Delivering a Multi-Functional and Resilient Urban Forest
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The Benefits of Urban Tree Cover
1.2. Threats to Urban Tree Cover
1.3. Contextual and Temporal Sensitivity of Ecosystem Services Supplied by Trees
1.4. Trees, Urban Systems and Resilience Thinking
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Diverse Perspectives on Threats to the Benefits of Urban Street Trees
2.2. Urban Street Trees and Their Intended Benefits
2.3. Necessary System Conditions
2.4. Scenario-Based Resilience Analysis
- (a)
- Policy Reform (PR). Government action attempts to reduce poverty and social conflict within the confines of a globalised free market. Individual behaviours are slow to move from materialistic self-interest, although it is widely accepted that markets require strong regulation to avert economic crisis, social conflict, and environmental degradation. Tensions continue to grow between continuity of the dominant social values and the desire for greater equity to address key sustainability goals.
- (b)
- Market Forces (MF). There is strong belief in the “hidden hand” (i.e., self-correcting logic) of the free market as key to resolving social, economic, and environmental problems. Individualism and materialism are core human values. This scenario assumes that the global system in the twenty-first century evolves without major surprise. Incremental market adjustments have (so far) been able to cope with major social, economic and environmental problems as they have arisen.
- (c)
- Fortress World (FW). As a result of the (partial) breakdown in world order, powerful and self-interested actors protect their resources whilst an impoverished majority are (literally or effectively) disenfranchised and live in ghettos. In this divided world, the elite live in an interconnected network of enclaves and the impoverished majority scratch a living outside. Armed forces impose order, protect those parts of the environment valued by the elite, and prevent complete collapse of society.
- (d)
- New Sustainability Paradigm (NSP). An ethos of sustainability (of “one-planet living”), has taken root throughout society, bringing with it a fundamental questioning of materialism. New socio-economic patterns follow from these fundamental changes in values. In order to maintain global communication and economies of scale, cities are transformed rather than abandoned or replaced.
3. Results
3.1. Necessary Conditions
3.2. Scenario Analysis
Benefits to Achieve and Drawbacks to Avoid | Necessary Conditions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Consistent water supply for healthy growth | Tree's access to light is maintained | Low stress from soil pollution | Low stress from air pollution | Root growth not substantially impeded | A tree is still present | Tree is large or mature | People are present nearby | Tree is visually accessible to public | Tree is maintained for amenity | Large-scale tree-cover across urban area | Tree is maintained for wildlife | Surrounding area built to high-density | Tree is physically accessible to public | Tree not in a street canyon with busy road | Tree does not overhang road or pavement | High canopy | Tree blocks solar access to building | No artificial lighting | Tree is part of a densely-vegetated barrier | No persistent noise | Tree is connected to a broader tree network | Species is native | Species is a low VOC emitter | Lateral root spread not excessive | Tree is growing in a pervious surface | Species is evergreen | |
Provide feeding resource for native birds and bats | * | * | * | * | * | √ | √ | ! | ! | √ | √ | ! | ! | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | * | ||||||||
Cool buildings (shade) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ! | √ | * | |||||||||||||||||
Reduce heating requirements during cold weather | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ! | ! | ! | √ | √ | ||||||||||||||
Attenuate noise throughout the year | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ! | ! | √ | * | √ | |||||||||||||||
Reduce net CO2 emissions | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ! | √ | * | |||||||||||||||||
Reduce stormwater runoff rate/volume | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | * | √ | √ | * | |||||||||||||||||
Summertime cooling | * | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ! | ! | √ | ||||||||||||||||
Reduce exposure to air pollutants (NO2, O3, PM) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | * | * | √ | √ | * | ||||||||||||||
Reduce psychological stress | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | * | √ | √ | * | √ | ||||||||||||||||
Decrease perceptions of overcrowding | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | * | √ | √ | ! | √ | ! | ! | ||||||||||||||
Create desirable environments for recreation | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | * | √ | √ | √ | ! | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||||
Improve urban aesthetics | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | * | √ | √ | √ | ! | √ | |||||||||||||||
Increase property values | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | * | √ | * | √ | ! | ||||||||||||||||
Reduce crime | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ! | √ | √ | √ | √ | ! | √ | ! | ! | ||||||||||||
