
fects of 2000 acres of afforestation on ecosystem structure and function-
ing, and will provide the potential to connect intensive, neighborhood and
site scale analyses of ecological, physical and social processes and mecha-
nisms with other citywide, extensive research. Ultimately we expect our
research on ecological restoration in urban centers and the impacts on the
structure and functioning of regional scale environments to prove useful
for urban ecosystem management and policymaking.

REFERENCES

1. Alberti, M., J.M. Marzluff, E. Shulenberger, G. Bradley, C. Ryan, and C. Zumb-

runnen. 2003. Integrating humans into ecology: Opportunities and challenges for
studying urban ecosystems. Urban Ecology 53:1169–1179.
2. Barney, J.N., T.H. Whitlow, A.J. Lembo. 2008. Revealing historic invasion pat-
terns and potential invasion sites for two non-native plant species. PLoS ONE
3:1-8.
3. Barney, J.N., T.H. Whitlow, and A. DiTommaso. 2009. Evolution of an invasive
phenotype: shift to belowground dominance and enhanced competitive ability in
the introduced range. Plant Ecology 202:275–284.
4. Brunzel, S., S.F. Fischer, J. Schneider, J. Jetzkowitz and R. Brandl. 2009. Neo-
and archaeophytes respond more strongly than natives to socio-economic mobility
and disturbance patterns along an urban-rural gradient. Journal of Biogeography
36:825-844.
5. Cardinale B.J., D.S. Srivastava, J.E. Duffy, J.P. Wright, A.L. Downing, M. San-
karan, and C. Jouseau. 2006. Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic
groups and ecosystems. Nature 443:989-992.
6. Collins J.P., A. Kinzig, N.B. Grimm, W.F. Fagan, D. Hope, J. Wu, and E.T. Borer.
2000. A new urban ecology. American Scientist 88:416–425.
7. Craul, P.J. and C.J. Klein. 1980. Characterization of streetside soils of Syracuse,
New York. p. 88–101. In METRIA 3: Proceedings of the Conference of the Met-
ropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance, 3rd, Rutgers, NJ. 18–20 June 1980. North
Carolina State University, Raleigh.
8. Craul, P.J. 1999. Urban soils: Applications and practices. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
9. Cronon, W. 1995. The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong na-
ture, pp. 69-90. In Cronon, W. (Ed.). Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing
Nature. Norton, New York, NY.
284 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

10. Drayton B. and R.B. Primack. 1996. Plant species lost in an isolated conservation
area in metropolitan Boston from 1894 to 1993. Conservation Biology 10:30–39.
11. Egerton, F.N. 1993. The history and present entanglements of some general ecologi-
cal perspectives, pp 9-23. In McDonnell, M.J. and S.T.A. Pickett (Eds.). Humans as
Components of Ecosystems: The Ecology of Subtle Human Effects and Populated
Areas. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
12. Felson, A. and S.T.A. Pickett. 2005. Designed experiments: New approaches to
studying urban ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment 3:549-556.
13. Gregg J.W.,C.G. Jones, and T.E. Dawson. 2003. Urbanization effects on tree growth
in the vicinity of New York City. Nature 424:183-7.
14. Grimm, N.B., M. Grove, S.T.A. Pickett, and C.L. Redman. 2000. Integrated ap-
proaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. Bioscience 50: 571–584.
15. Holling, C.S. 1994. New science and new investments for a sustainable biosphere,
pp. 57-97. In A. Jansson (Ed.). Investing in Natural capital: the Ecological Econom-
ics Approach to Sustainability. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
16. Jiang, L., P. Zhichao, and D. R. Nemergut. 2008. On the importance of the negative
selection effect for the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.
Oikos 117: 488-493.
17. Jim, C.Y. 1993. Soil compaction as a constraint to tree growth in tropical and sub-
tropical urban habitats. Environmental Conservation 20:35–49.
18. ------. 1998. Physical and chemical properties of a Hong Kong roadside soil in rela-
tion to urban tree growth. Urban Ecosystems 2:171–181.
19. Kühn, I., R. Brandl and S. Klotz. 2004. The flora of German cities is naturally spe-
cies rich. Evolutionary Ecology Research 6:759-764.
20. Loreau, M., S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti (Eds.). 2002. Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 312 pp.
21. Machlis, G.E., J.E. Force, and W.R. Burch, Jr. 1997. The human ecosystem. 1. The
human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Society and
Natural Resources 10:347–367.
22. Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton Univer-
sity Press, Princeton, NJ.
23. McDonnell, M. J. and S.T.A. Pickett. 1990. The study of ecosystem structure and
function along urbanrural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecol-
ogy 71:1231–1237.
24. ------. 1993. Humans as components of ecosystems: the ecology of subtle human
effects and populated areas. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
25. McDonnell, M. J., S.T.A. Pickett, R.V. Pouyat, R.W. Parmelee, M.M. Carreiro, P.M.
Groffman, P. Bohlen, W.C. Zipperer, and K. Medley. 1997. Ecology of an urban-to-
rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems 1:21-36.
26. McKinney, M.L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience
52:883–890.
27. Naeem, S. 2002. Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a
paradigm. Ecology 83:1537–1552.
28. New York City Soil Survey Staff. 2005. New York City Reconnaissance Soil Survey.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Staten Island, NY.
Assessing the Urban Forest Restoration Effort of MillionTreesNYC 285

