Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 35(3): May 2009 vate citizens. In the Auburn Zoning Ordinance, the most relat- ed components are land use classification, requirement of open space, buffer-yard, plant materials, and minimum plant size. Public support is critical for the approval and implementa- tion of tree ordinances. According to a survey report (Zhang et al. 2007), over 85% of the respondents would support their lo- cal government developing tree ordinances imposing guidelines on builders and developers regarding trees on new construction sites. The survey indicated that about 75% of the public would support a local tree ordinance imposed on public property, with less support for tree ordinances to govern trees on private prop- erty. The survey results imply that before passing a tree ordinance to govern trees on private property, a careful and well planned communication plan must be developed to gain public support. This is not surprising since the “taking issue” of private property rights has been a big concern across the United States. Tree and land ordinances face similar “taking issue” challenges (Durkesen and Richman 1993). As population increases and land develop- ment expands, trees on private property must be included in tree ordinances. Cooper (1996) demonstrated a successful example of using tree ordinances to protect and replace trees on private lands. CONCLUSION Tree ordinances emerge and evolve in response to urban, societal, and economic changes. Just as other laws and regulations target specific issues, tree ordinances are governing policies for urban tree management. In the United States and in Alabama more spe- cifically, regulations on public land are more developed and have received more public support compared with private land manage- ment. Tree ordinances are gradually evolving to address emerg- ing issues of growth and conflict. Several cities in Alabama have amended their tree ordinances due to meet these dynamics. When situations change and new conflicts emerge, a tree ordinance should be amended. For example, it was primarily in conflicts among utilities companies and owners of right-of-way trees in the City of Huntsville that led to the change of the city tree ordinanc- es. Tree ordinances are specifically designed as public policy and planning tools for individual municipalities and must meet local needs (Miller 1997). From this aspect, we anticipate the integra- tion of tree ordinances with environmental protection (e.g., ripar- ian buffer) and new developments will become more important. Unlike many laws and regulations, tree ordinances are more successful when they include public participation and citizen leadership. Financial support from federal and local government and private sources often play a critical role in helping nongov- ernment organizations and citizens effectively participate. For ex- ample, city tree commissions are usually established through the public taking responsibility for developing and amending tree or- dinances in the U.S., and especially in the Alabama. At the same time, developing tree ordinances is a great opportunity to engage public participation, solve local issues through negotiation and compromise, and create a policy that works for the community. More importantly, tree ordinance implementation and com- pliance is largely dependent on public participation consider- ing many tree ordinances contain regulations that are voluntary, difficult to monitor, and effectively enforce. Citizens should be strongly encouraged to participate in administration of tree ordinances with decision-making authority, or in an advisory role. Nichols (2007) suggests citizen bodies such as tree com- 169 missions, vegetation committees, tree review boards, urban forestry advisory boards, environmental commissions, and planning commissions must be involved. A wide public par- ticipation can not only help address the issues of the stakehold- ers of a city, but also provide an education tool for the public about tree ordinances, with eventual help in implementation. LITERATURE CITED Abbey, D.G.B. 1998. U.S. Landscape Ordinances: An Annotated Refer- ence Handbook. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Abbey, D.G.B. 1999. Green Laws, Building Landscapes in the Twenty- first Century, in Proceedings 1999 ASLA annual meeting, American Society of Landscape Architects, Washington D.C. ACES (Alabama Cooperative Extension System). 2002. Urban and com- munity Forestry: Alabama’s Five-Year Strategic Plan. ANR-1220, Alabama Cooperative Extension System, AL. Barker, P.A. 1975. Ordinance control of street trees. Journal of Arbori- culture. 1:212–216. Chenoweth, R.E., and P.H. Gobster. 1990. The nature and ecology of aesthetic experiences in the landscape. Landscape Journal 9: 1–18. Cooper, J.C. 1996. Legislation to protect and replace trees on private land: Ordinances in Westchester county, New York. Journal of Arbo- riculture 22:270–278. Coughlin, R.E., D.C. Mendes, and A.L. Strong. 1984. Private Trees and Public Interest: Programs for Protecting and Planting Trees in Metro- politan Areas. Research Report Series No. 10, Univ. of Pennsylvania Department of City and Regional and City Planning, University of Penn., Philadelphia., PA. 158 pp. Davis, R.L. 1993. Street tree trends in Kansas and the influence of com- munity factors. Journal of Arboriculture 19:201- 208. Dickerson, S.D., J.W. Groninger, and J.C. Mangun. 2001. Influences of community characteristics on municipal tree ordinances in Illinois, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 27:318–325. Duerksen, C.J., S. Richman. 1993. Tree Conservation Ordinances, Amer- ican Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report # 446, Chicago. Dwyer, J.F., D.J. Nowak, M.H. Noble, S.M. Sisinni. 2000. Connecting people with ecosystems in the 21st century: an assessment of our na- tion’s urban forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-490. U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, PNRS. Portland, OR. Frischenbruder, M.T.M., and P. Pellegrino. 2006. Using greenways to reclaim nature in Brazilian cities. Landscape and Urban Planning 76: 67–78. Galvin, M.F., and D. Bleil. 2004. Relationship among tree canopy qual- ity, community demographics, and tree city program participation in Maryland, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 30:321–327. Heisler, G.M. 1986. Effects of individual trees on the solar radiation cli- mate of small buildings. Urban Ecology 9:337–359. Johnson, C.W. 1988. Planning for avian wildlife in urbanizing areas in America desert/mountain valley environments. Landscape and Urban Planning 16:245–252. Kaplan, R. 1993. The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning 26 (1-4):193–201. Kielbaso, J.J. 1989. City Tree Car Program: A Status Report. In G. Moll and S. Ebenreck, Shading Our Cities. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Kuo, F.E. 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture 29:148–155. ©2009 International Society of Arboriculture
May 2009
| 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
