Connecting People With Ecosystems

in the 21st Century:

An Assessment of Our Nation’s Urban Forests

Connecting People With Ecosystems

in the 21st Century:

An Assessment of Our Nation’s Urban Forests

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE

JOHN F. DWYER, DAVID J. NOWAK, MARY HEATHER NOBLE, AND SUSAN M. SISINNI

A Technical Document Supporting the

2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment
John F. Dwyer is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

North Central Research Station, 845 Chicago Avenue, Suite 225, Evanston, IL 60202-

2357; and David J. Nowak is a research forester, Mary Heather Noble was a

biological science technician when this manuscript was prepared, and Susan M.

Sisinni is a forester, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, c/o SUNYCESF, 5 Moon Library, Syracuse, NY 13210. (M.H. Noble is currently a water resource

specialist, New Mexico Environment Department, Ground Water Quality Bureau, 1190

St. Francis Dr., P.O. Box 26110, Sante Fe, NM 87502.)

Authors
Dwyer, John F.; Nowak, David J.; Noble, Mary Heather; Sisinni, Susan M. 2000.

Connecting people with ecosystems in the 21st century: an assessment of our

nation’s urban forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-490. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 483 p.

Urban areas (cities, towns, villages, etc.) cover 3.5 percent of the 48 conterminous

states and contain more than 75 percent of the population. In urban areas, about 3.8

billion trees cover 27.1 percent of the land. On a broader scale, metropolitan areas

(urban counties) cover 24.5 percent of the conterminous United States and contain

74.4 billion trees that cover 33.4 percent of these counties. Between 1950 and 1990,

metropolitan areas nearly tripled in size; urban areas doubled in size over the past 20

to 25 years.

This report is the first national assessment of urban forest resources in the United

States and details variations in urbanization and urban tree cover across the United

States by state, county, and individual urban area. It illustrates local-scale variation,

complexity, and connectedness of the urban forest resource and how this resource

changes through time in response to a wide range of powerful forces. The report concludes by outlining future areas of emphasis that will facilitate comprehensive, adaptive, and sustainable urban forest management and improve environmental quality,

enhance human health, and connect people with ecosystems in the 21st century.

Keywords: Urban forests, urban forestry, tree cover, sustainability, adaptive management, urbanization, urban ecosystems, urban populations, metropolitan areas, RPA

assessment.

Abstract
People are having an ever increasing impact on local, regional, and global environments. This is particularly significant in and around urban areas, where people are

often physically or psychologically disconnected from more natural ecosystems. Urban

forests and forestry can provide significant benefits to the U.S. population and have the

potential to help reconnect the urban population with natural resources and their management. This report is the first national assessment of urban forest resources in the

United States. It provides a basis to help develop comprehensive management plans

to sustain the urban forest resource and improve environmental quality, enhance human health and well-being, and connect people with ecosystems in the 21st century.

Urban forests are a significant national resource that promise to increase in extent

and importance in the years ahead. Metropolitan areas (urban counties) represent the

broadest extent of urbanization in the country, including 24.5 percent of the total area

and roughly 80 percent of the total population in the 48 adjacent United States. With an

average tree cover of 33.4 percent, metropolitan areas collectively support nearly onequarter of the Nation’s total tree canopy cover—some 74.4 billion trees. Trees found

in urban areas (cities, towns, and villages) also comprise a substantial portion of the

Nation’s resource base. Covering 3.5 percent of the total area and containing more

than 75 percent of the total population, urban areas support trees that account for 2.8

percent of the total tree canopy cover in this country—about 3.8 billion trees. The average percentage of tree canopy cover for both metropolitan areas (33.4 percent) and

urban areas (27.1 percent) is close to that for all land in the conterminous United States

(32.8 percent), thereby demonstrating that urban areas and urban influence can coexist

with a significant tree canopy.

The urban forest resource differs in extent across the United States. The Northeast is

the most urbanized portion of the Nation; 9 of the 10 states with the highest proportion

of urban land occur in this region. States with the highest proportion of their total tree

cover in urban areas include New Jersey (22.3 percent), Massachusetts (14.4 percent),

and Connecticut (14.0 percent) (table 1). States with the largest urban tree populations

are generally in the South and Northeast and include Georgia (232.9 million urban

trees), Alabama (205.8 million), and Ohio (191.1 million) (table 1). The surrounding

natural environment has a significant impact on the urban forest resource and its management. Cities that developed in forested areas average 34.4 percent tree cover;

cities in grasslands, 17.8 percent; and cities in deserts, 9.3 percent.

States with the greatest absolute population growth per unit of land between 1990 and

1996 are in the East: New Jersey (13.4 people per square kilometer), Delaware (11.6),

Maryland (11.5), Florida (10.5), Georgia (5.8), and North Carolina (5.5). States with

the greatest percentages of increase in population (1990-96) are in the West: Nevada

(33.4 percent), Arizona (20.8), Idaho (18.1), Utah (16.1), and Colorado (16.0). Between

1950 and 1990, metropolitan areas nearly tripled in size; urban areas doubled in size

between the late 1960s and early 1990s.

As urban development continues to expand over the landscape, the relation between

urban growth, urban influence, and natural resource systems will become increasingly

important. Many cities, particularly in the Southeastern United States, are surrounded

by forest land. The expansion of these cities likely will have a significant impact on the

extent, use, and management of forest resources. As urbanization spreads into less

developed rural areas, a growing percentage of the Nation’s natural resources will

become part of urban forest ecosystems, and increasing amounts of forest outside

these systems also will be subject to urban influence.

Summary

The Urban Forest

Resource of the

Conterminous United

States
Table 1—Estimated number of urban trees, tree cover, and urban area, by state,

in the conterminous United States

Urban Portion of

trees/ Urban state tree Urban Portion of

State Urban trees capita tree cover cover areaa state

– – – – Percent – – – – Km2 Percent

Georgia 232,906,000 49 55.3 4.7 8,338 5.4

Alabama 205,847,000 69 48.2 4.7 8,487 6.3

Ohio 191,113,000 22 38.3 7.0 9,923 8.5

Florida 169,587,000 13 18.4 5.5 18,407 10.8

Tennessee 163,783,000 49 43.9 5.1 7,382 6.8

Virginia 156,545,000 27 35.3 4.9 8,869 8.0

Illinois 155,544,000 14 33.7 5.5 9,165 6.1

California 148,612,000 5 10.9 2.2 27,348 6.4

New Jersey 143,869,000 20 41.4 22.3 6,916 30.6

Texas 140,709,000 8 10.5 3.6 26,573 3.8

Pennsylvania 139,020,000 16 34.4 4.2 8,363 7.0

North Carolina 138,606,000 36 42.9 3.4 6,419 4.6

New York 132,466,000 8 26.3 3.5 10,127 7.2

Minnesota 127,767,000 33 37.4 2.2 6,775 3.0

Michigan 110,858,000 17 29.7 1.6 7,494 3.0

Montana 108,550,000 251 49.4 2.2 4,365 1.1

Washington 93,272,000 23 33.6 2.0 5,679 3.1

Maryland 89,434,000 21 40.1 11.1 4,525 14.1

Missouri 87,148,000 21 30.6 2.3 5,655 3.1

Massachusetts 86,829,000 17 25.3 14.4 6,893 25.2

South Carolina 86,696,000 44 39.8 3.6 4,380 5.3

Indiana 78,498,000 21 31.2 4.2 5,000 5.3

Maine 68,550,000 110 47.7 2.2 2,887 3.1

Louisiana 68,510,000 19 25.3 2.4 5,374 4.0

Mississippi 65,520,000 48 38.6 1.8 3,365 2.7

Wisconsin 59,344,000 18 25.8 1.5 4,565 2.7

Oklahoma 58,204,000 16 14.5 3.6 7,940 4.4

Kentucky 56,681,000 23 33.4 1.9 3,374 3.2

Arizona 53,950,000 9 11.4 2.4 9,218 3.1

Iowa 52,474,000 29 33.1 1.9 3,148 2.2

Connecticut 44,800,000 14 21.8 14.0 4,085 28.5

Arkansas 43,412,000 32 25.0 1.5 3,435 2.5

New Hampshire 41,455,000 60 49.1 4.6 1,678 6.9

Oregon 34,583,000 17 30.4 .6 2,280 .9

Colorado 28,149,000 7 13.0 .8 4,345 1.6

Kansas 26,677,000 17 20.5 2.9 2,575 1.2

West Virginia 22,871,000 33 42.2 .9 1,086 1.7

Utah 18,330,000 9 14.0 1.0 2,577 1.2

Nevada 15,834,000 9 9.9 .8 3,195 1.1

Delaware 13,257,000 27 46.3 9.0 566 8.8
The expansion of urban and metropolitan areas has particularly important implications

for the use and management of public holdings, including National Forests, National

Parks, and state and locally administered natural resources. Because urban residents

frequently travel to exurban areas for outdoor recreation, the demands placed on forest ecosystems close to growing urban centers pose difficult challenges to natural resource managers. Heightened resource use, increased mobility or ignition of potential

hazards (for example, insects and disease, invasive species, and fire), conflicts regarding recreational opportunities, and seasonal and permanent home development can

greatly complicate the issues that must be addressed to protect the health and sustainability of these valuable areas.

In addition to human impacts on natural resource systems, urban forests and forestry

affect human populations. By enhancing the contributions of urban vegetation to air

and water quality, energy conservation, recreational opportunities, and community wellbeing, urban forestry provides an opportunity to integrate environmental stewardship

with social progress. The involvement of urban residents with urban forests and forestry often influences their perceptions and behaviors concerning forests and forestry

in exurban areas.

The Nation’s urban forest resource is large, growing, and variable within and among

different regions of the country. Management of urban forest occurs largely at the local,

city-specific scale, where the complexity of the urban forest ecosystem is most evident.

Tree and ground cover, buildings, infrastructure, wildlife, and human populations all

contribute to the diversity of urban forests. These components interact across the

urban ecosystem through complex, interwoven relations.

