Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 39(6): November 2013 in Sacramento, California, U.S., planted a tree on their prop- erty and were most likely to do so shortly after moving into a new home. Sixty-six percent had removed at least one tree; the most common reason for removal was that the tree was dead, followed by root and size problems, and finally by messi- ness and tendency of the trees to draw insects. Overall, the rate of tree planting was higher than tree removal. The same study found shade and aesthetics to be the main reasons resi- dents chose to plant trees; energy savings, environmental ben- efits, privacy, and property values were of lesser importance. Seattle’s Neighborhood Planning Traditions Examining human dimension patterns at the neighborhood level provides another scale of understanding. Planners and other public officials have come to see the neighborhood as an important geographic and social unit for organizing plan- ning efforts (Silver 1985; Chaskin 1998; Rohe 2009). Resi- dents are most familiar and concerned with their neighbor- hoods, for what happens in neighborhoods affects quality of life and (for many) economic conditions (Logan and Molotch 1987). Neighborhood planning objectives start with achiev- ing good physical design and providing basic infrastructure, but usually include broader social objectives, such as creat- ing healthy social communities, empowering neighborhood residents, developing neighborhood economies, and pre- serving environmental quality (Sirianni 2007; Rohe 2009). The City of Seattle has a long tradition of neighborhood- based planning. In the mid-1990s, Seattle developed an espe- cially ambitious and successful policy for collaborative pro- cesses in comprehensive planning (Sirianni 2007). In combined top-down, bottom-up initiatives, neighborhood groups were empowered to develop their own plans deliberatively, but with clear procedures for accountability to the city. The city council and departments then aligned the plans to set targets for poli- cy and programs, such as sustainable development, housing, transportation, and funding bonds and levies. There are thirteen independent District Councils that convene representatives from community councils, nonprofit organizations, and busi- ness districts. The districts deliver findings and recommenda- tions to the City. The city’s departments and agencies, in turn, often develop and deliver programs that are geographically and politically aligned with the districts and are administered by the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods (2012). Such programs include, but are not limited to, community gardens, neighbor- hood grants, community engagement, and historic preservation. Neighborhood Scale Responses to the Urban Forest Some of the most recent research about urban natural resources focuses on the explicit integration of social and ecologi- cal systems (Pickett et al. 2011). The Baltimore Ecosystem Study is a broad program of research that is yielding new knowledge at multiple scales about coupled human and nat- ural systems. One approach has been to determine variation of both vegetation structure among urban neighborhoods, and community level motivations and capacity for vegeta- tion management (Grove et al. 2006a). A study found that lifestyle traits associated with group identity and social sta- tus, as well as the housing structure of neighborhoods, were 269 related to patterns of vegetation on private urban lands (Troy et al. 2007). A similar study found that a lifestyle behavior classification was the best predictor of distribution of vegeta- tion cover on private lands, suggesting that urban vegetation management can be improved by developing marketing strate- gies that address household attributes beyond simple demo- graphics such as education and income (Grove et al. 2006b). Other studies address multiple characteristics of residen- tial places and have found that trees and open space are often favored. Fried (1984) compared an exhaustive list of resi- dential and neighborhood attributes and found that access to nature (expressed as the immediate outdoors, and closeness of large open spaces) was an important contributor to com- munity satisfaction. Studies by Kaplan and colleagues have shown greater neighborhood satisfaction when residents can experience more natural rather than built settings, and satis- faction was far greater when residents could see even a few trees than when their view was of large open spaces (Kaplan 1985). Having natural elements or settings in the window view from homes contributes substantially to residents’ sat- isfactions with their neighborhood and sense of well-being (Kaplan 2001). Considering a range of physical elements as contributors to neighborhood satisfaction, trees have a posi- tive effect (Kweon et al. 2010). Specifically, the availabil- ity of forests and other trees, well-landscaped grounds, and places for taking walks are appreciated (Kaplan and Austin 2004). Loss can bring clarity to what is valued; following a major hurricane, more than 30% of residents of Charleston, South Carolina, U.S., identified urban trees as being the most significant feature of the city that was damaged (Hull 1992). There are potential urban forestry conflicts embedded within neighborhood social interactions. One example is the emerging issue of tree shade and solar panels. Strategic plant- ing of shade trees, particularly on southwest building expo- sures and near air conditioning units, can reduce residential energy use (McPherson et al. 2007). Yet tree placement for shade and reduced energy use may reduce solar panel effec- tiveness, another energy savings strategy, leading to tree versus solar panel conflicts (Anders et. al 2010; Baker 2010). Con- troversial litigation and public demands in response to the California Solar Shade Act (1978) led to later passage of a state bill that protects trees planted prior to the installation of neighboring solar panels (Barringer 2008a; Barringer 2008b). This is but one example of the complex balancing act be- tween urban forest canopy goals and other beneficial uses and property improvements found within urban neighborhoods. Research Framework Canopy cover targets are urban planning goals that intersect with other urban initiatives. The successful implementation of these initiatives demands attention to social systems ranging in scale from citywide policy setting to property owner action. Lands in private ownership represent a large proportion of existing and potential canopy area, thus a better understand- ing of landowners’ attitudes and behaviors concerning trees is important. Prior studies have addressed the role of nature and open space in community and neighborhood level satis- faction. More detailed studies have assessed public response to street trees, yet right-of-way planting may provide limited planting area relative to adjacent residential parcels. Most ©2013 International Society of Arboriculture
November 2013
| 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