29. Nowak, D. J., R.E. Hoehn, D.E. Crane, J.C. Stevens, and J.T. Walton. 2007. Assess-
ing urban forest effects and values, New York City's urban forest. Resource Bulletin
NRS-9. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station,
Newtown Square, PA.
30. Patterson, J.C., J.J. Murray, and J.R. Short. 1980. The impact of urban soils on veg-
etation. p. 33–56. In METRIA 3: Proceedings of the Conference of the Metropoli-
tan Tree Improvement Alliance, 3rd, Rutgers, NJ. 18–20 June 1980. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh.
31. Pickett, S.T.A., M.L. Cadenasso, J.M. Grove, C.H. Nilon, R.V. Pouyat, W.C. Zip-
perer, and R.Costanza. 2001. Urban ecological systems: Linking terrestrial ecologi-
cal, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics 32:127–157.
32. Pickett, S.T.A., M.L. Cadenasso, J.M. Grove, P.M. Groffman, L.E. Band, C.G.
Boone, W.R. Burch, C.S. B. Grimmond, J. Hom, J.C. Jenkins, N.L. Law, C.H. Nilon,
R.V. Pouyat, K. Szlavecz, P.S. Warren, and M.A. Wilson. 2008. Beyond urban leg-
ends: An emerging framework of urban ecology, as illustrated by the Baltimore Eco-
system Study. Bioscience 58:139-150.
33. Pickett, S.T.A. and J. M. Grove. 2009. Urban ecosystems: What would Tansley do?
Urban Ecosystems 12:1-8.
34. Platt, R. 2006. The Humane Metropolis. University of Massachusetts Press, Am-
herst, MA. 368 pp.
35. City of New York. 2007. PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater, New York, Mayor Michael
R. Bloomberg, The City of New York. http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/
home/home.shtml (Accessed 05/31/2010).
36. Pouyat, R.V., J. Russell-Anelli, I.D. Yesilonis, and P.M. Groffman. 2003. Soil carbon
in urban forest ecosystems, pp. 347-362. In Kimble J.M., L.S. Heath, R.A. Birdsey,
and R. Lal (Eds.). The Potential of U.S. Forest Soils to Sequester Carbon and Miti-
gate the Greenhouse Effect. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
37. Pouyat, R.V., I. D. Yesilonis, J. Russell-Anelli, and N. K. Neerchal. 2007. Soil chem-
ical and physical properties that differentiate urban land-use and cover types. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 71:1010-1019.
38. Rapoport, E.H. 1993. The process of plant colonization in small settlements and
large cities. In McDonnell, M.J. and S.T.A. Pickett (Eds.). Humans as Components
of Ecosystems: the Ecology of Subtle Human Effects and Populated Areas, Springer-
Verlag, New York, NY.
39. Rees, W. and M. Wackernagel. 1996. Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot
be sustainable—And why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 16:223-248.
40. Rudnicky, J.L. and M.J. McDonnell. 1989. Forty-eight years of canopy change in a
hardwood-hemlock forest in New York City. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club
116:52–64
41. Schleuß, U., Q. Wu, and H.P. Blume. 1998. Variability of soils in urban and periur-
ban areas in northern Germany. Catena 33:255–270.
42. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Techni-
cal Journal 27:379-423, 623-656.
286 Urban Forests: Ecosystem Services and Management

43. Short, J.R., D.S. Fanning, J.E. Foss, and J.C. Patterson. 1986. Soils of the Mall
in Washington, DC: I. Statistical summary of properties. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 50:699–705.
44. Turner, W.R., T. Nakamura, and M. Dinetti. 2004. Global urbanization and the sepa-
ration of humans from nature. Bioscience 54:585-590.
45. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/main/www/
cen2000.html . (Accessed 05/31/2010)
46. U.S.D.A., N.R.C.S. 2010. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Ba-
ton Rouge, LA. http://plants.usda.gov (accessed 06/08/2010).
47. U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Forest Inventory and Analysis National Core Field Guide.
http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methods-proc/docs/core_ver_4-0_10_2007_
p2.pdf (accessed 10/10/2010).
48. Uva, R., J. Neal and J. Ditomaso. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, NY.
49. Whyte, William H. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Conservation
Foundation, Washington, D.C.
50. -----. 1988. City: Rediscovering the Center. Doubleday, New York

Appendices available online at http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/7/

AUTHOR NOTES

CHAPTER 1

Acknowledgments
We thank Coloma Rull, Margarita Parès, Montserrat Rivero, and Teresa
Franquesa from the Department of the Environment of the Barcelona City
Council for their support in this research. We also thank our colleagues of
CREAF, especially José Ángel Burriel, for their support in GIS methods
and mapping. Further our thanks go to i-Tree tools team (www.​itreetools.​
org), especially to Al Zelaya, from the Davey Tree Expert Company, for
their technical assistance with i-Tree Eco model. Finally, we thank the
reviewers from the URBES project. This research was partially funded by
the ERA-Net BiodivERsA through the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness project “URBES” (code PRI-PIMBDV-2011-1179), by
the 7th Framework Program of the European Commission project “Open-
NESS” (code 308428) and by the Barcelona City Council.