Amount and types of tree cover differ considerably within urban systems and play different roles in affecting the local human population and environment. Along with the

surrounding natural environment, two important factors affecting the urban forest at the

Table 1—Estimated number of urban trees, tree cover, and urban area, by state,

in the conterminous United States (continued)

Urban Portion of

trees/ Urban state tree Urban Portion of

State Urban trees capita tree cover cover areaa state

– – – – Percent – – – – Km2 Percent

Idaho 12,494,000 18 25.6 .3 966 .4

Nebraska 11,243,000 10 21.1 .9 1,061 .5

Vermont 7,558,000 42 36.0 .8 416 1.7

South Dakota 6,007,000 15 19.2 .5 617 .3

New Mexico 5,682,000 4 4.8 .3 2,316 .7

Rhode Island 4,155,000 5 8.9 6.0 926 23.2

North Dakota 1,774,000 5 7.8 .2 457 .2

Wyoming 1,392,000 3 3.6 .1 797 .3

Total, United

Statesb 3,820,491,000 17 27.1 2.8 281,000c 3.5

a Includes land and water.

b U.S. total includes the District of Columbia, but not Alaska and Hawaii.

c

 Includes 492 square kilometers that crossed state borders and could not be assigned to an individual

state.

Complexity of the Urban

Forest Resource at the

Local Scale
local scale are land use distribution and the amount and type of vegetation management activities. Land use establishes the surrounding activities and space for vegetation, and management determines the amount of direct human manipulation of the

vegetation system. Land uses with the highest percentage of tree cover are typically

park and residential areas and vacant land in cities within forest ecotypes. Land uses

with the lowest percentage of tree cover are typically commercial and industrial areas

and vacant land in cities within desert ecotypes.

Different vegetation configurations across a range of land uses interact with each other,

humans, and the physical environment to create a complex system affecting social

well-being and functioning. The connections among vegetation configurations on different land uses at the local level, and between urban and rural vegetation configurations

at the regional scale, can affect the movement of wildlife, people, insects, and diseases

and the distribution of social and physical benefits provided by alternative vegetation

structures.

Comprehensive studies in Chicago and Oakland highlight substantial variation in the

extent, distribution, and condition of urban forest resources across different land uses

and among locations within the urban system. The diversity of urban systems can complicate vegetation management because of the multiple connections among vegetation

and components of the physical environment and social-economic systems. When

we understand the common features of vegetation structure, human preferences, and

management activities on different land uses, as well as how the different vegetation

structures link within urban areas and across the urban-to-rural gradient, integrated and

comprehensive management plans can be developed to enhance local and regional

forest benefits.

The structure of the urban forest changes through time in response to a wide range of

powerful forces. These changes originate from diverse human and natural actions

operating directly and indirectly on the urban forest and its management. The impacts

of these forces for change vary over time and across and among urban systems; they

contribute to different urban ecosystems and rates of change across urban areas. By

understanding how human and natural forces interact within urban systems to create

change, management can minimize negative forest changes and facilitate positive

changes. Human forces for change in urban forests include:

• Urban resident involvement in tree planting, maintenance, and management

• Plant community and species preferences or fads

• Influx of funds to plant trees and other vegetation

• Management of urban infrastructure

• Urban development and land use change

• Development of new urban forest management techniques and tools

• Increased interest in quality of the urban environment and urban life

• Changing character of the urban population (race, ethnicity, and age structure)

• Byproducts of urbanization (for example, air and water pollution)

Changes in Urban

Forests Through Time
Natural forces that can lead to changes in urban forest structure include:

• Extreme precipitation or temperature events

• Storms and other natural disasters

• Fire

• Natural regeneration

• Aging of the existing forest

• Insect and disease outbreaks

What most distinguishes the urban forest from exurban forests is the dynamic influence

of people. Human activities not only change urban forest structure to meet design and

functional needs but also try to minimize and prevent detrimental changes due to natural forces (for example, controlling insects and diseases or altering structure to reduce

the risk of wildfires) to sustain desired forest structure. Given the inherently slow development of trees amid rapidly changing urban environments, human forces for change

pose significant challenges for natural resource planning and management in urban

areas.

A combination of human actions and natural forces will continue to shape the urban

forests in the years ahead. These interacting forces highlight the need to coordinate

urban forest resource management with many other urban activities (for example, land

use planning, environmental protection, residential development, infrastructure development and maintenance, community empowerment and revitalization, and environmental education). Management of these complex, dynamic systems requires involvement of many disciplines, organizations, owners, users, and managers to sustain

ecosystem health and desired functions.

A principal goal of urban forestry is to sustain forest structure, health, and benefits

throughout the urban ecosystem over the long term. Comprehensive and adaptive

management approaches are needed to do this. Expanding the management focus

of urban forests to all trees, associated resources, and their benefits across the urban ecosystem will require nontraditional urban forest management techniques. The

overall societal benefits of implementing such management are likely to be substantial.

Management also must be comprehensive in terms of its process, and it must be adaptive to allow for adjustments in management activities based on new situations and information. To attain comprehensive and adaptive management, urban forest managers

should consider:

• The desires and needs of the community

• What urban forest structure is necessary to best address community needs

• Periodically reassessing community needs and urban forest structure to ensure that

management plans remain appropriate

To facilitate comprehensive and adaptive management to sustain the entire urban

forest ecosystem, the following topic areas need to be emphasized:

• Improving inventory and assessment

• Improving dialogue among owners, managers, and users

• Fostering collaboration among agencies and groups

Opportunities for

Improving Urban Forest

Resource Management
• Improving the understanding of how forest configurations influence forest use and

benefits

• Increasing knowledge about factors that influence urban forest health

• Improving the dissemination of information about urban forests and their

management

With improvements in the above areas, urban forest resources can become a more

highly valued component of large-scale and long-term environmental and community

planning.

Facilitating the effective management of urban forest ecosystems in the United States

requires forging partnerships and collaborative efforts across resources, disciplines,

organizations, and geographic areas. One continuing issue is to understand the relation between the management of urban and exurban resources, such that collaborative

management efforts across these areas can be fostered.

Given the significance of urban forests to the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population, as well as the implications of improved and coordinated natural resource management across the urban-to-wilderness spectrum, efforts to incorporate comprehensive

and adaptive strategies into urban forest management policies and plans likely will generate a substantial return on the investment. This assessment is the first step in developing a comprehensive understanding of the national urban forest resource and can

assist in development of comprehensive adaptive management plans in both urban

and exurban environments. As an increasingly urban population continues to play a

key role in the social and political structure of the United States, understanding and

managing of urban forest resources will be a critical mechanism for improving forest

benefits and connecting people with ecosystems in the 21st century.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview

1 The Urban and Community Forestry RPA Assessment

2 Establishing the Scope of the Assessment

2 National Significance of Urban Forests and Forestry

3 An Overview of Urban Forest Planning and Management

5 An Overview of the National Urban Forest Assessment

Chapter 2: The National Urban Forest Resource

8 Introduction

8 Overview of Methods

10 Tree Cover, and Population Characteristics Across the United States

10 National Tree Cover

10 National Population Characteristics

15 Tree Cover and Population Characteristics in Metropolitan Areas

22 Metropolitan Area Tree Cover

27 Metropolitan Area Population Characteristics

27 Tree Cover and Population Characteristics in Urban Areas

29 Urban Area Tree Cover

33 Urban Area Population Characteristics

33 Forest Land Within and Around Urban and Metropolitan Areas

39 Urbanization and the National Forests

46 Review

Contents
Chapter 3: The Urban Forest Resource at the Local Level

47 Introduction

48 The Chicago and Oakland Studies

48 Factors Influencing Spatial Variability in Urban Forest Resources

48 Surrounding Natural Environment (Ecotype)

50 Land Use

53 Intensity of Urbanization

54 Duration of Land Use and Site History

55 Management Activities

56 Resource Connections Within and Across the Urban System

58 Consequences of Urban Expansion

58 Changes in Human Population and Distribution of Land Uses

58 Changes in Community Desires and Management Goals

58 Changes in Forest Structure

59 Changes in Local and Regional Landscape Connections

59 Review

Chapter 4: Temporal Change in the Urban Forest

61 Introduction

61 Direct Human Forces

61 Urban Resident Involvement in Tree Planting and Maintenance

62 Plant Community and Species Preferences

62 Influx of Funds to Plant Trees and Other Vegetation

62 Management of Urban Infrastructure

62 Land Use Change

63 Development of New Urban Forest Management Techniques

63 Indirect Human Forces

63 Increased Interest in Quality of the Urban Environment and Urban Life

64 Changing Character of the Urban Population

64 Urban to Rural Migration and New Developments Across the Landscape

65 Byproducts of Urbanization

65 Involvement of New Individuals and Groups in Forest Management

65 New Developments in Measurement and Monitoring Tools

66 Direct Natural Forces

66 Extreme Precipitation or Temperature Events

66 Storms and Other Natural Disasters

66 Fire

66 Natural Regeneration
66 Aging of Existing Forest

66 Insect and Disease Outbreak

67 Indirect Natural Forces

67 Examples of Temporal Variation in an Urban Forest

68 Oakland

72 Atlanta

73 Review

Chapter 5: Moving Toward Urban Forest Sustainability

74 Introduction

75 Summary of Assessment Findings

75 Significance

75 Diversity

76 Connectedness

77 Dynamics

77 Synopsis of Key Attributes

78 Relevance of Assessment Findings

79 Moving Toward Urban Forest Sustainability: Emphasis Areas for the Future

81 Improving Inventory and Monitoring of the Urban Forest Resource

83 Improving Dialogue Among Forest Resource Owners, Managers, and Users

84 Fostering Collaboration Among Agencies and Groups

87 Improving the Understanding of Urban Forest Configuration

88 Increasing Knowledge About Urban Forest Health

91 Improving Dissemination of Information

93 Future Urban Forest Assessments

93 The Urban Forest Resource

93 The Urban Social Resource

93 Current Urban Forest Management Practices

94 Conclusions

96 Acknowledgments

97 Literature Cited
Appendix 1: Definitions and Methods

106 Terminology

106 Urban Areas

106 Metropolitan Areas

107 National Resources Inventory Urban Classifications

108 Tree Cover Assessment

109 Potential Data Limitations for Estimates of Tree Canopy Cover

110 Forest Analyses

111 Population Characteristics

111 National Urban Forest Assessment

Appendix 2: Supplemental Tables for Chapter 2

113 Tables 15 through114

Appendix 3: Supplemental Tables for Chapter 3

474 Tables 115 through 121
1

People are having an ever increasing impact on their local, regional, and global environments. This impact is particularly significant in urban areas, where concentrated

