80 Pearce et al.: Using Size Class Distributions of Species for the Private Urban Forest that of small trees (McPherson et al. 1994). The shade provid- ed by large canopy trees, both on public and private properties where the tree overhangs public space, modifies the local micro- climate, reducing temperature and encouraging pedestrians and cyclists, thus influencing public health (City of Melbourne 2011). Since the early 1980s, municipal governments in Hobart, unlike the majority in Melbourne, have employed UK-style tree preservation orders as a way of protecting larger trees on private as well as public land. The data does not directly answer the question of whether and to what extent healthy large trees have been removed from private gardens; the data does, however, suggest that such regulations may not have been effectively enforced in Hobart. It is possible that pub- lic resentment toward local government controls over pri- vate trees may be a factor in encouraging residents to plant smaller trees or to remove trees to pre-empt restrictions. In this context, researchers note that the City of Melbourne is currently developing a register of exceptional trees on pri- vate property with the intention of protection through the Melbourne Planning Scheme. The study authors also note that regulation has been shown to be effective in retaining large private trees in at least one western city (Sung 2012). While managers have a growing range of regulatory instru- ments at their disposal, the mandated planting of certain types of trees on private land is politically difficult to advocate and virtually impossible to implement. In this context, one manage- ment implication of the data is that loss of tall trees in the private estate needs to be compensated for by planting on public land. For example, if the Norfolk Island pines and Canary Island palms that characterize coastal suburbs in Melbourne begin to disappear from gardens, they can be preferentially planted in streets and reserves by municipal land managers. The difficulty here is that use of public space is increasingly contested in Australian cities. Urban consolidation through subdivision of existing blocks, for example, typically reduces the viable room for street trees on the adjacent street verge through the requirement for multiple drive- ways. Urban consolidation in the form of new developments also typically has lower public space provision as well as smaller set- backs of housing from the street than was the case in most of the twentieth century. Finally, while some Australian suburbs have increased overhead space for large trees by burying power lines, competition for underground space has intensified, not only due to the addition of power lines, but as a result of increased residential densities and the presence of new telecommunications services. Regulatory approaches are only one way in which public man- agers seek to influence the tree management practices of private residents. One alternative is to support tree-related industries and councils in educating the public about the systemic benefits of the urban forest and to ensure that there is adequate availability of appropriate tree stock. Related to this is the opportunity to raise public awareness of the invaluable contribution of private trees to the urban forest through education and the celebration of existing trees. This could be supported by increased popular media con- tent about gardening. Recognition of the values of existing trees through such mechanisms as council registers, urban forest art and design competitions, or walking tours may assist in this goal. Fur- thermore, by offering incentives for the retention of existing trees, such as free arboricultural advice, the contribution of private tree estate to urban forest function may be maintained. Another alter- native is to directly engage residents in urban forest management ©2013 International Society of Arboriculture on public land. The potential for such involvement may be partic- ularly high in Australia, where horticultural societies and garden- ing groups have a strong presence. Community Landcare groups have partnered with government to rehabilitate public bushland over the past few decades (Davison and Ridder 2006). There is little research examining the relationship between participation in these groups and private garden practices. The potential of these groups to raise the awareness of residents about the importance of the private tree estate in urban forest management is not known. One difficulty facing managers in seeking to educate residents about the importance of their role as private land managers within the urban forest is the dearth of research into the motives, and especially the actions, of private residents in relation to urban trees. Such research may not only identify effective educational and regulatory strategies, but also reveal ways in which private residents are uniquely positioned to contribute to the well-being of the urban forest. Consider, for example, the emerging empha- sis on increasing tree species diversity in Australian urban forest management, as a strategy for building resilience in the urban forest in the face of pests, diseases, and environmental change more generally (City of Melbourne 2011; North Sydney Council 2011). In this regard, an observed increased cultural emphasis on individual self-expression through gardening (Kirkpatrick et al. 2009) may be a mechanism by which the species diversity of the urban forest may be maintained. The high proportion of tree cover found in the private realm, and the changing nature of that tree cover as exposed by this study suggests a need to understand the current composition and influencing drivers of private trees. By carrying out collective management of the urban forest that considers the private tree estate, the social, ecological, and envi- ronmental benefits afforded by the urban forest will be enhanced. Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank Cynnamon Dobbs for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This research was funded by ARC grant DP0878249: Patterns, causes and consequences of tree retention, establishment, and removal in Australian Cities. LITERATURE CITED ABS. 2009. Housing Mobility and Conditions 2007–08. Australian Bu- reau of Statistics 4130.0.0.55.002, Canberra. Alberti, M. 2009. Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems. Springer. Beeton, R.J.S., K. Buckley, G.J. Jones, D. Morgan, R.E. Reichelt, and D. Trewin. 2006. Australian State of the Environment Report 2006: Human settlements, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Government, Can- berra. Accessed 07/26/2011. Botanica’s Trees and Shrubs. 2001. Random House, Australia. City of Melbourne 2011. Urban Forest Strategy: Making a Great City Greener, 2012–2032. Consultation Draft. City of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Clark, J.R., N.P. Matheny, G. Cross, and V. Wake. 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23(1):17–30. Colinvaux, P. 1993. Ecology 2. Wiley, New York City, New York, U.S. Daniels, G.D., and J.B. Kirkpatrick. 2006a. Comparing the charac- teristics of front and back domestic gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 78:344–352.
March 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