Increase economic investment within surrounding area | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ! | ! | ! | ||||||||||||||
Stabilise cuttings/embankments | √ | √ | ! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Avoid root interference with built infrastructure/paving | √ | ! | ! | ! | ! | ! | ! | ! | ! | ! | ! | √ | |||||||||||||||
Avoid shrink-swell damage to buildings/infrastructure | √ | ! | ! | ! | ! | ! | ! | ! | √ | ||||||||||||||||||
Avoid public hazard due to leaf/fruit fall | √ | ! | ! | ! | ! | ! | ! | * | ! | ! | ! | * | |||||||||||||||
Avoid injury/damage due to branch/tree fall | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ! | ! | √ | ! | ! | ! | ! | √ | ! |
Necessary Conditions | Future Scenarios | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
PR | MF | FW | NSP | |
Species is native | * | * | * | * |
Species is a low volatile organic compound (VOC) emitter | * | * | * | * |
Species is evergreen | * | * | * | * |
A tree is still present | * | * | x | √ |
Lateral root spread is not excessive | * | x | x | √ |
Tree is connected to a broader tree network | * | x | x | √ |
Tree is maintained for wildlife | * | x | x | √ |
Tree is not in a street canyon with busy road | * | * | x | √ |
Tree is maintained for amenity | * | √ | * | x |
Consistent water supply for healthy growth | * | * | * | √ |
Root growth not substantially impeded | * | * | * | √ |
Tree’s access to light maintained | * | * | * | √ |
Tree is large or mature | * | * | x | √ |
High canopy | * | * | x | √ |
Tree is part of a densely-vegetated barrier | * | * | x | √ |
No persistent noise | * | * | * | √ |
No artificial lighting | * | * | * | √ |
Tree blocks solar access to building | * | * | * | √ |
Surrounding area built to high-density | √ | * | * | * |
Tree does not overhang road or pavement | * | √ | √ | x |
Low stress from air pollution | √ | * | x | √ |
Low stress from soil pollution | √ | * | * | √ |
Tree is physically accessible to public | √ | * | * | √ |
Tree is growing in a pervious surface | √ | * | * | √ |
Tree is visually accessible to the public | √ | * | * | √ |
People are present nearby | √ | * | √ | * |
Large-scale tree cover across urban area | √ | √ | x | √ |
4. Discussion
4.1. Benefits, Necessary Conditions, Synergies and Tensions
4.2. Scenario Analysis and Resilience Implications
4.3. Retention and Survival to Maturity
4.4. Large-Scale Tree Cover
4.5. Social Context
5. Conclusions
- Broaden planting locations to include private gardens and residential amenity green spaces immediately adjacent to streets, to reduce potential conflicts with people and built infrastructure and to reduce tree mortality due to environmental extremes.
- Introduce annual direct payments for local residents and business owners, to incentivise their involvement in the long-term protection and management of trees, in neighbourhoods where benefits are most needed.
- Develop more formal partnerships between the individuals, NGOs and municipal departments that are involved in the co-management of street trees in urban areas, to increase their legitimacy, accountability, and ability to access and share resources.
- For planting in heavily developed areas such as urban centres, incorporate soil cells integrated with surface water drainage systems, and use planting techniques that facilitate the transplantation of trees at a later date if necessary.
Supplementary Materials
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Stewart, G.H.; Ignatieva, M.E.; Meurk, C.D.; Earl, R.D. The re-emergence of indigenous forest in an urban environment, Christchurch, New Zealand. Urban For. Urban Green. 2004, 2, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, C.D.; Cervero, R. From elevated freeway to urban greenway: Land value impacts of the cgc project in Seoul, Korea. Urban Stud. 2009, 46, 2771–2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, P.; Tzoulas, K.; Adams, M.; Barber, A.; Box, J.; Breuste, J.; Elmqvist, T.; Frith, M.; Gordon, C.; Greening, K. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conway, T.M.; Urbani, L. Variations in municipal urban forestry policies: A case study of Toronto, Canada. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petts, J.; Owens, S.; Bulkeley, H. Crossing boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum 2008, 39, 593–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escobedo, F.J.; Wagner, J.E.; Nowak, D.J.; de la Maza, C.L.; Rodriguez, M.; Crane, D.E. Analyzing the cost effectiveness of Santiago, Chile’s policy of using urban forests to improve air quality. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, R.F. Planting the living city: Best practices in planning green infrastructure—Results from major us cities. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2011, 77, 368–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McPherson, E.G.; Nowak, D.; Heisler, G.; Grimmond, S.; Souch, C.; Grant, R.; Rowntree, R. Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: The Chicago urban forest climate project. Urban Ecosyst. 1997, 1, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pincetl, S.; Gillespie, T.; Pataki, D.E.; Saatchi, S.; Saphores, J.-D. Urban tree planting programs, function or fashion? Los Angeles and urban tree planting campaigns. GeoJournal 2013, 78, 475–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Xiao, Q.; Wu, C. Los Angeles 1-Million Tree Canopy cover Assessment; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: Albany, CA, USA, 2008; p. 52. [Google Scholar]