human development fragments and transforms natural resources, thereby resulting

in large-scale environmental consequences. Urban forests are characterized by the

integration of natural resources with human developments. In these situations, vegetation often has substantial environmental, social, economic, and historical value. This

report is the first national assessment of urban forest resources in the United States. It

provides information on the extent and character of urban forests in this country and

serves as a template for future assessments of the urban forest resource. This assessment was developed to help guide urban forest management policies and programs

aimed at improving environmental quality, enhancing human health, and connecting

people with ecosystems in the 21st century.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA; 1974) was

enacted to provide a vehicle for assembling important information to guide natural

resource management in the Nation’s forests and grasslands (Cubbage and others

1993). The motivation for using the RPA to address resource management issues was

the idea that a national “fact-finding” campaign would provide a solid knowledge base

for large-scale planning activities to manage the Nation’s natural resources. The act

calls for the Forest Service to produce (1) an assessment of “the current and expected

future conditions of all renewable resources in the Nation,” and (2) “a program of Agency actions that respond to the future as depicted in the assessment” (USDA Forest Service 1989). The RPA requires the Forest Service to submit an inventory of the Nation’s

natural resources every 10 years and to develop a related program proposal for managing the Nation’s natural resources every 5 years (Cubbage and others 1993, USDA

Forest Service 1989).

Past Forest Service RPA assessments have not focused on natural resources in urban areas; however, growing recognition of the significance of urban natural resource

issues and their links to other urban and environmental issues has generated an increasing public interest in the extent, trends, functions, uses, and management of

Chapter 1: Introduction and

Overview

The Urban and

Community Forestry

RPA Assessment
2

natural resources in urban settings. Several important groups, including the Forest

Service, other Federal agencies, state agencies, private tree care firms, and not-forprofit groups have begun to give increased attention to urban natural resource issues.

The objectives of this report are to establish a definition of the Nation’s urban forest,

characterize and assess the extent of the resource, investigate policy and program

implications, and present ideas for topics to be examined in future assessments. As the

first assessment, this effort focused primarily on quantifying and describing the urban

forest and its resource components. This assessment can serve as a baseline for

evaluating change in the urban forest over time. The assessment was not intended as an

appraisal of urban forest health, benefits, economic value, or current management

policies and practices. Rather, the report lays the groundwork for continuing assessments by defining the context for future studies of these topics.

The urban forest resource cannot be effectively assessed without clearly delimiting its

extent. Urban forests are ecosystems characterized by the presence of trees and other

vegetation in association with people and their developments. Although people and developments influence forests across the country, urban forests are located where human influences are concentrated (cities, towns, and villages). The fundamental definition of either an urban or metropolitan area is a place with a much higher population

density than elsewhere (Mills and Hamilton 1984). Thus, areas must exceed a specified

human population level or density to be classified as urban. Definitions of urban that

have been developed by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the Office of Management

and Budget, and are recognized by Federal, state, and local agencies, are used in this

assessment. This mechanism of delimiting urban areas not only captures the extent of

what is commonly viewed as the urban forest but also facilitates interagency data

exchange and analysis of change in the resource over time.

Urban forests can improve environmental quality, enhance individual and community

well-being, provide a wide range of services to individuals and communities, and produce a more healthful and comfortable environment for the vast majority of the U.S.

population. Knowledge of the potential significance of urban forests is expanding rapidly

as research continues to document the important role that urban forests can play in

improving the quality of urban life. Consequently, urban residents may be able to look

to urban forests and associated management programs for an increasing spectrum of

important benefits in the years ahead.

Through appropriate planning, design, and management, urban forests can be designed to mitigate many of the environmental impacts of urban development by moderating climate, reducing building energy use, absorbing ultraviolet radiation and atmospheric carbon dioxide, improving air quality, lowering rainfall runoff and flooding, and

reducing noise levels (for example, Heisler 1986, Heisler and others 1995, McPherson

and others 1994, Nowak and others 1998). In addition to affecting the physical and

biological environment, urban forests can positively influence the social and economic

environment of a city. These influences can range from altered aesthetic surroundings

and increased property values to a stronger sense of community and a greater connection between people and the natural environment (for example, Dwyer 1991, Dwyer and

Establishing the

Scope of the

Assessment

National Significance

of Urban Forests

and Forestry
3

others 1992, Schroeder 1989, Ulrich 1986). Forests can turn city blocks into special

places—places for residents to recreate, to gather with family and friends, and to care

about.

The effects of the urban forest on the physical, biological, and social environments can

ripple from the inner city to the farthest reaches of wilderness. The quality of the air,

and both the quality and quantity of the water leaving urban areas, can affect the attributes of exurban areas. The quality of the urban environment also can influence the

motivation of urban residents to experience exurban areas. The nature of the urban

environment plays an important role in people’s perceptions of, interest in, and use of

forests, as well as their participation in natural resource management.

The urban forest may be the only forest that some urban residents will ever experience.

Thus, urban forests can provide a context for the values that urbanites place on forests

in general. Vice President Gore1 communicated the importance of forest resources in

urban areas across the United States when he remarked, “Most of us can’t afford to

travel to Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon when we want to enjoy the rich American

landscape; a livable neighborhood lets you and your spouse walk through a natural

ecosystem as you simply take an evening stroll down your street.” For others, urban

forests may be the first step in a continuum of progressively wilder environments experienced by city dwellers. Learning cross-country skiing in a local park may ultimately

lead to the week-long backcountry ski trip. Experiences with urban forests, their management, and their use can influence residents’ perceptions of and preferences for

resource management in nonurban settings.

Urban forests and their management are particularly important components of U.S. forests and forestry because they occur where the vast majority of the human population

lives, works, and recreates. Nearly 8 out of 10 Americans live in urban areas; they

directly affect and are affected by urban forests. The complexity of the urban ecosystem, its wide-ranging uses, and the diversity of its residents create an outstanding laboratory for learning about interactions between people and forests, communicating with

most of the country’s population, and developing management strategies to meet diverse

public needs while sustaining forest ecosystems. Thus, urban and community forestry

can become a key component of the overall national effort to involve all citizens in

effective natural resource management.

A fundamental premise behind the management of urban forest resources is that humans can manipulate the structure of vegetation to enhance various forest benefits. This

mechanism occurs in the context of societal values (what the community wants) and

ecological principles (what is ecologically possible) (Maser and others 1994). Even

though researchers and natural resource professionals seem to agree that the goal of

management is to maintain forest benefits through space and time, the functional

definition of urban forest sustainability continues to generate significant discussion

(Wiersum 1995). Several attempts to characterize and model the components of sustainable systems have been made; some researchers even outline specific criteria

1 Remarks by Vice President Albert Gore. 2 September

1998.; Speech given to The Brookings Institution,

Washington, DC.

An Overview of

Urban Forest

Planning and

Management
4

against which the sustainability of an ecosystem and its management may be measured (Clark and others 1997, Coulombe 1995, Gangloff 1995, LeMaster and Sedjo

1993). But, because the socioeconomic and ecological spheres of ecosystems are in

constant flux (particularly those in urban environments), sustainability as the goal of

management is subject to considerable interpretation and variation. Ultimately, the attributes of a sustainable urban forest—what it looks like, how it functions, and how it is

managed—depend on which ecological functions and social benefits are desired, who

chooses them, and at what scale these elements will be sustained (Gregersen and

others 1998, Maser and others 1994, Wiersum 1995).

Given the dynamic nature of social values and the biological and physical components

of the urban environment, the overlap between what is socially desirable and what is

ecologically possible frequently changes—or may disappear altogether. Resource management must be flexible enough to accommodate changing management goals and

newly emerging ecological information and issues. For this reason, adaptive management is commonly identified as the template for achieving sustainable urban ecosystems. This method approaches management as an experiment in which the appropriateness and effectiveness of management objectives, policies, and actions are continuously evaluated (Bormann and others 1994, Lee 1993, Maser and others 1994).

Adaptive management uses new information and results from previous decisions as

input to the planning and management process, thereby creating a recurrent cycle of

learning and adjustment.

A framework for adaptive management of urban forest resources can be based on five

interrelated factors:

Social context: The desires, concerns, attitudes, and values of community residents,

organizations, institutions, and government agencies.

Management goals and objectives: Urban forest benefits and functions that the

community wishes to sustain.

Means: Specific vegetation structure or management programs, or both, identified as

necessary to sustain desired urban forest benefits.

Management outcome: Urban forest structure, condition, and use resulting from the

implementation of management programs.

Information: Inventory and monitoring data, statistics, survey results, and research

providing information about the characteristics of the resource, the relation between

vegetation structure and benefits, management techniques and urban forest health, and

monitoring technologies.

These five factors are connected through the process of urban forest planning and

management (fig. 1). First, people and groups communicate and negotiate to determine the urban forest benefits they want to sustain, and they set funding and other resources to attain these management goals. Once the goals and budget of the community have been established, managers design the vegetation structure and urban forest

programs needed to sustain the desired functions. Policies, activities, and maintenance

programs are implemented. The input of information about urban forest functions,

health, and management techniques is continuous throughout this process of setting

goals, designing objectives, and implementing management activities. The outcome
5

resulting from management efforts may or may not resemble the structure or program

needed to sustain desired urban forest functions; managers may need to work through

several cycles of monitoring, adjusting, and reimplementing before their efforts produce

the desired outcome.

Although the steps taken to this point can accommodate changes in the biological or

physical environment, the truly adaptive nature of this planning and management process lies in the evaluation and reevaluation of management objectives. Without this step,

the management cycle may continue without regard to shifting social paradigms, and

resources may be spent sustaining urban forest functions no longer desired. Besides

testing hypotheses on structure-function relations, continuous evaluation of management

objectives forces managers to adapt their efforts to changing attitudes and desires in the

community.

