294 Vogt et al.: The Costs of Maintaining and Not Maintaining the Urban Forest departments, road projects, schools, and other pub- lic services. Thus, tree maintenance can frequently find itself on the chopping block during budgets. Sometimes, entire urban forestry programs are cut; for example, the entire urban forestry depart- ment of Gary, Indiana, U.S., was eliminated dur- ing the 2009 budget year as a result of the Great Recession (Krause et al. 2010). And this was not a new problem: a 1983 survey of 329 municipalities reported that the most commonly cited limiting factor to tree care was lack of funding (Tate 1984a). Practitioners of urban forestry need tools to help determine minimally sufficient levels of spending on the provision and maintenance of trees in cities in order to meet diverse urban forestry program goals. With this in mind, the International Society of Arbo- riculture commissioned a literature review to exam- ine “The Costs of Not Maintaining Trees.” This paper is the second of three resulting from this literature review, and addresses the literature from within the fields of arboriculture and urban forestry (includ- ing municipal, commercial, and utility forestry), on the topic of tree maintenance costs. [The first paper was published in Arborist News in February 2015 (Hauer et al. 2015). The final paper will summarize tools and strategies from other fields that may help inform how arboriculture/urban forestry research- ers and practitioners view the costs of maintenance.] LITERATURE REVIEW METHODS Researchers reviewed literature relevant to the costs of maintenance contained in the published records of the two main scholarly journals in the field of ur- ban forestry—Journal of Arboriculture/Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (JOA/AUF; 1975 to June 2013) and Urban Forestry & Urban Greening (UFUG; 2002 to June 2013). To supplement the systematic reviews of JOA/AUF and UFUG, researchers also performed keyword searches of scholarly databases to obtain literature from 1980 to June 2013 published in other major English-language journals related to arbori- culture/urban forestry. Databases queried during the literature search included: Google Scholar™, Web of Knowledge™, JSTOR®, SciVerse, and the University of Minnesota Urban Forestry Database. Criteria for selecting articles for inclusion in the literature review included: 1. The article is within the discipline of urban forestry and includes discussion (qualitative) ©2015 International Society of Arboriculture Selected articles (or their abstracts, if full text was unavailable) were added to a collabora- tive citations folder using the Mendeley citation soſtware (Mendeley Ltd, New York City, New York, U.S.). Each article was read by at least one inves- tigator and coded for the list of attributes in the Appendix using a Microsoſt Excel® spreadsheet. Dollar Values All dollar values presented in this text are in real val- ues [current-day equivalent, expressed as 2013 dol- lars (U.S., Canadian, or Australian) or 2013 Euros], with nominal values (numeric dollars/Euros from the year the article was originally published) and year in parentheses (e.g., 1986$). U.S. dollars were converted from nominal to real values using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index inflation fac- tors (BLS 2015). Canadian dollars were converted or measurement (quantitative) of a “cost” (monetary, opportunity, social, human, eco- logical, environmental, forgone benefit, etc.) or “benefit” (economic, social, human, eco- logical, environmental, etc.) resulting from some type of management of urban trees. 2. For articles not published in JOA/AUF or UFUG, the article was published between January 1980 and June 2013. 3. The article was published in English, or at least an abstract was available in English. 4. Relevant review articles were included, and the relevant original research articles dis- cussed therein were also consulted. 5. Opinion pieces (or opinion pieces billed as review articles – mostly from older issues of JOA/AUF) without references were included in the review, but were given less emphasis in qualitative summaries of topic areas. 6. Books (textbooks, reference books, and pop- ular books) and book chapters were excluded from the literature search, except where these provided sources of peer-reviewed articles. 7. Professional whitepapers and government reports (e.g., those from the U.S. Forest Service or other appropriate entity) were included in the literature search, as long as they were scholarly in nature.
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