Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37(3): May 2011 public policy aspect of native species establishment, and suggests that the degree of public policy support for native species use in intensively- and extensively managed areas is an important per- formance indicator. The importance of project-appropriate use of native species is also highlighted. Nonnative plantings may be more appropriate in circumstances where poor growing conditions or limited space could prevent any native species from reaching their full genetic potential, or may significantly limit their longev- ity. The issue of plant invasiveness similarly are considered as well. Optimal urban forest management will always account for project- specific considerations in tree establishment activities. While in- vasive plants should generally be discouraged, in some scenarios (i.e., away from natural areas), even potentially invasive trees may be preferable to no trees at all. Conversely, in growing conditions in proximity to natural areas but where no noninvasive trees will like- ly thrive, it may be preferable to forego tree establishment entirely. In addition to the new criteria proposed here, the study authors believe that these developments based upon Clark et al.’s (1997) original criteria and indicators for man- aging the urban forest vegetation resource provide a more robust foundation for strategic planning, by setting more easily quantifiable targets as indicators of success. The Community Framework In a truly sustainable urban forest, all members of a community must cooperate to share the responsibility for tree resource man- agement. Clark et al. (1997) proposed seven criteria to assess the strength of the community framework for urban forest sustain- ability: 1) public agency cooperation, 2) involvement of large pri- vate and institutional landholders, 3) green industry cooperation, 4) neighborhood action, 5) citizen-municipality business interac- tion, 6) general awareness of trees as a community resource, and 7) regional cooperation. On the whole, the original criteria and indicators are highly applicable for urban foresters to evaluate the success of their forest management activities relative to the com- munity framework. However, the study authors do suggest sev- eral changes, as described below and summarized in Appendix 2. In terms of public agency cooperation, it is important to distin- guish between types of municipal interdepartmental cooperation. Revised performance indicators, which range from “conflicting goals” among departments (as in Clark et al. 1997) to formal interdepartmental working teams on all municipal projects, dis- tinguish between project-specific and organization-wide formal cooperation, and allow urban forest managers to track incremen- tal progress in reform of administrative structures and procedures. A frequent obstacle to community cooperation around sustain- able urban forest management is a lack of awareness of trees as a community resource. Clark et al. (1997) suggest that an optimal indicator of success is a community that recognizes the environ- mental and economic contributions made by the urban forest. While the study authors agree, it is also suggested that the com- munity must be aware of the numerous social benefits provided by tree cover, thereby broadening the potential extent of the total supportive political constituency—a worthy undertaking to ensure long-term sustainable urban forest management and public health. The Resource Management Approach The resource management approach set of criteria and indicators concerns not only physical resource management but also pub- 111 lic and administrative perceptions of management itself. Clark et al. (1997) suggested nine criteria and key objectives for success- ful urban forest resource management: 1) citywide management plan, 2) citywide funding, 3) city staffing, 4) assessment tools, 5) protection of existing trees, 6) species and site selection, 7) standards for tree care, 8) citizen safety, and 9) recycling. In ad- dition to several new criteria, the proposed changes to the origi- nal criteria and key objectives are to improve their application to strategic urban forest management and planning (Appendix 3). Although the importance of a routinely-updated and com- prehensive tree inventory is addressed in the original assess- ment tools criterion, there was no distinction made between a tree inventory and a canopy cover inventory. An optimal tree inventory provides complete data for the entire public tree re- source (generally excluding natural areas) and a sample-based inventory of private trees. In combination with a GIS-referenced canopy cover inventory, based on aerial or satellite imagery, the optimal level of inventory data will allow for both micro and macro-level tree resource management and strategic planning. Clark et al. (1997) suggested that optimal citywide man- agement planning must cover both public and private prop- erty—urban trees make no distinction between land tenure, yet tenure may have significant effects upon the health of in- dividual trees and the canopy as a whole. No major modifica- tion to this criterion are suggested, but the importance of stra- tegic planning for all components of the urban forest through a comprehensive, multi-tiered plan with clearly defined vi- sion and goals, stakeholder input, and built-in mechanisms for adaptive management, are emphasized. Similarly, no chan- ges to the municipality-wide funding criterion are suggested, other than to emphasize the importance of long-term strategic budgeting that extends well beyond simple tree establishment. The number of municipal employees involved in urban for- est management is not a sufficient indicator of the adequacy of city staffing. Furthermore, the optimal number of urban for- estry personnel will vary among communities, making staffing targets an inappropriate benchmark. A better criterion would address the training, skill, and experience of the staff. It is sug- gested that a sustainable and optimally managed urban forest requires a broader range of skills and experience than can be provided by arborists or other professional tree care staff alone. Therefore, the importance of a multidisciplinary management team entrenched within a dedicated municipal forestry unit are highlighted. Such a team would optimally combine the tree care skills of arborists with the planning, modeling, and eco- logical background of professional foresters and ecologists to develop and implement successful strategic management plans. It is recognized that species and site selection is an important consideration in tree establishment, but the Clark et al. (1997) key objective and indicators for this criterion make little provision for integrated establishment planning to achieve strategic goals and the community vision. Therefore, the study authors propose this criterion be modified to highlight tree establishment planning and implementation, with the objective of renewing and expanding the urban forest through a comprehensive tree establishment program driven by increasing canopy cover, species diversity, species distri- bution and maximizing tree growth and longevity. These proposed indicators make explicit the connections between the data source supporting establishment planning (tree inventory) and desired biological outcomes on a site and aggregate (canopy cover) level. ©2011 International Society of Arboriculture
May 2011
| 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