The key to adaptive management is learning from the outcomes of planning and management efforts and applying new information to the cycle (Bormann and others 1994,

Gregersen and others 1998, Lee 1993, Maser and others 1994). Periodic inventory of

urban forest resources, functions, and management programs by the involved groups to

assess change and generate new information therefore is crucial to the adaptive

management method. Unfortunately, many current urban forestry efforts seem to be

confined to urban tree planting, maintenance, and removal of public trees (“implementation,” fig. 1). This narrow focus seems to be the result of an absence of integrated management efforts across the urban system (that is, activities are limited by

jurisdictional boundaries), the scarcity of resources for planning and management

(particularly funding), and a limited understanding of the potential contributions of the

urban forest. Thus, a critical element in facilitating adaptive management for urban

forest sustainability is to provide (1) a means (funding) to enable managers to implement management activities, and (2) a mechanism (information, management framework, and partnerships) to encourage sustainable forestry.

Because this assessment is the first national review of urban and community forestry

under the RPA, it focuses considerable attention on generating primary information for

adaptive urban forest management—assessing the urban forest resource and the associated human populations from a national perspective. With limited data in this relatively new area of research, trends in urban forest resources and their management

are not easily identified. To help overcome the limited information on resource trends,

significant attention was given to forces for potential change in urban forests, their

management, and their use.

Other important urban forest topics were not covered in this assessment but are addressed in the literature. These topics include urban tree planting and maintenance

(for example, Grey and Deneke 1986, Harris 1983, Miller 1997, Pirone 1972; also see

Arboricultural Journal and the Journal of Arboriculture), the costs and benefits of urban

vegetation (for example, Dwyer and others 1992, Grey and Deneke 1986, Miller 1997,

Nowak and Dwyer 2000), and the roles and function of groups involved in urban forest

planning and management (for example, Allen and Sherfy 1997, Ossenbruggen and

Maller 1997, Piotrowski 1995).

An Overview of the

National Urban

Forest Assessment
6

Figure 1—A model of planning and management for urban forest sustainability (adapted from Bormann

and others 1994, Lee 1993, Maser and others 1994).

1. Decisionmaking and budgeting: Determine type of benefits that people want from the urban forest

(goals); prioritize goals; allocate resources to achieve each goal.

2. Planning and design: Develop structure or programs needed to reach desired goals.

3. Implementation: Administer management activities to achieve desired structure or program; identify

criteria and indicators by which the effectiveness of management efforts may be critiqued.

4. Monitoring: Measure indicators to determine whether management efforts produce desired results.

5. Evaluation: Determine whether desired structure or program actually yielded the intended benefits.

6. Review (not illustrated): Determine whether management objectives still reflect the goals of the

community; assess whether new designs or plans are needed to reach desired goals.

Click here for Figure 1
7

Chapter 2 begins with an assessment of the urban forest resource and its associated

human population across the 48 adjacent states. Much of the discussion is based on an

analysis of tree canopy cover over the United States along with population data from the

U.S. census. Chapter 3 broadens the discussion of the urban forest beyond canopy

cover and numbers of trees to include other components of the forest (for example,

ground cover). The variability of the urban forest is detailed, followed by a look at the

connections among resource components across the urban system. Given the limited

availability of detailed data to assess the diversity and variability of urban forest resources at the national level, chapter 3 presents highlights from comprehensive studies

of urban forests only in Chicago and Oakland, California, and more limited data from

several other cities. Chapter 4 focuses on changes in the urban forest over time. In the

absence of long-term urban forest data at the national level, the chapter summarizes

findings from case studies in Oakland and Atlanta to identify the forces for change and

illustrate their effects on the structure, use, and management of urban vegetation. The

final chapter summarizes the results of the assessment and their implications for urban

forest planning and management in the future. It presents several comprehensive and

adaptive management emphasis areas for sustaining and enhancing urban forests and

identifies topics for additional investigation. Several ideas for future assessments are

offered to create a platform from which efforts to connect people with ecosystems and

enhance the quality of urban life may continue into the 21st century.
8

Overview of Methods

Urban forests across the United States are a substantial and highly valued national resource. This chapter presents an assessment of urban forests and associated human

populations across the 48 adjacent states. It outlines their extent, regional variation,

and some recent changes. The data presented here have been compiled from various

national, county, and city databases.

A key to assessing the urban forest resource is identifying the boundaries of urban

areas. A major challenge in delimiting urban areas is that urban influences occur on

a continuum, thereby making it difficult to identify firm boundaries. Further, urban influences often extend well beyond these perimeters.

For this assessment, areas under urban influences were classified into two separate

(but sometimes overlapping) designations, both based on geographic entities recognized by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the Office of Management and Budget:

(1) urban areas (UA)—incorporated or unincorporated areas with at least 2,500 people

or a population density of at least 384 people per square kilometer; and (2) metropolitan areas (MA)—a county or group of counties containing or tied to a large population

center (that is, urban counties). Urban areas are areas where the population and its

influences are concentrated (cities, towns, villages). Metropolitan areas include a large

urban area (central city) and surrounding lands that are socially and economically

linked to the central city. Both definitions are useful in assessing the Nation’s urban

forest resources; they allow for the integration of urban forest data with demographic,

economic, and social information. A full description of these definitions and detailed

methods of analysis are given in appendix 1. A summary of urban definitions used in

this report is given in table 2.

Land area, water area, and population statistics for urban and metropolitan areas were

obtained from the Bureau of the Census (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

the Census 1992a, 1992b, 1992c). Data on percentage of tree cover for the conterminous United States1 were derived through geographic information systems (GIS) analysis of forest cover maps and maps of census-designated entities. The forest cover

Chapter 2: The National Urban

Forest Resource

Introduction

1 For the remainder of this report, use of the term “United

States” refers to the conterminous United States unless

specifically stated otherwise.
9

Table 2—Summary of urban definitions

Term Definition

Major terms:

Metropolitan area (MA) A county, or group of counties, that contains a large population nucleus as its

core; can include adjacent counties that

have a high degree of economic and

social integration with the core

Urban area (UA) Urbanized areas and unincorporated or

incorporated places (for example, cities,

towns, and villages) having at least

2,500 people

Secondary terms:

Census-designated place (CDP) A place without legally prescribed limits,

powers, or functions

Consolidated metropolitan statistical Multiple metropolitan statistical areas

areas (CMSA) with a combined minimum population

of 1 million that demonstrate strong

internal economic and social links in

addition to close ties with the central

core of the larger area

Incorporated place A place with legally prescribed limits,

powers, or functions

Metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) Metropolitan areas that contain either

a city of 50,000 or more inhabitants

or an urbanized area, and have a total

population of at least 100,000 (75,000

in New England)

New England county metropolitan County-based metropolitan areas

areas (NECMA) representing the geographic extent of

the city-based metropolitan statistical

areas and consolidated metropolitan

statistical areas in the 6 New England

states

Place A census definition of an area based on

a concentration of people that has a

name, is locally recognized, and is not

part of any other place

Primary metropolitan statistical areas Metropolitan statistical areas within consolidated metropolitan statistical areas

Rural place Places located outside urbanized

areas and having a population of less

than 2,500

Urban place Places located outside urbanized areas

and having at least 2,500 people

Urbanized areas Areas with a minimum population of

50,000 and a minimum population density of 384 people per square kilometer
10

maps were generated by the USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis research unit, by applying statistical regression

analysis to multitemporal 1-kilometer resolution advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) data and Landsat thematic mapper (TM) data (Zhu 1994). These tree

cover data were subsequently combined with the boundaries of states, counties, and

the geographic components of urban areas in a GIS to estimate tree cover within each

of these designations across the United States.

Tree cover estimates developed from AVHRR data were compared with aerial photograph calculations of tree cover in selected urban areas (Nowak and others 1996) and

national resources inventory (NRI) tree cover calculations for counties (USDA Natural

Resources Conservation Service 1995). Comparison of AVHRR-based tree cover estimates with those developed from aerial photographs and NRI data revealed possible

limitations in the AVHRR-based data that included (1) inaccuracies in certain regions

of the country; (2) underestimates of tree cover in coastal cities; and (3) increased uncertainty of the tree cover estimates as the area of analysis becomes smaller, or with

increasing distance from the model calibration center for each physiographic region

(appendix 1).

The amount of forest land within and around urban and metropolitan areas was calculated from the USDA Forest Service forest inventory and analysis (FIA) database

retrieval system (USDA Forest Service 1997a). The omission of forest land estimates

for highly urban counties and the current lack of access to forest land data in certain

parts of the United States limit this analysis. Because FIA inventory plots are not

usually measured in urban areas, estimates of that forest land are artificially low.

Percentage of tree cover and population characteristics were assessed for all land

(urban and nonurban) in the 48 adjacent states. Analyses were performed at the state

and county levels.

Percentage of tree cover is highest in the Eastern United States, with the highest statewide percentages in West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The lowest percentage occurs in the mid to southwestern region and includes Kansas, Texas, and North

Dakota. Because natural vegetation types significantly influence the overall proportion

of the state covered with trees, states in forested regions typically have the highest

percentage of tree cover. Nationally, tree cover averages 32.8 percent (table 3).

Population densities are highest in the Northeast and lowest in the western half of the

country. States with the highest population densities in 1996 were New Jersey, Rhode

Island, and Massachusetts; states with the lowest population densities in 1996 were

Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. The average population density in 1996 across

the United States was 34 people per square kilometer (table 3, fig. 2).

Analyses of 1990 and 1996 county population densities indicated that growth in population density is associated with initial population density and total county population

(figs. 3 and 4). Densely populated counties (that is, population density > 192 people

per square kilometer) actually exhibited a decrease in population per unit area between

1990 and 1996. This trend was due, in part, to population losses in some central city

areas. Counties containing rapidly growing urban and metropolitan areas (for example,

counties containing Denver, Atlanta, Daytona Beach, and Las Vegas) had the greatest

increase in population density; this trend likely will continue (appendix 2).