CHAPTER 2

Acknowledgments
Funding was provided by EPSRC Sustainable Urban Environments grants
EP/F007604/1 and EP/I002154/1. Infoterra kindly provided LandBase,
and MasterMap was supplied by the Ordnance Survey. Leicester City
Council provided GIS data delineating council land across the city, and
J.J. Potter provided technical assistance.

CHAPTER 3

Acknowledgments
This work was funded in part by a TKF Foundation grant to MGB, an
internal grant from the University of Chicago to MGB and the Tanenbaum
288 Author Notes

Endowed Chair in Population Neuroscience at the University of Toronto

to TP. Data used for this research were made available by the Ontario
Health Study (OHS), which is funded by the Ontario Institute for Cancer
Research, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Care Ontario,
and Public Health Ontario. We thank the participants in the Ontario Health
Study. We also thank Kelly McDonald and Tharsiya Nagulesapillai for
preparing the data from OHS, and Ruthanne Henry for helping us gain
access to the Toronto GIS data.

CHAPTER 4

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the City of New York's Department of Parks and
Recreation's Forestry, Horticulture, and Natural Resources Division for
their support, and Fiona S. Watt, Jennifer Greenfeld, Jackie Lu and espe-
cially Anne Arrowsmith for their contributions to this research. We would
also like to acknowledge the voices of those who spoke to us through their
correspondence, without who this research would not have been possible.

CHAPTER 5

Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Founda-
tion Long-Term Ecological Research Program (DEB-1027188) as well as
the assistance of the Parks and People Foundation and the City of Balti-
more, Division of Forestry. We would also like to thank the three anony-
mous reviewers for their constructive comments.

CHAPTER 6

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Sarah K. Mincey and Matt Patterson, co-creators with
the authors of the Protocol who participated in the deliberation over and
design of variables. We are exceptionally grateful to current and former
staff at Keep Indianapolis Beautiful who were supportive of Protocol
Author Notes 289

development and testing (David Forsell, Jerome Delbridge, Nate Faris,

Andrew Hart, Bob Neary, and Molly Wilson), and to the members of the
KIB Youth Tree Team who tested the Protocol data collection methods
and kept excellent field notes. We are also grateful to current and former
members of the Bloomington Urban Forestry Research Group and Center
for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change, who
contributed to refinement of Version 1.0: Rachael Bergmann, Kaitlyn Mc-
Clain , Nick Myers, Shannon Lea Watkins, and Sarah Widney. Develop-
ment of the Protocol and pilot research was provided by the Efroymson
Family Fund, Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc., the City of Bloomington
Parks and Recreation Department, the State of Indiana Division of For-
estry Community and Urban Forestry Program, and the Garden Club of
America Zone IV Fellowship in Urban Forestry. Funding for printing of
Version 1.0 was provided by the Alliance for Community Trees.

CHAPTER 7

Acknowledgments
DFD-P was supported by scholarships from the SEP-PROMEP and
CONACYT, Mexico. KLE and KJG were funded by a Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Service Sustainability consortium grant awarded through
NERC (NE/J015369/1 and NE/J015237/1).

Conflicts of Interest
None declared.

CHAPTER 8

Acknowledgments
The research presented in this paper was funded by the National Urban &
Community Forestry Advisory Council and the TREE Fund. The authors
would like to thank the many people that made this project possible: Fiona
Watt and Ayla Zeimer, New York City Department of Parks & Recreation;
Jason Grabosky and Jessica Sanders, Rutgers University; Brian McGrath,
Parsons The New School for Design; all the interns who helped collect
data for this project.
CHAPTER 9

Author Contributions
MA analyzed the data. MA and DP wrote the manuscript. DP, SP, GJ, and
TG designed the experiment. HM and LC collected the data. All authors
edited and revised drafts of the manuscript, approved the final version and
agree to be held accountable for the work.

Conflicts of Interests
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a poten-
tial conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by National Science Foundation grants DEB
0919381 and 0919006, IOS 1147057, and EAR 1204442.

CHAPTER 10

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Mark Bradford, Bram Gunther, Minona Heaviland, Lea
Johnson, Steward T.A. Pickett, Richard Pouyat, Kirsten Schwartz, Fiona
Watt, Thomas Whitlow, Ian Yesilonis, and three anonymous reviewers.
We also recognize generous support from the NYC Department of Parks
& Recreation, The New School Tishman Environment and Design Center,
Christian A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation, Andrew W. Mellon Founda-
tion, Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Hixon
Center, and AECOM Design.