18 Conway et al: Replacing Trees Removed Under a Private Tree Regulation represent native or non-native species (e.g., maple) and often conflicted with the site visit identifications made. This creates uncertainty about species planted, suggest- ing many homeowners had limited awareness of the trees planted on their property and cannot be relied on to accurately report what species is planted unless an invoice or other documentation is required. Addition- ally, without clear guidance and follow-up from city staff, it is likely that homeowners will favor trees that are easy to acquire, potentially limiting diversity. Based on the data collected from the site visits, the overall tree health appears to be very encouraging for the future survivorship, with few signs of crown defo- liation, weak or yellowing canopy, or pathogen impact. This bodes well for the future of these trees, consider- ing they are at their most vulnerable in the initial years following planting (Roman et al. 2014a). Fur- thermore, the majority of replacement trees have little to no hard surface in the immediate surroundings, reflecting that the trees are planted in locations with ample growing space. This is particularly encourag- ing considering the challenges associated with limited spaces in urban environments. Trees planted by homeowners had a higher mortal- ity rate compared to other entities providing planting services. Studies have indeed shown that trees planted by homeowners have a higher mortality rate than those planted and maintained by professionals (Roman et al. 2014b; Smith et al. 2019). Ensuring the use of proper planting methods, including encouraging a professional to plant replacement trees, would help promote tree health and survivability during the establishment period (Pauleit et al. 2002). Variations in replanting rate, percent of native spe- cies, and survival also existed between the city’s management districts, with the lowest replacement tree planting rate in the West District. It is unclear why. There was a similar percent of construction-based permits associated with surveys across the districts, and respondents in the West were equally likely to state that the requirement to plant replacement tree(s) was clear. Further investigations are needed to under- stand why these differences exist in Toronto. More generally, it highlights the challenges of equally implementing a private tree regulation where there is some discretion in permit approval and replacement tree requirements. Beyond the potential that the level of communica- tion varies across the city, the survey highlighted ©2022 International Society of Arboriculture errors in record keeping, including incorrect mailing addresses linked with approved permits, and incom- plete permit records, including missing or incorrect information about the type of permit issued. While staff are supposed to provide a list of approved spe- cies for replacement planting, this information was largely absent from the data record provided. Limita- tion in record keeping was a known issue in Toronto (Romeo-Beehler 2018). This study provides further evidence that monitoring outcomes and enforcement of private tree regulations cannot occur without accu- rate records. Toronto and other municipalities have sought to maintain their urban forests, in part, through the reg- ulation of private tree removal. Based on this study, Toronto’s tree removal permit process is falling short of maintaining tree numbers, with construction a par- ticular threat to the long-term protection of the urban forest. Given the high approval rate for tree removal permit applications in Toronto, the permit process is not stopping most removals, making replacement tree planting even more important. But, even in situations where fewer permits are approved, these results indicate not everyone who requests a tree removal permit will comply with its requirements. When limited follow-up and enforcement capacity exists, tree removal per- mits associated with construction should be priori- tized based on the lower replacement tree compliance rates found in this study. Clear direction about diverse species to plant could also avoid homeowners select- ing a limited number of species to plant. Collectively, these actions would contribute to a private tree regu- lation effectively protecting and diversifying a city’s urban forest. LITERATURE CITED Aday LA, Cornelius LJ. 2006. Designing and conducting health surveys. San Francisco (CA, USA): Jossey-Bass. 546 p. Chojnacky DC, Smith-McKenna EK, Johnson LY, McGee JA, Chojnacky CC. 2020. Evaluating urban canopy cover before and after housing redevelopment in Falls Church, Virginia, USA. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 46(1):12-26. https:// doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2020.002 City of Toronto. 2010. Every tree counts: A portrait of Toronto’s urban forest. Toronto (Ontario, Canada): City of Toronto, Parks, Forestry & Recreation, Urban Forestry. 105 p. City of Toronto. 2013. Sustaining & expanding the urban forest: Toronto’s strategic forest management plan. Toronto (Ontario, Canada): City of Toronto, Parks, Forestry & Recreation, Urban Forestry. 75 p. https://www.toronto.ca/data/parks/pdf/ trees/sustaining-expanding-urban-forest-management-plan.pdf
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