National Tree Cover

Tree Cover and

Population

Characteristics

Across the United

States

National Population

Characteristics
11

Table 3—Overall tree cover, land and water area, land use, and population characteristics, by state

Tree Area Land useb Total population Race and ethnicitye

State cover Land Water Fed.a Agr. For. Urb. 1990c 1996 Changed Dens. W B NA AP H

Percent Square kilometers – – – – Percent – – – – Percent Per km2 – – – – – – Percent – – – – – –

Alabama 64.3 131,443 4,332 2.8 23.9 65.2 4.4 4,040,587 4,273,084 5.8 32.5 73.6 25.2 0.5 0.5 0.6Arizona 15.3 294,333 943 41.5 78.6 11.1 2.5 3,665,228 4,428,068 20.8 15.0 81.0 3.0 5.6 1.5 18.6Arkansas 41.8 134,875 2,867 9.4 45.7 46.3 2.5 2,350,725 2,509,793 6.8 18.6 82.7 15.9 0.6 0.5 0.8California 31.1 403,971 20,031 45.5 52.4 27.3 8.1 29,760,021 31,878,234 7.1 78.9 69.1 7.4 0.8 9.6 25.4Colorado 24.8 268,658 960 35.9 84.0 8.8 2.5 3,294,394 3,822,676 16.0 14.2 88.3 4.0 0.9 1.8 12.7Connecticut 45.1 12,550 1,808 0.4 11.2 54.2 25.0 3,287,116 3,274,238 -0.4 260.9 87.1 8.3 0.2 1.5 6.2Delaware 45.5 5,062 1,385 2.6 43.1 28.0 13.4 666,168 724,842 8.8 143.2 80.4 16.8 0.3 1.3 2.3Florida 36.9 139,853 30,461 11.6 31.5 36.6 12.1 12,937,926 14,399,985 11.3 103.0 83.1 13.6 0.3 1.2 12.0Georgia 63.3 150,010 3,943 5.6 25.7 60.8 7.0 6,478,216 7,353,225 13.5 49.0 71.1 26.9 0.2 1.1 1.6Idaho 41.7 214,325 2,131 62.3 72.0 19.9 1.7 1,006,749 1,189,251 18.1 5.6 94.4 0.4 1.5 0.9 5.1Illinois 37.8 143,987 6,021 1.4 77.5 9.5 8.0 11,430,602 11,846,544 3.6 82.3 78.4 14.8 0.2 2.5 7.7Indiana 39.4 92,904 1,424 2.1 71.7 15.9 7.1 5,544,159 5,840,528 5.4 62.9 90.6 7.8 0.3 0.7 1.7Iowa 37.4 144,716 1,038 0.5 87.9 5.4 2.1 2,776,755 2,851,792 2.7 19.7 96.7 1.7 0.3 0.9 1.1Kansas 8.6 211,922 1,189 1.2 92.2 2.6 1.7 2,477,574 2,572,150 3.8 12.1 90.2 5.7 0.9 1.3 3.6Kentucky 56.3 102,907 1,759 4.6 47.6 41.8 4.4 3,685,296 3,883,723 5.4 37.7 92.1 7.1 0.2 0.5 0.6Louisiana 43.9 112,836 21,438 4.1 28.5 41.5 3.9 4,219,973 4,350,579 3.1 38.6 67.3 30.8 0.5 0.9 2.2Maine 70.0 79,939 11,714 0.8 3.1 82.1 2.1 1,227,928 1,243,316 1.3 15.6 98.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6Maryland 49.1 25,316 6,818 2.5 34.6 36.7 14.0 4,781,468 5,071,604 6.1 200.3 71.0 24.9 0.3 2.9 2.5Massachusetts 50.4 20,300 7,037 2.7 8.2 48.5 24.6 6,016,425 6,092,352 1.3 300.1 90.0 4.9 0.2 2.3 4.6Michigan 52.0 147,136 103,329 11.8 30.9 50.7 6.8 9,295,297 9,594,350 3.2 65.2 83.5 13.9 0.6 1.1 2.0Minnesota 50.3 206,207 18,975 7.8 53.2 27.8 2.4 4,375,099 4,657,758 6.5 22.6 94.5 2.2 1.1 1.8 1.1Mississippi 56.9 121,506 3,937 5.8 37.0 54.9 2.9 2,573,216 2,716,115 5.6 22.4 63.5 35.6 0.3 0.5 0.6Missouri 41.5 178,446 2,100 4.5 64.6 27.4 3.4 5,117,073 5,358,692 4.7 30.0 87.7 10.7 0.4 0.8 1.2Montana 25.7 376,991 3,859 28.8 87.0 7.7 0.4 799,065 879,372 10.1 2.3 92.8 0.3 6.0 0.5 1.5Nebraska 12.7 199,113 1,245 1.5 94.3 1.6 1.0 1,578,385 1,652,093 4.7 8.3 93.8 3.6 0.8 0.8 2.2Nevada 13.5 284,396 1,971 85.2 85.6 3.4 2.8 1,201,833 1,603,163 33.4 5.6 84.3 6.5 1.7 3.2 10.1New Hampshire 73.7 23,231 988 12.5 5.0 75.6 8.6 1,109,252 1,162,481 4.8 50.0 98.0 0.7 0.2 0.8 1.0New Jersey 55.4 19,215 3,375 3.3 17.5 36.6 30.5 7,730,188 7,987,933 3.3 415.7 79.4 13.4 0.2 3.5 9.3New Mexico 12.9 314,334 605 35.2 84.4 9.1 0.9 1,515,069 1,713,407 13.1 5.5 75.8 2.0 8.9 1.0 38.1New York 54.6 122,310 18,771 0.8 29.4 52.3 9.0 17,990,455 18,184,774 1.1 148.7 74.5 15.9 0.3 3.8 12.0North Carolina 58.3 126,180 13,217 7.4 26.9 50.7 9.0 6,628,637 7,322,870 10.5 58.0 75.6 22.0 1.3 0.8 1.0North Dakota 11.7 178,695 4,428 4.3 91.8 1.0 0.5 638,800 643,539 0.7 3.6 94.7 0.6 4.0 0.5 0.7Ohio 46.8 106,067 10,036 1.4 55.7 25.4 13.0 10,847,115 11,172,782 3.0 105.3 87.8 10.6 0.2 0.8 1.2Oklahoma 17.5 177,877 3,171 2.7 76.5 16.1 2.5 3,145,585 3,300,902 4.9 18.6 82.3 7.4 8.0 1.0 2.7
12

Table 3—Overall tree cover, land and water area, land use, and population characteristics, by state (continued)

Tree Area Land useb Total population Race and ethnicitye

State cover Land Water Fed.a Agr. For. Urb. 1990c 1996 Changed Dens. W B NA AP H

Percent Square kilometers – – – – Percent – – – – Percent Per km2 – – – – – – Percent – – – – – –

Oregon 46.7 248,646 6,172 51.8 52.0 40.4 2.5 2,842,321 3,203,735 12.7 12.9 92.8 1.6 1.5 2.4 3.9Pennsylvania 54.7 116,083 3,208 2.3 29.3 53.9 10.0 11,881,643 12,056,112 1.5 103.9 88.6 9.2 0.1 1.1 1.9Rhode Island 35.2 2,707 1,295 0.7 7.7 49.1 21.7 1,003,464 990,225 -1.3 365.9 91.6 3.8 0.4 1.8 4.4South Carolina 57.6 77,988 4,914 5.8 24.1 57.9 7.2 3,486,703 3,698,746 6.1 47.4 69.1 29.8 0.3 0.6 0.8South Dakota 12.9 196,571 3,174 5.9 92.5 1.2 0.6 696,004 732,405 5.2 3.7 91.6 0.5 7.2 0.5 0.8Tennessee 58.6 106,758 2,400 5.1 42.4 45.2 6.2 4,877,185 5,319,654 9.1 49.8 83.0 15.9 0.3 0.6 0.6Texas 11.0 678,358 17,318 1.9 85.8 5.9 3.6 16,986,510 19,128,261 12.6 28.2 75.3 11.9 0.4 1.9 25.3Utah 16.8 212,816 7,086 65.5 68.3 8.7 2.2 1,722,850 2,000,494 16.1 9.4 93.9 0.6 1.4 1.9 4.8Vermont 73.3 23,956 947 6.0 17.4 71.5 3.7 562,758 588,654 4.6 24.6 98.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7Virginia 58.1 102,558 8,234 8.7 27.3 55.1 7.5 6,187,358 6,675,451 7.9 65.1 77.5 18.8 0.3 2.6 2.5Washington 49.7 172,445 12,226 28.7 45.9 41.6 4.5 4,866,692 5,532,939 13.7 32.1 88.6 3.0 1.7 4.3 4.2West Virginia 78.9 62,384 375 7.7 18.1 73.6 3.4 1,793,477 1,825,754 1.8 29.3 96.2 3.1 0.2 0.4 0.4Wisconsin 46.8 140,672 28,971 5.3 44.0 37.7 6.4 4,891,769 5,159,795 5.5 36.7 92.3 5.0 0.8 1.1 1.8Wyoming 17.0 251,501 1,848 47.6 90.8 3.0 0.7 453,588 481,400 6.1 1.9 94.2 0.7 2.2 0.6 5.5United Statesf 32.8 7,665,212 415,492 20.8 61.1 26.3 4.5 247,051,601 263,349,053 6.7 34.4 80.6 12.1 0.8 2.6 8.8a Percentage of state area that is Federal land (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1995).b Percentage of state area (non-Federal area) used for agricultural purposes, including horticultural, row crops, close-grown crops, hayland, rangeland, and pastureland (Agr.);

forest, including grazed and ungrazed (For.); and urban and built-up areas (Urb.) (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 1995).

c 1990 and 1996 population (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1992c, 1997).d Percentage of change from 1990 to 1996.e Percentage of total 1990 population that is white (W), black (B), Native American (NA), Asian-Pacific islander (AP), and of Hispanic origin (H) (U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census 1992c).

f Includes the District of Columbia, but not Alaska and Hawaii.
Click here for fig 2 color map page 13
14

Figure 3—Relation between change in population density (1990-96) and county population.