- Dwyer, J.F.; Schroeder, H.W.; Gobster, P.H. The significance of urban trees and forests: Toward a deeper understanding of values. J. Arb. 1991, 17, 276–284. [Google Scholar]
- Akbari, H. Cooling Our Communities: A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1992; p. 217. [Google Scholar]
- Donovan, R.G.; Stewart, H.E.; Owen, S.M.; MacKenzie, A.R.; Hewitt, C.N. Development and application of an urban tree air quality score for photochemical pollution episodes using the Birmingham, United Kingdom, area as a case study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 6730–6738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Currie, B.A.; Bass, B. Estimates of air pollution mitigation with green plants and green roofs using the ufore model. Urban Ecosyst. 2008, 11, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escobedo, F.; Varela, S.; Zhao, M.; Wagner, J.E.; Zipperer, W. Analyzing the efficacy of subtropical urban forests in offsetting carbon emissions from cities. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2010, 13, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savard, J.-P.L.; Clergeau, P.; Mennechez, G. Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 48, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matteo, M.; Randhir, T.; Bloniarz, D. Watershed-scale impacts of forest buffers on water quality and runoff in urbanizing environment. J. Water Res. Plan. Manag. 2006, 132, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, C. Quantifying the aesthetic benefits of urban forestry. Urban For. Urban Green. 2003, 1, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G. Rainfall interception by Santa Monica’s municipal urban forest. Urban Ecosyst. 2002, 6, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Hoehn, R.E.; Walton, J.T.; Bond, J. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arb. Urb. Forest. 2008, 34, 347–358. [Google Scholar]
- Sander, H.; Polasky, S.; Haight, R.G. The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota Counties, Minnesota, USA. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1646–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escobedo, F.J.; Kroeger, T.; Wagner, J.E. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2078–2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roy, S.; Byrne, J.; Pickering, C. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 351–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- i-Tree. I-tree user’s manual. Tools for assessing and managing community forests. Software suite v2.1. 2008. Available online: http://www.itreetools.org (accessed on 1 October 2014).
- Mullaney, J.; Lucke, T.; Trueman, S.J. A review of benefits and challenges in growing street trees in paved urban environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myeong, S.; Nowak, D.J.; Duggin, M.J. A temporal analysis of urban forest carbon storage using remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 2006, 101, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillespie, T.W.; Pincetl, S.; Brossard, S.; Smith, J.; Saatchi, S.; Pataki, D.; Saphores, J.-D. A time series of urban forestry in Los Angeles. Urban Ecosyst. 2012, 15, 233–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz-Porras, D.F.; Gaston, K.J.; Evans, K.L. 110 years of change in urban tree stocks and associated carbon storage. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 4, 1413–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merry, K.; Siry, J.; Bettinger, P.; Bowker, J.M. Urban tree cover change in Detroit and Atlanta, USA, 1951–2010. Cities 2014, 41, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D.J.; Greenfield, E.J. Tree and impervious cover change in us cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roman, L.A.; Scatena, F.N. Street tree survival rates: Meta-analysis of previous studies and application to a field survey in Philadelphia, PA, USA. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D.J.; Kuroda, M.; Crane, D.E. Tree mortality rates and tree population projections in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Urban For. Urban Green. 2004, 2, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, J.W.; Svendsen, E.S.; Campbell, L.K.; Greenfeld, J.; Braden, J.; King, K.L.; Falxa-Raymond, N. Biological, social, and urban design factors affecting young street tree mortality in New York City. Available online: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=cate (accessed on 9 April 2015).
- TDAG. Trees in Hard Landscapes: A Guide for Their Delivery. Available online: http://www.tdag.org.uk/trees-in-hard-landscapes.html (accessed on 1 October 2014).
- Tubby, K.V.; Webber, J.F. Pests and diseases threatening urban trees under a changing climate. Forestry 2010, 83, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DEFRA. UK plant health risk register. Available online: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/phiw/riskRegister/ (accessed on 6 March 2015).
- The right trees for changing climate database. Available online: http://www.righttrees4cc.org.uk (accessed on 6 March 2015).
