10 Conway et al: Replacing Trees Removed Under a Private Tree Regulation and other impervious surfaces may also reduce the amount of space available for trees, triggering removal of existing trees on a property (Jim 1998; Lee et al. 2017). While there is a long history of local governments regulating removal of public trees through ordinances or by-laws, recent efforts have expanded to also protect trees on private property (Ordóñez-Barona et al. 2021). Often, local regulations exist to protect private trees during the (re)development process, with a study in Highland Park, Illinois (USA), suggesting such efforts are effective at tree preservation (Pike et al. 2021). Increasingly, blanket private tree regulations have also been adopted in the US and Canada that outline a permit process required of all property owners want- ing to remove trees (Hill et al. 2010). Such regulations usually identify the size of regulated trees, criteria for approving a permit, and penalties for removing a tree without a permit (Lavy and Hagelman 2017). Addi- tionally, permits typically require one or more trees to be planted to replace those removed (Coughlin et al. 1988; Conway and Lue 2018). Recent research suggests that regulation of private tree removal can be effective. Municipalities with pri- vate tree protection regulations have more tree can- opy cover (Landry and Pu 2010; Sung 2012; Hilbert et al. 2019) and higher average tree heights (Sung 2013) than comparable municipalities without such regulations. But there are also challenges associated with pri- vate tree regulations. Limited enforcement makes it unclear how frequently regulated trees are removed without following the permit process (Conway and Urbani 2007; Landry and Pu 2010). In addition, some permitting regulations may exclude significant num- bers of trees or have fines that are low enough, partic- ularly in the context of major construction, that they do not serve as a deterrent to tree removal (Coughlin et al. 1988). In Falls Church, Virginia (USA), Cho- jnacky et al. (2020) found that the local ordinance requiring 20% property-level canopy cover 10 years after redevelopment often did not force replacement of trees removed during construction because many properties already exceed 20% canopy cover. A final challenge is that removal permits are typically issued with the requirement to plant replacement trees, but that planting may not occur (Conway and Lue 2018). Thus, the number of trees is reduced, and tree canopy extent will likely not recover. This study examines if the tree replacement requirement associated with a private tree removal ©2022 International Society of Arboriculture regulation is supporting long-term protection of the urban forest through a case study of Toronto, Ontario (Canada). We addressed three specific objectives: (1) measure compliance rates associated with the tree replacement requirement of residential tree removal permits; (2) determine if property-level construction or homeowner characteristics are related to the likeli- hood that replacement trees are planted; (3) determine the health and species of replacement trees to see if planted trees will contribute to growing a diverse urban forest. These objectives are addressed through an analysis of a written survey of homeowners who received a tree removal permit and follow-up site visits to a subset of survey participants. We end by consid- ering challenges and opportunities for regulating pri- vate trees through a permitting process. METHODS Study Area The City of Toronto (Ontario, Canada) serves as a case study to explore homeowner compliance with replacement tree planting associated with a private tree removal regulation. The city is located on the north shore of Lake Ontario, with a population of 2,731,571 (Statistics Canada 2016). Toronto’s canopy cover was between 28% and 31% in 2018, with 55% of trees located on private property (City of Toronto 2018). While a recent city report identified residential prop- erty as containing the most planting opportunities, it is also the land use that has added the most impervi- ous surface in the last decade (City of Toronto 2018). The City of Toronto adopted a private tree by-law in 2004 (Private Tree By-Law, Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Article III) obliging property own- ers, including residential homeowners, to apply for a permit to remove any tree over a diameter of 30 cm at 1.4 m above the ground. Any tree determined by city staff to be terminally diseased, dead, or imminently hazardous are exempt from the permit process. More- over, for major construction projects (e.g., construct- ing a high-rise, multi-unit dwelling), tree retention and planting is often part of negotiations that occur during the planning approval process (e.g., site approval, zoning variances, and building permits) outside the private tree by-law. Thus, this study focused on situations where non-exempt trees were removed on residential property that were not part of major development projects. The permit process involves an application sub- mitted to the Urban Forestry unit, which must include
January 2022
| 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