Figure 4—Relation between change in population density (1990-96) and 1990 county population density.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0-9,999 10,000-49,999 50,000-99,999 100,000-249,999 250,000-999,999 1,000,00

Population (1990)

Change 1990-96 (pop./km2

)

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

0-0.38 0.39-1.9 1.91-3.8 3.81-19.2 19.3-38.4 38.5-96.1 96.2-192.2 192.3-

384.4

>38

Population density (pop./km2)

Change 1990-96 (pop./km2

)
15

Between 1980 and 1996, the South2 had the greatest average annual increase in

population (704,000/year), followed by the West3 (539,000/year), the Midwest4 (54,000/

year), and the Northeast5 (-28,000/yr) (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census 1998a). The population in the Midwest decreased between 1980 and 1984 but

has increased since 1985. Between 1990 and 1996, most counties in the United States

increased in population, with the greatest percentages of increase occurring in the

West, South, and some rural areas in other regions with high recreation and amenity

value (fig. 5). Counties with population losses occurred predominately in the Midwest but

also can be found scattered throughout the country.

States with the greatest increase in population density between 1990 and 1996 were

in the Eastern United States: New Jersey (13.4 people/square kilometer), Delaware

(11.6 people/square kilometer), Maryland (11.5 people/square kilometer), Florida

(10.5 people/square kilometer), Georgia (5.8 people/square kilometer), and North

Carolina (5.5 people/square kilometer). States with the greatest percentage of increase in population (1990-96) were in the West: Nevada (33.4 percent), Arizona

(20.8 percent), Idaho (18.1 percent), Utah (16.1 percent), and Colorado (16.0 percent).

States with the greatest projected population increases between 1990 and 2045 are in

the South and West including California, Florida, and Texas (fig. 6).

The country’s population currently has the following racial and ethnic distribution: white

(80.6 percent), black (12.1 percent), Hispanic (8.8 percent), Asian-Pacific Islander (2.6

percent), and Native American (0.8 percent) (table 3). Race and ethnic structure of the

population have distinct regional patterns. In 1990, the Northeast (particularly Vermont,

Maine, and New Hampshire) had the highest percentage of total state population that

was white (table 3). The South (particularly Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina)

had the highest percentage of total state population that was black (fig. 7). The Southwestern United States (particularly New Mexico, California, and Texas) had the highest

percentage of total state population that was of Hispanic origin (fig. 8). The Pacific

Coast region (especially California and Washington) had the highest percentage of total

state population that was Asian-Pacific Islander (fig. 9). States with the highest percentage of total population that was Native American were New Mexico, Oklahoma, and

South Dakota (fig. 10). Data on tree cover and population characteristics for all

counties in the United States are presented in appendix 2.

Metropolitan areas (MAs) include county-based metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs),

consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs), their primary metropolitan

statistical area (PMSAs) components, and New England county metropolitan areas

(NECMAs) (table 2). These areas incorporate major urban centers and their

surrounding urban-influenced counties and represent U.S. urban forests in the

broadest or metropolitan extent.

Tree Cover and

Population

Characteristics in

Metropolitan Areas

2 South includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware,

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West

Virginia.

3 West includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,

Washington, and Wyoming

4 Midwest includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North

Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

5 Northeast includes Connecticut, Maine,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Text continues on page 22
Click here for fig 5 color map page 16
Click here for fig 6 color map page 17
Click here for fig 7 color map page 18
Click here for fig 8 color map page 19
Click here for fig 9 color map page 20
Click here for fig 10 color map page 21
22

Metropolitan areas (that is, urban counties) occupy 24.5 percent of the country and

contain nearly 80 percent of the total U.S. population. Metropolitan areas tend to be

concentrated in the Northeastern and Pacific Coast regions, which generally have a

high percentage of forest cover (fig. 11). States with the highest proportion of their

land in MAs are New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island; states with the

lowest proportion of MA land are Idaho, Nebraska, and Montana (table 4).

Metropolitan areas have grown substantially in extent during recent decades, expand

-ing from 8.5 percent to 23.8 percent of the land area in the United States between 1950

and 1990 (fig. 12). This expansion (556 additional counties were designated as metropolitan) represents an increase of about 1 179 000 square kilometers, or an area about

four times the size of Arizona.

One of the difficulties in interpreting information such as tree canopy cover and population density on an MA basis is that MAs are based on counties that differ in size across

the country. Counties in the West are particularly large relative to counties in the East.

Such differences make interstate comparisons of resources in MAs difficult. As county

size increases, the physical influences of urbanization tend to decrease because the

proportion of rural land increases. However, the political decisions that influence resource management at the county level are frequently dominated by urban centers in

MAs. Thus, urban influences in MAs are often strong, regardless of the county size.

Metropolitan areas across the Nation average 33.4 percent tree cover (table 4). Metropolitan areas contain 661 220 square kilometers of tree canopy cover, the equivalent of

a dense forest area (that is, 100 percent canopy cover) nearly the size of Texas.

Percentage of tree cover in MAs tends to follow the same general pattern as overall

percentage of tree cover across the United States, with the highest percentages in the

Northwestern and Eastern regions of the country (fig. 12). The highest average percentages of tree cover in MAs across a state occur in Oregon, Georgia, and West

Virginia; the lowest in Wyoming, New Mexico, and Nevada (table 4, fig. 11). States

with the highest proportion of their total state tree cover in MAs are in the largely metropolitan and heavily forested Northeast.

Individual MSAs and PMSAs with the highest percentages of tree cover include

Eugene, OR, Asheville, NC, and Medford, OR. The MSAs and PMSAs with the

lowest percentages of tree cover are Lubbock, Odessa, Laredo, and Amarillo, TX

(appendix 2). Within individual CMSAs, the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton CMSA has

the highest percentage of tree cover, and the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County

CMSA has the lowest percentage of tree cover (appendix 2).

Percentage of tree cover tends to increase as one moves from the more intensely

developed urbanized core to the outer boundaries of the MA, particularly in heavily forested areas of the country (for example, Portland, OR, and Seattle). In other instances

(for example, Cincinnati and Cleveland), the percentage of tree cover in urbanized

areas is quite high relative to the surrounding areas (appendix 2). These results reflect

the combination of intensely developed urban areas that support a substantial tree

cover and the influence of agricultural land uses that often reduce tree cover in areas

surrounding cities.

Metropolitan Area Tree

Cover
23

Figure 11—Spatial distribution of tree cover within metropolitan areas (MAs), based on AVHRR data (Zhu 1994).
24Table 4—Area, tree cover, and tree population in metropolitan areas (MA) and urban areas (UA), by state

Area Area of statea Tree coverb State tree coverc Tree population Trees/capita

State MA UA MA UA MA UA MA UA MA UA MA UA

Square kilometers – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Thousand trees – –

Alabama 44,950 8,487 33.1 6.3 57.5 48.2 29.7 4.7 3,767,917 205,847 1,391 69Arizona 159,133 9,218 53.9 3.1 12.9 11.4 45.5 2.4 633,609 53,950 198 9Arkansas 23,023 3,435 16.7 2.5 30.6 25.0 12.3 1.5 910,335 43,412 821 32California 253,807 27,348 59.9 6.4 20.6 10.9 39.2 2.2 2,134,318 148,612 74 5Colorado 49,353 4,345 18.3 1.6 20.5 13.0 15.1 0.8 738,130 28,149 266 7Connecticut 10,561 4,085 73.6 28.5 39.1 21.8 65.2 14.0 431,348 44,800 143 14Delaware 3,351 566 52.0 8.8 50.9 46.3 58.2 9.0 212,596 13,257 384 27Florida 97,442 18,407 57.2 10.8 31.1 18.4 49.5 5.5 3,459,653 169,587 288 13Georgia 34,339 8,338 22.3 5.4 68.1 55.3 24.0 4.7 3,442,105 232,906 791 49Idaho 7,282 966 3.4 0.4 23.7 25.6 1.9 0.3 133,053 12,494 368 18Illinois 48,489 9,165 32.3 6.1 38.6 33.7 33.0 5.5 1,951,744 155,544 204 14Indiana 36,324 5,000 38.5 5.3 36.5 31.2 35.7 4.2 1,480,599 78,498 374 21Iowa 17,092 3,148 11.7 2.2 36.7 33.1 11.5 1.9 626,272 52,474 522 29Kansas 14,819 2,575 7.0 1.2 21.5 20.5 17.4 2.9 333,535 26,677 250 17Kentucky 17,216 3,374 16.4 3.2 42.7 33.4 12.5 1.9 839,464 56,681 472 23Louisiana 53,818 5,374 40.1 4.0 38.2 25.3 36.0 2.4 2,507,970 68,510 794 19Maine 13,651 2,887 14.9 3.1 64.7 47.7 14.0 2.2 1,942,124 68,550 3,924 110Maryland 18,340 4,525 57.1 14.1 46.5 40.1 53.2 11.1 850,811 89,434 192 21Massachusetts 23,403 6,893 85.6 25.2 45.1 25.3 88.4 14.4 1,258,989 86,829 212 17Michigan 54,971 7,494 21.9 3.0 37.4 29.7 15.0 1.6 2,486,540 110,858 323 17Minnesota 46,555 6,775 20.7 3.0 50.0 37.4 20.2 2.2 2,795,672 127,767 929 33Mississippi 16,745 3,365 13.3 2.7 54.8 38.6 12.9 1.8 1,287,176 65,520 1,472 48Missouri 31,838 5,655 17.6 3.1 36.1 30.6 15.3 2.3 1,323,812 87,148 379 21Montana 13,885 4,365 3.6 1.1 16.9 49.4 2.4 2.2 140,484 108,550 735 251Nebraska 6,892 1,061 3.4 0.5 29.8 21.1 8.0 0.9 164,718 11,243 209 10Nevada 84,958 3,195 29.7 1.1 12.1 9.9 26.5 0.8 129,004 15,834 127 9New Hampshire 5,362 1,678 22.1 6.9 58.8 49.1 17.7 4.6 453,046 41,455 660 60New Jersey 22,590 6,916 100.0 30.6 56.6 41.4 100.0 22.3 1,596,644 143,869 207 20New Mexico 30,528 2,316 9.7 0.7 11.9 4.8 9.0 0.3 264,298 5,682 314 4New York 72,841 10,127 51.6 7.2 44.7 26.3 43.9 3.5 4,597,839 132,466 278 8North Carolina 48,529 6,419 34.8 4.6 52.5 42.9 31.4 3.4 4,356,839 138,606 996 36North Dakota 17,667 457 9.6 0.2 14.3 7.8 11.8 0.2 148,126 1,774 575 5Ohio 55,178 9,923 47.5 8.5 44.7 38.3 45.6 7.0 3,249,536 191,113 368 22Oklahoma 31,926 7,940 17.6 4.4 16.7 14.5 16.8 3.6 600,218 58,204 321 16
25