- Pincetl, S. Implementing municipal tree planting: Los Angeles million-tree initiative. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akbari, H.; Pomerantz, M.; Taha, H. Cool surfaces and shade trees to reduce energy use and improve air quality in urban areas. Solar Energy 2001, 70, 295–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armson, D.; Stringer, P.; Ennos, A.R. The effect of tree shade and grass on surface and globe temperatures in an urban area. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Xiao, Q.; Wu, C. Million trees los angeles canopy cover and benefit assessment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 99, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McPherson, E.G.; Kendall, A. A life cycle carbon dioxide inventory of the million trees Los Angeles program. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1653–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dallimer, M.; Tang, Z.; Bibby, P.R.; Brindley, P.; Gaston, K.J.; Davies, Z.G. Temporal changes in greenspace in a highly urbanized region. Biol. Lett. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ordóñez, C.; Duinker, P.N. Interpreting sustainability for urban forests. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1510–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grimm, N.B.; Faeth, S.H.; Golubiewski, N.E.; Redman, C.L.; Wu, J.; Bai, X.; Briggs, J.M. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 2008, 319, 756–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boyko, C.T.; MacKenzie, A.R.; Leung, H. In spite of our own best interests: Lessons from an interdisciplinary project on urban sustainability. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardi, D.R.; Leach, J.M.; Rogers, C.D.F.; Aston, R.; Barber, A.; Boyko, C.; Brown, J.; Bryson, J.R.; Butler, D.; Caputo, S.; et al. Designing Resilient Cities: A Guide to Good Practice; IHS BRE Press: Bracknell, UK, 2012; p. 128. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, C.D.; Lombardi, D.R.; Leach, J.M.; Cooper, R. The urban futures methodology applied to urban regeneration. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sus. 2012, 165, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [Green Version]
- Pugh, T.A.; MacKenzie, A.R.; Davies, G.; Whyatt, J.D.; Barnes, M.; Hewitt, C.N. A futures-based analysis for urban air quality remediation. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sus. 2012, 165, 21–36. [Google Scholar]
- Hale, J.; Sadler, J. Resilient ecological solutions for urban regeneration. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sus. 2012, 165, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Britt, C.; Johnston, M. Trees in Towns II: A New Survey of Urban Trees in England and Their Condition and Management; Department for Communities and Local Government: London, UK, 2008; ISBN 978-185-112-8891. [Google Scholar]
- Dandy, N. The Social and Cultural Values, and Governance, of Street Trees; Forestry Commission: Surrey, UK, 2010; p. 39. [Google Scholar]
- Gallopin, G.; Hammond, A.; Raskin, P.; Swart, R. Branch points: Global scenarios and human choice. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.401.3361&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 9 April 2015).
- Boyko, C.T.; Gaterell, M.R.; Barber, A.R.; Brown, J.; Bryson, J.R.; Butler, D.; Caputo, S.; Caserio, M.; Coles, R.; Cooper, R. Benchmarking sustainability in cities: The role of indicators and future scenarios. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, S.R.; Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D. Scenarios for ecosystem services: An overview. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 29. [Google Scholar]
- Hunt, D.V.; Lombardi, D.R.; Atkinson, S.; Barber, A.R.; Barnes, M.; Boyko, C.T.; Brown, J.; Bryson, J.; Butler, D.; Caputo, S. Scenario archetypes: Converging rather than diverging themes. Sustainability 2012, 4, 740–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Haberl, H. Socioecological Transitions and Global Change: Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2007; p. 263. [Google Scholar]
- Renaud, F.G.; Birkmann, J.; Damm, M.; Gallopín, G.C. Understanding multiple thresholds of coupled social-ecological systems exposed to natural hazards as external shocks. Nat. Hazards 2010, 55, 749–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menzel, S.; Teng, J. Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 907–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martín-López, B.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Amo, D.G.D.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Palacios-Agundez, I.; Willaarts, B.; et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gromke, C.; Buccolieri, R.; di Sabatino, S.; Ruck, B. Dispersion study in a street canyon with tree planting by means of wind tunnel and numerical investigations–evaluation of CFD data with experimental data. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 8640–8650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, S.; Guo, J.; Wheeler, S.; Kan, L.; Che, S. Evaluation of impacts of trees on pm2.5 dispersion in urban streets. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 99, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forman, R.T.; Alexander, L.E. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1998, 29, 207–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyrväinen, L.; Silvennoinen, H.; Kolehmainen, O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For. Urban Green. 2003, 1, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conway, T.M.; Bang, E. Willing partners? Residential support for municipal urban forestry policies. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 234–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parris, K.M.; Schneider, A. Impacts of traffic noise and traffic volume on birds of roadside habitats. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 29. [Google Scholar]
- Gaston, K.J.; Bennie, J.; Davies, T.W.; Hopkins, J. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: A mechanistic appraisal. Biol. Rev. 2013, 88, 912–927. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Hale, J.D.; Fairbrass, A.J.; Matthews, T.J.; Davies, G.; Sadler, J.P. The ecological impact of city lighting scenarios: Exploring gap crossing thresholds for urban bats. Global Change Biol. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metzger, M.J.; Schröter, D.; Leemans, R.; Cramer, W. A spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of ecosystem service change in Europe. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2008, 8, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateman, I.J.; Harwood, A.R.; Mace, G.M.; Watson, R.T.; Abson, D.J.; Andrews, B.; Binner, A.; Crowe, A.; Day, B.H.; Dugdale, S. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: Land use in the United Kingdom. Science 2013, 341, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deal, B.; Pallathucheril, V. Sustainability and urban dynamics: Assessing future impacts on ecosystem services. Sustainability 2009, 1, 346–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perino, G.; Andrews, B.; Kontoleon, A.; Bateman, I. Urban Greenspace Amenity-Economic Assessment of Ecosystem Services Provided by UK Urban Habitats. Available online: http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx (accessed on 1 October 2014).
