112 Kenney et al.: Criteria and Indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Planning and Management Also proposed here is a new criterion of tree habitat suit- ability. The suitability of the habitat will not only be deter- mined by the growing environment but also by the desired functions trees should perform at any given site. The key ob- jective for this criterion is that municipal tree establishment programs ensure that all publicly owned trees are planted on sites where the above- and belowground conditions will maxi- mize current and future benefits. In an optimal situation, all planting sites will be assessed for soil volume and quality, and provisions for matching species with their sites or amend- ing sites to suit the desired tree species will be implemented. Although tree establishment is an effective part of increasing the extent of the urban forest, the adherence to professional stan- dards for tree care of existing trees is equally important, if not more so. Following the proposal of two new vegetation resource criteria concerning public and private trees, it is recommended that the original standards for tree care criterion be divided to reflect the different management requirements of intensively- and exten- sively managed trees. Maintenance of publicly owned, intensive- ly managed trees on a cyclical basis will ensure the maximization of benefit provision and tree longevity over time, reducing future costs and potential liability from tree failure. Management plan- ning and implementation in extensively managed natural areas is an analogous criterion for natural areas, and optimal implemen- tation would ensure the protection and enhancement of natural structures and functions. These two new criteria, adapted from Clark et al.’s (1997) original tree protection criterion, reflect the importance of integrated policy mechanisms, while facilitating strategic planning by distinguishing between public, intensively managed resources and more extensively managed natural areas. As a greater share of urban forest benefits is derived from large-stature and well-established trees, the protection of existing trees is a key criterion for successful management. No major modifications are recommended to either the criterion or the indi- cators, but the study authors do stress the importance of con- sistent enforcement of tree protection policies, coupled with effective deterrents to prevent offenses from first occurring. Finally, it is proposed that the criterion of citizen safety, supported by relative indicators in Clark et al. (1997), be modified to include indi- cators in absolute terms in a program of comprehensive tree risk man- agement. To move beyond the “low” performance level, this criterion requires the presence of at least a sample-based inventory with gener- al tree risk information, highlighting the importance of strategic man- agement based on sound data concerning the urban forest resource. CONCLUSION In this paper, the reasons canopy cover alone cannot provide an accurate representation of the structure, health, and function of an urban forest were discussed, along with why overly ambi- tious canopy cover targets, unless accompanied by more com- prehensive criteria, may in fact be detrimental to urban forest sustainability. More importantly, however, is the presentation of an updated framework of criteria and indicators. Building upon the foundation laid by Clark et al. (1997), these criteria and indicators will help managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders to move beyond thinking about their urban forests as two-dimensional entities described solely by canopy cover. Assessing a community’s relative performance in each of the twenty-five proposed criteria and indicators may seem like a daunt- ©2011 International Society of Arboriculture ing challenge at first. Although most criteria can be easily assessed with minimal analysis, several C&I depend upon somewhat more sophisticated analyses or detailed information. However, com- munities that may lack the resources to conduct such assessments should not overlook the importance of these criteria; instead, they should consider any current shortfalls as opportunities to set fu- ture strategic objectives and management or budget priorities. Urban forest managers must also recognize the flexible nature of many of the proposed C&I. Even though several performance indicators are based on discrete thresholds (for example, see rela- tive canopy cover), others are open to more subjective interpre- tation. For instance, “adequate” funding or staffing to optimize urban forest management will differ greatly among communities; a metropolis with more than one million residents will surely de- fine adequacy far differently than a rural village. The strength of the approach outlined in this paper lies in the fact that urban forest managers in both types of communities, regardless of any other factors, can use the same set of criteria and indicators to assess and track their progress toward true urban forest sustainability. Com- munities, and particularly their politicians and senior management staff, need not fear scoring in the lower range of assessment; low- er scores simply highlight opportunities for future improvements. While criteria and indicators are useful tools for evaluating ex- isting management practices, the use of C&I in this capacity alone does not guarantee successful sustainable urban forest manage- ment. An adaptive plan or framework reflecting a community’s commitment, vision, and goals, and enabling strong links between these and daily on-the-ground operations, is equally important. The updated criteria and indicators presented here have been successfully incorporated into a long-term strategic urban forest management plan for the Canadian municipalities of Oakville (Urban Forest Innovations and Kenney 2008), Burlington (2010) and Ajax, Ontario (in press), and are being used as a model for the development of similar plans in other municipalities. The applicability of criteria and indicators as a powerful tool for urban forest management was recognized more than a decade ago, yet policymakers and managers continue to overlook their poten- tial to ensure the long-term provision of urban forest benefits in any size of community. Contemporary urban forest professionals can- not only monitor and adjust policies determined by others. Ideally, they will be leaders in decision-making processes, and at a mini- mum be active participants in urban forest management planning. The set of criteria and indicators for urban forest sustainability pre- sented here can aid in the planning process by guiding an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. They can also serve as a nucleus, around which a long-term strategic urban forest management plan can be designed, and against which a series of milestones progress through the implementation of the plan, which can be measured. Because urban forest management and planning is complex, these C&I can also serve as a concise yet comprehensive communications tool for managers charged with explaining their challenges to politicians, other professionals, and the general public. The paper by Clark et al. (1997) represents the seminal work for the growing dialogue about sustainable urban forest manage- ment. The authors’ framework of key objectives, criteria, and per- formance-based indicators for urban forest management success recognized the dynamic and multi-faceted nature of urban forests, and provided a promising tool for the development of citywide urban forest management planning. However, years later, the rel- ative success or failure of urban forest management in communi-
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