Table 4—Area, tree cover, and tree population in metropolitan areas (MA) and urban areas (UA), by state (continued)

Area Area of statea Tree coverb State tree coverc Tree population Trees/capita

State MA UA MA UA MA UA MA UA MA UA MA UA

Square kilometers – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Thousand trees – –

Oregon 36,108 2,280 14.2 0.9 75.1 30.4 22.6 0.6 2,138,017 34,583 1,077 17Pennsylvania 58,315 8,363 48.9 7.0 48.7 34.4 43.5 4.2 3,732,947 139,020 370 16Rhode Island 3,189 926 79.7 23.2 38.3 8.9 88.9 6.0 129,074 4,155 141 5South Carolina 33,670 4,380 40.6 5.3 54.4 39.8 38.5 3.6 2,986,395 86,696 1,233 44South Dakota 10,818 617 5.4 0.3 25.1 19.2 10.6 0.5 17,682 6,007 80 15Tennessee 33,420 7,382 30.6 6.8 53.8 43.9 28.1 5.1 2,404,114 163,783 726 49Texas 143,184 26,573 20.6 3.8 15.8 10.5 29.4 3.6 2,755,780 140,709 195 8Utah 21,628 2,577 9.8 1.2 19.5 14.0 11.4 1.0 209,934 18,330 157 9Vermont 3,903 416 15.7 1.7 48.9 36.0 10.5 0.8 242,078 7,558 1,367 42Virginia 40,759 8,869 36.8 8.0 53.3 35.3 34.4 4.9 3,647,767 156,545 764 27Washington 52,953 5,679 28.7 3.1 50.9 33.6 28.6 2.0 2,089,982 93,272 518 23West Virginia 10,108 1,086 16.1 1.7 65.6 42.2 13.4 0.9 890,930 22,871 1,191 33Wisconsin 43,747 4,565 25.8 2.7 39.0 25.8 21.8 1.5 1,886,180 59,344 566 18Wyoming 20,885 797 8.2 0.3 4.1 3.6 2.0 0.1 43,464 1,392 323 3United Statesd 1,979,700 281,000e 24.5 3.5 33.4 27.1 24.5 2.8 74,425,644 3,820,491 377 17a Percentage of the state’s total area that is occupied by metropolitan areas (MA) and urban areas (UA).b Percentage of metropolitan area (MA) or urban area (UA) covered by tree canopies.c Percentage of total state tree cover within metropolitan areas (MA) and urban areas (UA).d Includes the District of Columbia, but not Alaska and Hawaii.e Includes 492 square kilometers of urban area (UA) that crossed state borders and could not be assigned to an individual state.
Click here for fig 12 color map page 26
27

The number of trees estimated to be within MAs of the United States is 74.4 billion.

To put this figure in perspective, an estimated 319 billion live trees populate U.S. commercial timberland (USDA Forest Service 1982). States with the highest estimated

number of trees in MAs are in the heavily forested East and include New York, North

Carolina, and Alabama. States with lowest number of trees in MAs are in the Midwest

to Western regions and include South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nevada (table 4).

The geographic expansion of MAs during recent decades was accompanied by significant population growth in these areas. The MA population grew from about 92.5 million

(61.5 percent of the total population) in 1950, to a 1996 metropolitan population of

211.8 million (79.8 percent of the total population). Currently, states with the highest

proportion of their population in MAs are in the Northeastern and Pacific Coast regions

of the country and include New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California (table 4). States

with the lowest percentage of their populations living in MAs are mainly in the West.

The most densely populated MAs are in the Northeast and along the Pacific Coast

and include Jersey City and Bergen, NJ, New York City, and Orange County and

Los Angeles (appendix 2). Metropolitan areas with the lowest population densities are

in the Midwest and Western states and include Flagstaff and Yuma, AZ; Casper and

Cheyenne, WY; and Bismark, ND. The lower population densities for MAs in the West

are due, in part, to the larger size of counties in this region.

The racial and ethnic composition of MAs differs across the United States (appendix 2).

The regional patterns for racial and ethnic composition exhibited among MAs are

similar to the regional patterns exhibited among the states (see “National Population

Characteristics,” above).

Urban areas include census-defined urbanized areas and incorporated or unincorporated places with at least 2,500 people (table 2). This classification includes geographic

areas where populations and urban influences are most concentrated and encompasses the cities, towns, and villages comprising the area considered by many to be

the urban forest.

Urban areas occupy 3.5 percent or 281 000 square kilometers of the United States.

An earlier estimate of the extent of urban area, based on land use data from 1969,

was 279 000 square kilometers (Grey and Deneke 1986). This previous estimate of

urban area was excessive, as it included nonurban transportation lands (that is, railways and interstate highway systems). Excluding nonurban transportation land, the

estimated urban area in the United States in 1969 would be adjusted to 139 000 square

kilometers, or about 1.7 percent of the United States (Frey 1973). Thus, results from

our assessment indicate that urban land in the United States has doubled between

1969 and the early 1990s (about 20 years).

Urban areas tend to be concentrated in the Northeastern and Pacific Coast regions.

States with the highest proportion of their land in UAs are New Jersey, Connecticut,

and Massachusetts (figs. 2 and 13, table 3). States with the lowest proportion of their

land in UAs are North Dakota, Wyoming, and South Dakota (table 4). The Northeastern

United States has the highest proportion of its land in UAs. Of the 10 most urbanized

states, 9 are in the Northeast.

Metropolitan Area

Population

Characteristics

Tree Cover and

Population

Characteristics in

Urban Areas
28

Figure 13—Location of urban places and places within urbanized areas analyzed in the conterminous United States.

0 300 600 900 1200 Kilometers

N
29

Rural places (table 2), or places with a total population of less than 2,500 and located

outside urbanized areas, make up 0.8 percent of the U.S. land area.6 Though focusing

on slightly different parameters of urbanization, the NRI estimate7 of total urban and

built-up land (4.5 percent) is comparable to the amount of land in urban area and rural

places in the United States (4.3 percent).

Nationally, urban areas have an average tree cover of 27.1 percent (table 4, fig. 13).

This percentage of tree cover is not far below the national average for all lands

(32.8 percent). The highest average percentages in UAs across a state are found

in Georgia, Montana,8 and New Hampshire. States with the lowest average percentages in UAs are Wyoming, New Mexico, and North Dakota (table 4, fig. 14).

States with the highest proportion of their total tree cover occurring in UAs include

New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut (table 4). Tree cover in individual urbanized areas was highest in the Eastern United States. Individual urbanized areas with

the highest percentage of tree cover include Asheville, NC; Vineland-Millville, NJ; and

Rome, Atlanta, and Athens, GA (appendix 2). Tree cover in all census-defined urbanized areas and places that comprise urban areas is given in appendix 2.

Three factors help to explain variation in percentage of tree cover among urban areas:

ecoregion type, population density, and land use. Based on an analysis of all urban

areas in the United States, urban tree cover tends to be highest in urban areas developed in forested ecoregions (34.4 percent) followed by grasslands (17.8 percent) and

deserts (9.3 percent). These results are consistent with previous estimates of urban

tree cover by ecoregion types (based on aerial photo interpretation of 58 U.S. cities),

where tree cover averaged 31.1 percent in forest cities, 18.9 percent in grassland

cities, and 9.9 percent in desert cities (Nowak and others 1996).

Percentage of tree cover in urban areas tends to decrease as population density increases in all ecoregion types (forest: r = -0.37; grassland: r = -0.25; desert: r = -0.18).

This pattern is consistent with results from an analysis of 58 U.S. cities, which showed

that the percentage of total greenspace (bare soil and vegetation cover) in cities tends

to decrease with population density, regardless of ecoregion type (r = -0.64) (Nowak

and others 1996).

Urban Area Tree Cover

6 These statistics do not include inhabited and

uninhabited rural lands that are not recognized by the

U.S. Bureau of the Census as “places” (for example,

National Parks, National Forests, state and local natural

resource preserves, and other rural areas).

7 The NRI classification of urban and built-up land is

based on land use and structural characteristics

regardless of population. The NRI incorporates built-up

areas into its urban classification and includes areas

typically considered to be rural, while omitting large

tracts (>10 acres) of more natural features that can be

found within urban areas. The NRI estimate also

excludes Federal land.

8 The amount of urban area in Montana is high owing to

the inclusion of the Anaconda-Deer Lodge CDP, which

encompasses the entire area of Anaconda-Deer Lodge

County.
Click here for fig 14 color map page 30
Click here for fig 15 color map page 31
32

Figure 16—Net annual migration from central cities, suburban areas, and nonmetropolitan areas in the

United States, 1985-96 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1998b).

Percentage of tree cover in urban areas tends to increase with increasing city size in

forest and grassland areas but decreases with city size in desert areas. This pattern is

likely a reflection of the distribution of land uses in cities, which is a significant determinant of the amount of local tree cover (Nowak and others 1996). As city area increases,

the amount of vacant land is likely to increase. In forest and some grassland areas, vacant lands tend to fill with trees through natural regeneration. Vacant land in desert regions generally does not support natural tree regeneration, however; increased vacant

land therefore tends to decrease the overall percentage of tree cover in expanding desert cities. Although ecoregion is a major force in determining overall urban tree cover,

both ecoregion and land use distribution within a city combine to be major determinants

of the percentage of tree cover in urban areas (Nowak and others 1996).

