186 resilience; and (3) how theoretical frameworks are used to address resilience of urban forests and green spaces. Resilience theory provides an opportunity to con- sider how to understand ecosystem services (and dis- services) in relationship to system vulnerabilities. Resilience as a concept was initially identified in the field of systems science (Holling 1973), yet many theoretical developments have occurred to date that have advanced and expanded the concept. Holling defined resilience as “a measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and dis- turbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables.” This defini- tion of resilience identifies ideal conditions for main- taining stasis, yet current ecological theory has shifted to also considering system nonequilibrium (Suding et al. 2004; Mori 2011). Since the initial application of the term resilience to ecological systems, resilience theory also has deepened to consider resilience of what, to what (Carpenter et al. 2001), and for whom (Lebel et al. 2006), and has expanded system defini- tions to consider social-ecological systems (SES) (Walker et al. 2004). An SES is “an ecological system intricately linked with and affected by one or more social systems” (Anderies et al. 2004). Press and pulse dynamics is a term used to represent the interac- tions of continuous, or “press,” disturbances causing a permanent change in the abundance or density of particular species with “pulse” events, short-term dis- turbances causing an immediate change in the abun- dance or density of a particular species, after which the species recovers when the disturbance ceases, respectively (Bender et al. 1984). These dynamics were incorporated in the resilience literature and evolved with a social-ecological systems perspective (Smith et al. 2009; Collins et al. 2011). Given these abstract concepts and evolving definitions of resil- ience, qualitative analysis of attitudes and values around forest resilience has identified a communica- tion challenge with such a large and varied set of terms, with implications for practical application whereby “resilience is a multifaceted concept with an array of potential implications” (Young et al. 2018). Practical applications of resilience concepts in rural forestry continue to focus on resilience to pests, fire, and other ecological disturbances (Halpern 1988; Herbert et al. 1999; Churchill et al. 2013; Reyer et al. 2015; Johnstone et al. 2016). With a growing recognition of ©2020 International Society of Arboriculture Huff et al: Resilience in Urban Forestry the effects of climate change on forest composition and function, applications also now consider mitiga- tion strategies for being resistant to change and adap- tive strategies for being resilient (Millar et al. 2007; Cross et al. 2012; Kemp et al. 2015) but accepting of a state change. When focusing on urban systems, consideration of social components and processes becomes critical to understanding social mechanisms that can affect eco- logical processes (Berkes et al. 2000). In a review of urban resilience literature, Meerow et al. (2016) found six conceptual tensions, which included defin- ing what is “urban.” Here, we examine how resilience has been applied in the field of urban forestry. In urban areas, one aspect of resilience research related to urban forests has focused on the relation- ship between social resilience and natural resources stewardship. Social resilience has been conceptual- ized as “the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social, political, and environmental change” (Adger 2000). Greening actions have been identified as a recovery response by people restoring a system to what they knew before (Tidball and Krasny 2007; Tidball et al. 2010). Indicators of social resilience related to public and green spaces across the urban-rural gradient include place attachment, social cohesion (Chan et al. 2006), social networks (Scott 1988), and knowledge exchange and diversification (Berkes and Ross 2013; McMillen et al. 2016). Some such social indicators of resilience, such as place naming (Alder- man 2016), shared group narratives (Rappaport 1995), and identity, may be embedded in stewardship. The ability to recognize empirical evidence for these indi- cators then holds promise for supporting those activi- ties and promoting generalized resilience (Carpenter et al. 2012) to a range of chronic presses and acute disturbances in both social and ecological contexts (McMillen et al. 2016). Past studies examining urban ecological resilience often focus on ecological variables and processes such as invasive pests and diseases and extreme weather events. Laćan and McBride (2008) used a pest vulnerability matrix to determine how tree spe- cies diversity relates to urban forest susceptibility to disease, while McPherson and Kotow (2013) assessed a report card method to understand and measure eco- logical resilience in terms of size class distribution of the urban forest as well as pest vulnerability. There is
May 2020
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
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.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
