192 of the term. It is important to note that although many of the papers in our review raised an SES perspective in the framing of the study, very few actually mea- sured the range of SES variables in their study, but rather focused on a narrow set of variables. We found no consistent theoretical framework (Goal 3) applied to studies that link resilience and urban forests. Resilience is often used synonymously with “adaptive capacity” (Gallopín 2006), and thus climate-related vulnerability assessments seem to be the most common theoretical framework and tool applied to this research. Indeed, the lack of consistent treatments of the resilience concept is consistent with past critiques, particularly in relation to tensions across disciplinary perspectives (Davidson 2010; Olsson et al. 2015). Yet even with those critiques, researchers reflecting on forest management and extreme weather events point out that resilience approaches have emphasized social-ecological inter- actions, uncertainty in predicting change, as well as reaction to and recovery from disturbances (Rist and Moen 2013; de Bruijn et al. 2017). In this way, “resil- ience thinking” has become a useful perspective for integrated considerations of human and ecological systems in natural resource management (Rist and Moen 2013), notwithstanding the ongoing academic debates concerning definitions of resilience. Additionally, we found no consistent definition and treatment of the urban forest, thus there was dif- ficulty assessing how urban forests might contribute to overall resilience in cities, given that some research treats urban street trees as separate from larger con- tiguous blocks of forest (e.g., city parks). Different types of urban forest provide different benefits and are more sensitive or tolerant to different stressors. For example, street trees are more widely distributed spatially, so they can help to alleviate the urban heat island and provide shade for buildings (Rosenzweig et al. 2009). However, these trees are managed on an individual basis and thus have higher maintenance costs compared to a stand with natural regeneration (Donovan and Butry 2010). Further research could explore municipal sustain- ability plans and urban forest master plans to explore how managers have practically applied resilience of urban trees and green spaces to urban green infra- structure. Research could also focus on institutional analyses of agencies and nonprofits who manage urban forests in order to understand how application ©2020 International Society of Arboriculture Huff et al: Resilience in Urban Forestry of resilience affects organizational structure and func- tion. Moreover, future research could evaluate what is in formal (written) plans at the city or municipal level compared to testimony from forestry practitioners on how and if they deal with resilience in their job. Like Meerow et al. (2016), we found varying defi- nitions of urban resilience as applied to urban forests and green spaces, based on the subject area of the arti- cles’ authors. The contributions of urban forests to overall urban resilience has not yet been well docu- mented, but there is a growing awareness of the importance of trees and green spaces to social well-being. As more attention is focused on the extent to which green infrastructure improves urban resil- ience, we encourage the adoption of consistent defini- tions, theories, and critical system components to communicate about and consistently assess resilience within urban forestry. LITERATURE CITED Adger WN. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography. 24(3):347-364. Alberti M. 2010. Maintaining ecological integrity and sustaining ecosystem function in urban areas. Current Opinion in Envi- ronmental Sustainability. 2(3):178-184. Alberti M, Marzluff JM. 2004. Ecological resilience in urban ecosystems: linking urban patterns to human and ecological functions. Urban Ecosystems. 7(3):241-265. Alderman DH. 2016. Place, naming and the interpretation of cultural landscapes. In: Graham B, Howard P, editors. The Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity. Farn- ham (UK): Ashgate. p. 195-213. Altman I, Low SM. 2012. Place attachment. In: Altman I, Low SM, editors. Human behavior and environment: advances in theory and research. Vol. 12. Boston (MA, USA): Springer Science & Business Media. 12 p. Anderies J, Janssen M, and Ostrom E. 2004. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society. 9(1):18. Barona CO. 2015. Adopting public values and climate change adaptation strategies in urban forest management: a review and analysis of the relevant literature. Journal of Environ- mental Management. 164:215-221. Bender EA, Case TJ, Gilpin ME. 1984. Perturbation experiments in community ecology: theory and practice. Ecology. 65:1-13. Berkes F, Folke C, Colding J. 2000. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. 459 p. Berkes F, Ross H. 2013. Community resilience: toward an inte- grated approach. Society and Natural Resources. 26:1-16. Binder CR, Hinkel J, Bots PWG, Pahl-Wostl C. 2013. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol- ogy and Society. 18(4):26.
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
