Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 38(1): January 2012 ventory, and also for the inventories to remain valid and useful over time. Due to their continuous updating, New York City and Toronto have the most current information available about the health and condition of their urban forest, and therefore have the most comprehensive and useful inventories. Correct updating re- lies on the city crew being trained to record data that accurately reflects the status of the trees (Miller 1997). There is a lack of knowledge on this updating process, as well as on whether the inventories are being incorporated into the work order system, and if they are being used as a base for strategic management. The New York City and Boston inventories spurred proj- ects related to the urban forest and have involved their lo- cal communities. There seems to be a large difference in en- gagement with the urban forest in North America compared to Scandinavia. No volunteers were used in Scandinavia when carrying out the inventory, and no further community- engaging projects were started as a result of the inventory. FURTHER RESEARCH This pilot study provides a possible set-up for studying city urban forest inventories, enabling more in-depth analysis and comparison between cities. The study could form the basis for a larger study that may include more cities, which would make comparison between the two regions easier. The study has also made it clear that more research is needed on the status of ur- ban forest inventories, the way they are set up and carried out, and on how they are used in planning and management. The ac- curacy and the validity of different types of inventories are also issues to be considered in future research, as well as the updat- ing of inventories. It would also be useful to further include a policy analysis and perform a closer study of the societal aspects of urban forestry. Further studies in this direction could make it easier to understand the different reasons for performing inven- tories, such as the focus on the environmental and social aspects of the urban forest in North America, compared to the lack of focus on this aspect in Scandinavian cities. More research is also required on the inclusion of both private and public trees in inventories, something which is crucial in order to have a base for assessing the environmental benefits of urban trees. Further research and comparative studies could give a more in depth reasons as to the different approaches to inven- tories and how they are performed. This in turn could provide more insight into the benefits gained from the respective dif- ferent ways of performing inventories, and hence provide new ideas and additions to inventory updates in other cities, or in- spire and help other cities start and complete an inventory. Research into these issues could provide a base for develop- ing national and international standards and recommendations for performing urban forest inventories. International standards could make it easier in the future to compare the urban forest in the different cities, and for other cities to gain inspiration for performing an inventory and the more strategic use of inventory data. The International Society of Arboriculture, the USDA For- est Service, and the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations have been working on developing international standards for urban forestry data collection. This standardization of data collection will hopefully facilitate cooperation between communities on a national and international level in terms of sharing data and analyzing their results, and will help promote 27 urban forest management globally. Standardization will help with the development of urban forest tools and reduce the costs of data collection and analysis. Cities using this standardiza- tion will have access to low-cost tools to quantify and mea- sure their urban forest, in addition to comparing their results with other cities in the world (Nowak 2008; Nowak 2009). CONCLUSION This explorative study of large cities points at the general dif- ferences between North America and Europe in terms of rea- sons for conducting inventories, how they were performed, and the way in which they are used. The pilot study also dem- onstrates that none of the investigated cities have a complete and regularly updated inventory of their urban forest, nor a management plan for improving their urban forest based on their tree inventory. The study provides a base for more com- prehensive and comparative research on urban forest inven- tories, identifying good practices and providing a base for standardization, and a more strategic use of inventory data. LITERATURE CITED Abd-Elrahman, A.H., M.E. Thornhill, M.G. Andreu, F. Escobedo. 2010. A community-based urban forestry inventory using online mapping services and consumer-grade digital images. International Journal of Applied Earth Observations and Geoinformation 12:249–260. Ames, R.G. 1980. The sociology of urban tree planting. Journal of Arbo- riculture 6(5):120–123. Banks, J.C., C.L. Brack, and R.N. James. 1999. Modelling changes in dimensions, health status, and arboricultural implications for urban trees. Urban Ecosystems 3:35–43. Bloniarz, D.V., and D.H. Ryan. 1996. The use of volunteer initiatives in conducting urban forest resource inventories. Journal of Arboricul- ture 22(2):75–82. Brack, C.L. 2006. Updating urban forest inventories: An example of the DISMUT model. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 5:189–194. City of Toronto. Toronto Backgrounder: Release of 2006 Census results, age and sex population counts. Accessed 12/20/2010. Cumming, A.B., D.B. Twardus, and D.J. Nowak. 2008. Urban for- est health monitoring: Large-scale assessment in the United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(6):341–346. Danmarks Statestik. 2010. Table 12: Folketal i de enkelte kommuner og regioner. Accessed 08/26/2010. Duntemann, M., and S. Gasperini. 2006, The Tree Inventory as a Proactive Management Tool, Presented at the 9th European Forum on Urban Forestry, Vallombrosa, Italy May 22–26. Gartner, J.T., T. Treiman, and T. Frevert. 2002. Missouri urban forest: A ten-year comparison. Journal of Arboriculture 28(2):76–83. International Society of Arboriculture. Verify an ISA certification/Find a Tree Care Service. Accessed 03/15/2011. Jim, C.Y. 2008. Multipurpose census methodology to assess urban forest structure in Hong Kong. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(6):366–378. Konijnendijk, C.C., R.M. Ricard, A. Kenney, and T.B. Randrup. 2006. Defining urban forestry – A comparative perspective of North Ameri- ca and Europe. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4:93–103. ©2012 International Society of Arboriculture
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