- Zhang, Y.; Hussain, A.; Deng, J.; Letson, N. Public attitudes toward urban trees and supporting urban tree programs. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 797–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pincetl, S. Urban ecology and nature’s services infrastructure: Policy implications of the million trees initiative of the city of Los Angeles. In Urbanization and Sustainability; Boone, C.G., Fragkias, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 61–74. [Google Scholar]
- Moskell, C.; Allred, S.B. Residents’ beliefs about responsibility for the stewardship of park trees and street trees in New York City. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 120, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotherham, I.D. Thoughts on the politics and economics of urban street trees. Arb. J. 2010, 33, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahern, J. Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: The promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1203–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MillionTreesNYC. Best Practice: Planting One Million Trees to Develop the Urban Forest. 2013. Available online: http://www.nyc.gov/globalpartners/innovationexchange (accessed on 1 October 2014). [Google Scholar]
- Le Roux, D.S.; Ikin, K.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Manning, A.D.; Gibbons, P. The future of large old trees in urban landscapes. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carpaneto, G.M.; Mazziotta, A.; Coletti, G.; Luiselli, L.; Audisio, P. Conflict between insect conservation and public safety: The case study of a saproxylic beetle (Osmoderma eremita) in urban parks. J. Insect Conserv. 2010, 14, 555–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salzman, J. Creating markets for ecosystem services: Notes from the field. NYUL Rev. 2005, 80, 870–961. [Google Scholar]
- TEEB. Teeb Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. 2011. Available online: http://www.teebbweb.org (accessed on 1 October 2014).
- Thurston, H.W.; Taylor, M.A.; Shuster, W.D.; Roy, A.H.; Morrison, M.A. Using a reverse auction to promote household level stormwater control. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2010, 13, 405–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landry, S.M.; Chakraborty, J. Street trees and equity: Evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environ. Plan. A 2009, 41, 2651–2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Treebristol-planting trees in Bristol. Available online: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/environment/treebristol-planting-trees-bristol (accessed on 6 March 2015).
- The mersey forest. Available online: http://www.merseyforest.org.uk/ (accessed on 6 March 2015).
- Plymouth tree partnership. Available online: http://www.plymouthtrees.org (accessed on 6 March 2015).
- Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 441–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hale, J.D.; Pugh, T.A.M.; Sadler, J.P.; Boyko, C.T.; Brown, J.; Caputo, S.; Caserio, M.; Coles, R.; Farmani, R.; Hales, C.; et al. Delivering a Multi-Functional and Resilient Urban Forest. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4600-4624. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044600
Hale JD, Pugh TAM, Sadler JP, Boyko CT, Brown J, Caputo S, Caserio M, Coles R, Farmani R, Hales C, et al. Delivering a Multi-Functional and Resilient Urban Forest. Sustainability. 2015; 7(4):4600-4624. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044600
Chicago/Turabian StyleHale, James D., Thomas A. M. Pugh, Jon P. Sadler, Christopher T. Boyko, Julie Brown, Silvio Caputo, Maria Caserio, Richard Coles, Raziyeh Farmani, Chantal Hales, and et al. 2015. "Delivering a Multi-Functional and Resilient Urban Forest" Sustainability 7, no. 4: 4600-4624. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044600