316 Vogt et al.: The Costs of Maintaining and Not Maintaining the Urban Forest Third, some particular maintenance non-actions stand above the rest: 1) not caring for trees in early establishment (i.e., not watering; see sidebar The Costs of Not Watering); 2) not managing for diseases or pests, such as DED or EAB, and the subsequent loss of net benefits; 3) not maintaining the urban forest as a whole by not planting trees (and, again, the loss of net benefits resulting therefrom; see sidebar The Costs of Not Planting); and 4) instances where lack of tree care may result in decline in tree condition and/ or future liability issues. Of these, points two and three are most clearly addressed in the literature. Fourth, partnerships between researchers and those who plant and care for trees—municipalities, consulting arborists, nonprofits, utility arborists, and more—could expand the information avail- able for examining the costs of maintaining and not maintaining trees (e.g., The Costs of Not Maintaining Trees summit, March 2015, which involved both researchers and practitioners). Future research partnerships should aim to exam- ine the influence of maintenance regimes on costs and tree outcomes, including examining how the frequency, intensity, duration, and extent of dif- ferent types of tree maintenance activities are con- nected to the structure, function, and benefits of trees. Large, long-term data sets, with lots of vari- ables, are one way to begin to understand more fully the marginal causal impact of different levels and combinations of maintenance activities on tree and urban forests outcomes, benefits, and costs. Additional research priorities under the banner of “the costs of not maintaining trees” could include questions, such as comparing maintenance pri- orities for practitioners of municipal, utility, and commercial arboriculture; the difference between optimal maintenance (i.e., maintenance that maxi- mizes net tree benefits) and adequate maintenance (i.e., the minimally sufficient amount of mainte- nance necessary to secure tree survival for a desired length of time, or to provide a desired minimum amount of benefits); and the need of different tree species for different levels of maintenance. Con- sensus on specific research priorities will be identi- fied in an upcoming paper emerging from the ISA Costs of Not Maintaining Trees research sympo- sium and summit held in March 2015 (both inclu- sive of researchers and practitioners from within the fields of arboriculture and urban forestry, including ©2015 International Society of Arboriculture municipal and utility foresters, consulting arbor- ists, forest economists, and social-ecological sys- tems and governance scholars). One outcome of the summit is a planned retrospective study to exam- ine tree growth and longevity, and to model if and how tree maintenance may explain tree growth and longevity. Another prospective study to develop an international network of sites for long-term urban forest monitoring and tracking of mainte- nance of trees at these sites is being recommended. Acknowledgments. This manuscript was supported by a con- tract from the International Society of Arboriculture Science and Research Committee. Author Jess Vogt performed this work as part of her doctoral research at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, Bloomington. LITERATURE CITED Achinelli, F.G., J.L. Marquina, and R.M. Marlats. 1997. Exploratory study of the relationships between tree growth, site conditions, and maintenance practices in street plantings of Fraxinus penn- sylvanica Marshall of La Plata City, Argentina. Arboricultural Journal 21:305–315. Anderson, L.M., and J. Barrows-Broaddus. 1989. Inexpensive ways to improve homebuilders tree survival. Journal of Arboriculture 15(1):13–16. Anderson, L.M., and T.A. Eaton. 1986. Liability for damage caused by hazardous trees. Journal of Arboriculture 12(8):189–195. Bai, S., W. Chaney, and Y. Qi. 2004. Response of cambial and shoot growth in trees treated with paclobutrazol. Journal of Arbori- culture 30(3):137–145. Baker, F.A., and D.W. French. 1985. Economic effectiveness of operational therapeutic pruning for control of Dutch elm disease. Journal of Arboriculture 11(8):247–249. Bakken, S.R. 1995. Group-tree hazard analysis. Journal of Arbori- culture 21(3):150–155. Ball, J. 1987. Efficient monitoring for an urban IPM. Journal of Arboriculture 13(7):174–177. Ball, J., and P. Marsan. 1991. Establishing monitoring routines and action thresholds for a landscape IPM service. Journal of Arbo- riculture 17(4):88–93. Berrang, P., D.F. Karnosky, and B.J. Stanton. 1985. Environmental factors affecting tree health in New York City. Journal of Arbo- riculture 11(6):185–189. Black, M.E. (1978). Tree vandalism: Some solutions. Journal of Arboriculture 4(5):114–116. BLS. 2015. Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator—Bureau of Labor Statistics. BOC. 2015. Inflation Calculator—Bank of Canada. Brown, A.M., and M.A.H. Boogaerdt. 2006. Accounting for subur- ban tree information systems. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 13(5):275–285. Browning, D.M., and H.V. Wiant. 1997. The economic impacts of deferring electric utility tree maintenance. Journal of Arboricul- ture 23(3):106–112.
November 2015
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
