Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 38(1): January 2012 ment of citizens to take better care of their community and lo- cal environment (Bloniarz and Ryan 1996). However, using vol- unteers might bring up concerns over the validity of the results. AIMS The aim of the presented pilot study was to test a frame for ana- lyzing the state and use of urban tree inventories in major cit- ies, to obtain insight into the status of inventories in major cities, as well as to identify directions for future, more comprehensive research on inventories. The study aimed to gain an indicative insight into the reasons for undertaking municipal tree invento- ries and a better understanding of how these inventories are per- formed. Moreover, the study authors wanted to analyze the dif- ferences in how cities’ approach their inventories, and study what comes of the inventories after they have been performed. In addi- tion, the study authors wanted to investigate whether a potentially different approach to urban forestry in the two continents are af- fecting how inventories are being performed, updated, and used. METHODS A pilot study was carried out in selected cities in North Amer- ica (Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and Boston, Massachusetts and New York City, New York, U.S.) and Northern Europe (Oslo, Norway; and Aarhus and Copenhagen, Denmark). Semi-struc- tured expert interviews were performed with the city’s urban foresters in Toronto, New York City, Aarhus, Copenhagen, and Oslo. The authors contacted each city’s urban forestry depart- ments, and was put in further contact with the most appropri- ate urban forester for the interviews. Due to time restrictions, it was not possible to interview city officials in Boston, and interviews were instead performed with the non-profit group that had undertaken the inventory in collaboration with the city. The six cities were chosen based on them being major cities in their region, the knowledge that they had already performed tree inventories, and the authors’ understanding that these cities have inspired the development of urban forestry programs in other cities. Scandinavian cities were chosen because of the authors’ own location and experience. The study authors had an additional interest in comparing regional cities with their counterparts in North America, where urban forestry has had a longer history and where arborists seem to have been playing a more pronounced role in greenspace management than in Europe (Konijnendijk et al. 2006). For example, there are only 42 ISA Certified Arbor- ists in all of Denmark (Sejr and Manning 2011) and 33 in Nor- way, numbers which are surpassed by those in the single cities of Toronto (80) and New York City (41) (International Society of Table 1. Questionnaire for the urban foresters. Questions regarding the inventory When was the last inventory performed? What percentage of trees were inventoried? Who performed the inventory? Which trees were inventoried? Was aerial information used as well as ground information? What was the purpose of the inventory? Who initiated the inventory? Did the city develop the inventory themselves, or was the inventory developed by another city/ consulting company? ©2012 International Society of Arboriculture 25 Arboriculture 2011). Vollbrecht (1988) also pointed at this dif- ference, stressing that most of the regional tree work was carried out by workers with a horticultural background. A study into how tree inventories are performed will give more insight into the potential differences in how urban forestry is performed in the two regions. All of the interviews were carried out face-to-face by one of the study authors in the period from March to June 2010. If further in- formation was required, follow up questions were asked via e-mail. The questions asked to the urban foresters are presented in Table 1. Descriptive tables were created to compile and compare findings, including the types of information each inventory collected, who performed the inventory, and how the inventory has been used. RESULTS The tree inventories differed greatly between the six cities in their level of detail and the means by which they are being updated and kept relevant, if they are being maintained at all. General informa- tion regarding the cities in the pilot study and their given reasons for undertaking the inventory is presented in the appendix. Table 2 illustrates what information was collected in each inventory, who performed the inventories, and lists the final outcomes of the finished inventories. Table 2 and the appendix illustrate the differ- ence between the two inventories in Toronto; the UFORE study and the Toronto Maintenance and Management System (TMMS). Respondents in both North America and European cities men- tioned operational planning and arboricultural work as reasons for conducting the inventory in addition to budget and strategic planning, traffic safety, recording and centralizing information, investigating alternative management structures, and monitoring changes to the urban forest. The inventory in Aarhus and Toron- to’s TMMS inventory were used for insect and disease control; Aarhus in particular wanted to assess the impact of Dutch elm disease. The Oslo tree inventory held the aim of centralizing the information that the operational division had regarding the urban forest. There had been a separation between the operational di- vision and the parks and recreational department, implying that important information regarding the urban forest might get lost. Hence it was necessary to centralize the information. In Copen- hagen, the inventory was meant to optimize the dialogue between different departments in the city and clarify any ownership issues regarding trees. The objective of the UFORE study in Toronto was to assess and communicate the values and services provided by the urban forest, and to improve the understanding of the en- tire urban forest composition, including parks and private lands. None of the cities in Scandinavia mentioned the values and benefits gained from the urban forest as reasons for performing the inventory, while this objective was stressed in both Toronto Questions regarding what happened after the inventory What happened after the inventory had been completed? Was a management plan developed as a result of the inventory? How has the public been involved in or after the inventory was completed? How is the inventory being updated?
January 2012
| 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
