Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 46(5): September 2020 in private areas with the goal of increasing equitable canopy cover, forest resiliency, and the benefits pro- vided by the urban forest. We recommend additional research utilize the cri- teria found in open-ended responses (Table 5), specif- ically with the additions of: “wildlife habitat,” “habitat and form,” “longevity or life span,” “maximizing size,” and “education.” While the criteria laid out in our study essentially attempt to clarify what “right tree, right place” means to managers, it would be interest- ing to conduct research where these criteria are divided by social, ecological, and economic group- ings. Using exploratory or confirmatory factor analy- sis could help explore the relationships between tree species selection criteria and how managers are prior- itizing one over the other. CONCLUSION Despite limitations, this study helps to elucidate how urban forest managers are selecting tree species. As expected, low budgets are probably the largest issue in urban forestry. Adequate funding for tree planting is necessary for well-informed urban tree species selection, site preparation, and maintenance. Proper planting and maintenance are a key component to maximizing the success of the selected tree species. Based on our results it is clear that not all communi- ties are adequately funding tree planting. There is room for improvement in tree species selection even if the budgets are not substantially adjusted. We rec- ommend not planting additional ash trees or trees that can become invasive, such as Callery pear. Managers in small municipalities should plant species that are not problematic (e.g., invasive, weak branch attach- ments, and aggressive roots) and could garner infor- mation on those species from larger municipalities. By rotating the tree species year to year, managers can deliberately increase diversity without spending more on trees. Many of the similarities found in tree species selection in the year 2016 and prior to that are likely driven by tree species availability at nurseries, as well as familiarity with those species. Everyone has implicit biases that influence which trees they select. We recommend focusing more continuing education on the types of tree species available and what func- tion or role they could play in an urban forest. It is impossible to select a tree that you are not aware of. 381 We recommend bringing together managers, landscape architects, nursery workers, and other stakeholders for these educational events to encourage cross- disciplinary training and improve communication. Each of these groups has valuable knowledge that can contribute to the health and resiliency of the urban forest. Organizations such as the Arbor Day Foundation or International Society of Arboriculture can help engage more stakeholders to facilitate inter- disciplinary cooperation. Additional engagement may help address the issues associated with planning for the longevity of the urban forest by establishing a stronger network of support. Generally, people with higher incomes, more education, and greater knowl- edge about the program are more likely to support urban forestry. However, it seems like not all groups are being effectively engaged, which may result in less overall support (Zhang et al. 2007). With engage- ment from more communities, it is possible to build a more sustainable network of green infrastructure both in cities and between cities. The City of Portland, OR, discusses the 5-10-20 guideline—do not plant more than 5% of a species, 10% of a genus, and 20% of a family—and notes that it does not meet this specification (City of Portland 2017). This updated specification can be found in some urban forestry management plans and attempts to improve upon the 10-20-30 rule. This will likely further the resiliency of urban forestry programs that have the resources to implement it. Perhaps a 5-10- 20-30 rule could be implemented, restricting orders to 30% within a municipality. Initially considering diversity at orders could facilitate diversity, and the results would propagate all the way to species. For example, our study found Sapindales and Pinales were two of the most common orders, and the diver- sity issues are perpetuated all the way to species. We recommend that larger municipalities strive to achieve diversity on a neighborhood scale, perhaps 10-20-30, and work towards equitable distribution of canopy cover. Neighborhoods would have to vary their 10-20-30 distributions in order to reach a 5-10- 20-30 distribution across the entire city. Managers should select the right tree for the right place; how- ever, they should also strive to maximize the size of the tree and in turn the potential benefits of that plant- ing space. This will vary across neighborhoods based on available planting spaces and other factors. When ©2020 International Society of Arboriculture
September 2020
| 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
