Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(4): July 2007 261 trees would be an important first step toward differentiating the value of dead and dying trees. The alternative is to con- tinue to put valuable wood products contained in urban trees to some lesser use (e.g., firewood) or, as a worst case, into a landfill (urban wood waste comprises ≈17% of all waste re- ceived at U.S. landfills; Solid Waste Association of North America 2002). CONCLUSION Recent economic losses associated with the destruction of urban trees by wood-boring forest pests such as the emerald ash borer highlights the well-known value associated with urban forests, not the least of which may be the valuable wood in the trees. Although there are potential concerns with harvesting urban trees for saw timber such as low availability and poor wood quality, the results of this study suggest that many of them may be unfounded. Harvesting urban wood is certainly less efficient relative to commercial logging in for- ests because, even if abundant, urban wood may be scattered around a large metropolitan area in smaller saleable units, greatly increasing the cost of consolidating and transporting it. However, it may not be prudent to view urban wood as an alternative to wood derived from forests. Rather, it might best be viewed as a supplementary source of wood that may help to offset the social and economic costs of urban tree removal and urban wood waste disposal to private landowners and government entities. Clearly, if southeastern lower Michigan is similar to other regions nationwide, a substantial amount of wood products volume is available from trees in urban areas. Acknowledgments. I thank the Southeast Michigan Resource Con- servation and Development Council and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station for providing funding and resources for this research. I also thank Sam Sherrill and Pascal Kamdem for thought- ful comments regarding this research. I thank John Kemppainen, Sean Flinn, and Hong Su An for spending many hours knocking on doors and measuring urban trees. LITERATURE CITED Avery, T.E., and H.E. Burkhart. 1994. Forest Measurements. 4th edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Bratkovich, S.M. 2001. Utilizing Municipal Trees: Ideas from Across the Country. NA-TP-06-01, St. Paul, MN: USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Pri- vate Forestry. DeBell, J.D., J.C. Tappenier, and R.L. Kramer. 1994. Brach diameter of western hemlock: Effects of precommercial thinning and implications for log grades. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 9:88–90. Falk, B. 2002. Wood-framed building deconstruction: A source of lumber for construction? Forest Products Jour- nal 52:8–15. Fang, S., G. Gertner, G. Wang, and A. Anderson. 2006. The impact of misclassification in land use maps in the pre- diction of landscape dynamics. Landscape Ecology 21: 233–242. Freese, F. 1973. A Collection of Log Rules. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-01. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 754-546/28. Johnson, A.D., and H.D. Gerhold. 2001. Carbon storage by utility-compatible trees. Journal of Arboriculture 27: 57–68. Jurek, J., and U. Wihs. 1998. Norway maple in the city forest of Northeim. Site requirements and growth. Forst-und- Holz 53:15–18. LeVan-Green, S.L., and J. Livingston. 2001. Exploring the use for small-diameter trees. Forest Products Journal 51: 10–21. Mackes, K., W. Sheppard, and C. Jennings. 2005. Evaluating the bending properties of clear wood specimens produced from small-diameter ponderosa pine trees. Forest Prod- ucts Journal 55:72–80. Matheny, N.P., and J.R. Clark. 1994. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. 2nd edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Urbana, IL. McPherson, E.G., J.R. Simpson, P.J. Peper, and Q. Xiao. 1999. Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto’s municipal urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 25:235–248. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Forest Mineral and Fire Management Division. 2003. IFMAP/ GAP Lower Peninsula Land Cover. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Ann Arbor, MI. www.dnr.dtate.mi. us/spatialdatalibrary/sdl2/land_use_cover/2001/IFMAP_ lp_landcover.htm (accessed 9/20/04). Miles, P.D., G.J. Brand, C.L. Alerich, L.F. Bednar, S.W. Woudenberg, J.F. Glover, and E.N. Ezzell. 2001. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database Description and Users Manual, Version 1. GTR NC-218, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. NOAA CSCC-CAP. 2003. Late-date Classification of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. National Oceanic and At- mospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center (CSC)/Coastal Change Analysis Products(C- CAP), Charleston, SC. Nowak, D.J., and D.E. Crane. 2002. Carbon storage and se- questration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution 166:381–389. Nowak, D.J., M. Kuroda, and D.E. Crane. 2004. Tree mor- tality rates and tree population projections in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2: 139–147. Nowak, D.J., J.E. Pasek, R.A. Sequeira, D.E. Crane, and V.C. Mastro. 2001. Potential Effect of Anoplophora glabripen- nis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on urban trees in the United States. Journal of Economic Entomology 94: 116–122. ©2007 International Society of Arboriculture
July 2007
| 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