The number of trees within UAs of the United States is estimated to be 3.8 billion. This

estimate is much higher than an earlier estimate of 660 million urban trees, which was

based on the conservative assumption that 10 nonstreet trees exist for every street tree

in cities (Kielbaso 1990). With an estimated 60 million U.S. street trees in urban areas

(Kielbaso 1990), results from this assessment reveal that about 62 nonstreet trees

exist for every street tree in urban areas across the country. This national ratio is similar to that found in Oakland (57 nonstreet urban trees/street tree) (Nowak 1993a);

but it is higher than the ratio found in Chicago (9) and Cook and DuPage Counties, IL

(34) (Nowak 1994). States with the highest estimated UA tree populations include

Georgia, Alabama, and Ohio (table 4, fig. 15). States with lowest UA tree populations

are Wyoming, North Dakota, and Rhode Island.

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 19

Year

Net annual migration (thousands)

Central cities

Suburbs

Nonmetro. areas
33

Between 1985 and 1996, central cities in metropolitan areas across the United

States consistently lost population, averaging a loss of 1,863,000 people per year;

suburbs gained population, averaging an increase of 3,106,000 people per year.

Nonmetropolitan areas gained an average of 90,000 people per year, with most

of the population increase occurring since 1989 (fig. 16).

Rural places make up 4.2 percent of the country’s population. States with the highest

percentage of population in rural places are in the Midwest and include North Dakota,

South Dakota, and Iowa. States with the lowest percentage of rural population are in

the Northeast and Pacific Coast and include Rhode Island, California, and New Jersey

(table 5).

A comparison of socioeconomic characteristics between urban and rural populations

indicates differences that may be associated with involvement in, support of, and preferences for natural resource management. Urban populations generally exhibit more

racial and ethnic diversity and have a higher proportion of residents between the ages

of 20 and 39; rural populations are roughly 90 percent white and contain a substantially

higher proportion of older residents (that is, 60 years and older) (table 6). Urban populations also have a greater percentage of college-educated individuals and a higher

median household income than rural populations.

The USDA Forest Service FIA group has a detailed definition of “forest land” (appendix

1), encompassing land typically considered to contain more “natural” forest stands with

a minimum size of 0.4 hectare. Forest land has the potential to provide timber and a

range of other goods and services; however, the ability to harvest timber, provide access for outdoor recreation, and administer other management activities may be greatly

influenced by urban land owners and the proximity of these forest lands to urban areas.

States with the highest proportion of their forest land within MAs are in the Northeast

and include New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts (table 7). Pacific Coast

states also may have high percentages of forest land in metropolitan areas (fig. 11),

but forest land data for these states were unavailable.9

As areas of the United States become increasingly urban, and higher percentages of

forest land become incorporated into MAs or UAs, the influence of the urban population

on forest management and use practices will increase; for example, increased population density reduces the availability of timber from forest lands (Barlow and others

1998, Wear and others 1999). Residential developments around cities also can limit

access to public and private lands for outdoor recreation (Ewert and others 1993).

To determine how much forest land is near urban areas and likely to experience

strong urban influences, estimates were made of forest land within 80.5-, 160.9-, and

240.4-kilometer radii (50, 100, and 150 miles, respectively) around 53 major urban

centers. Due to limitations of the forest land database, most of the 53 selected cities

are in the Eastern United States. Some important considerations regarding the analysis

of forest land in proximity to cities include the following: (1) classifications of forest land

in and around cities may not be consistent across the country because of regional differences in the criteria used to exclude some urban counties from the forest land inventory; (2) many cities are in coastal areas and consequently have relatively low amounts

of forest land around them; and (3) analyses of forest land around cities often overlap

with those for nearby cities (that is, cities within twice the designated radius of each

other).

Urban Area Population

Characteristics

Forest Land Within

and Around Urban

and Metropolitan

Areas

9 At the time of analysis, FIA data for California, Oregon,

and Washington were not available in the FIA database

retrieval system.
34Table 5— Area occupied and population of places under urban influence (urban places and places located within urbanized areas

[urban]) and rural places (rural), by statea

Total area Proportion of state areab 1990 population Proportion of 1990 population

State Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural

Square kilometers – – Percent – – – – – Percent – – –

Alabama 7,642 2,763 5.6 2.0 2,368,109 231,309 58.6 5.7Arizona 7,481 1,740 2.5 0.6 3,012,032 101,163 82.2 2.8Arkansas 3,268 1,714 2.4 1.2 1,248,925 240,831 53.1 10.2California 24,213 2,610 5.7 0.6 26,741,843 248,401 89.9 0.8Colorado 3,845 823 1.4 0.3 2,576,377 150,453 78.2 4.6Connecticut 2,338 264 16.3 1.8 1,964,024 50,381 59.7 1.5Delaware 255 87 4.0 1.3 245,364 26,505 36.8 4.0Florida 14,971 1,389 8.8 0.8 9,456,179 183,607 73.1 1.4Georgia 6,199 2,074 4.0 1.3 2,996,366 281,026 46.3 4.3Idaho 860 435 0.4 0.2 534,088 97,658 53.1 9.7Illinois 7,197 1,725 4.8 1.2 9,195,059 553,277 80.4 4.8Indiana 4,320 720 4.6 0.8 3,298,796 322,562 59.5 5.8Iowa 3,016 1,750 2.1 1.2 1,667,571 460,640 60.1 16.6Kansas 2,397 734 1.1 0.3 1,688,899 292,754 68.2 11.8Kentucky 3,070 791 2.9 0.8 1,796,940 197,339 48.8 5.4Louisiana 4,775 1,824 3.6 1.4 2,685,248 199,458 63.6 4.7Maine 2,839 482 3.1 0.5 542,955 72,081 44.2 5.9Maryland 4,022 368 12.5 1.1 3,745,248 97,157 78.3 2.0Massachusetts 4,868 403 17.8 1.5 4,306,988 95,189 71.6 1.6Michigan 6,279 1,316 2.5 0.5 5,925,280 351,250 63.7 3.8Minnesota 6,689 3,475 3.0 1.5 3,069,259 389,881 70.2 8.9Mississippi 3,119 1,232 2.5 1.0 1,190,741 185,675 46.3 7.2Missouri 5,109 1,436 2.8 0.8 3,210,096 365,599 62.7 7.1Montana 4,323 941 1.1 0.2 415,289 93,020 52.0 11.6Nebraska 954 809 0.5 0.4 971,402 229,609 61.5 14.5Nevada 3,022 2,172 1.1 0.8 1,033,762 37,825 86.0 3.1New Hampshire 1,546 158 6.4 0.7 517,189 39,381 46.6 3.6New Jersey 5,171 496 22.9 2.2 5,870,705 89,858 75.9 1.2New Mexico 2,133 1,037 0.7 0.3 1,082,375 91,909 71.4 6.1New York 8,108 1,884 5.7 1.3 14,107,944 454,788 78.4 2.5North Carolina 5,183 1,965 3.7 1.4 3,028,130 351,480 45.7 5.3
35

Table 5— Area occupied and population of places under urban influence (urban places and places located within urbanized areas[urban]) and rural places (rural), by statea (continued)

Total area Proportion of state areab 1990 population Proportion of 1990 population

State Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural

Square kilometers – – Percent – – – – – Percent – – –

North Dakota 434 1,098 0.2 0.6 339,377 134,565 53.1 21.1Ohio 8,305 1,136 7.2 1.0 7,330,000 443,632 67.6 4.1Oklahoma 6,815 2,353 3.8 1.3 2,123,240 278,230 67.5 8.8Oregon 2,131 558 0.8 0.2 1,932,947 134,217 68.0 4.7Pennsylvania 5,630 1,776 4.7 1.5 6,650,547 572,907 56.0 4.8Rhode Island 668 24 16.7 0.6 721,337 6,208 71.9 0.6South Carolina 3,207 977 3.9 1.2 1,474,172 152,982 42.3 4.4South Dakota 593 755 0.3 0.4 348,711 142,817 50.1 20.5Tennessee 6,752 1,577 6.2 1.4 2,774,945 214,730 56.9 4.4Texas 22,383 4,167 3.2 0.6 12,872,159 664,959 75.8 3.9Utah 2,442 1,528 1.1 0.7 1,490,379 113,638 86.5 6.6Vermont 367 228 1.5 0.9 158,521 55,382 28.2 9.8Virginia 7,527 778 6.8 0.7 3,858,411 166,959 62.4 2.7Washington 5,069 1,124 2.7 0.6 3,540,909 178,322 72.8 3.7West Virginia 934 914 1.5 1.5 602,902 176,889 33.6 9.9Wisconsin 4,289 2,270 2.5 1.3 3,103,474 377,793 63.4 7.7Wyoming 735 338 0.3 0.1 294,584 47,135 64.9 10.4United Statesc 237,669 61,218 2.9 0.8 170,716,698 10,443,431 69.1 4.2a These data do not include inhabited and uninhabited areas of the United States that are not recognized as “places” by the U.S. Bureau of the Census

(for example, National Parks, National Forests, state and local natural resource preserves, and other rural areas).

b Percentage of total state area occupied by urban places and places located within urbanized areas (urban) or rural places.c Includes the District of Columbia, but not Alaska and Hawaii.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1992c.
36

Table 6—Comparison of socioeconomic attributes between urban and rural

places in the conterminous United States

Total population

Socioeconomic attributes Urban placesa Rural placesb

Percent

Race and ethnicity:

White 76.2 90.0

Black 14.6 6.2

Native American 0.6 2.0

Asian-Pacific Islander 3.5 0.3

Hispanic 11.2 3.7

Age:

0-9 years 14.5 14.8

10-19 years 13.6 14.7

20-29 years 17.2 12.8

30-39 years 17.0 14.9

40-49 years 12.3 11.6

50-59 years 8.5 9.0

60 years and older 17.0 22.3

Education:c

Grades 0-12 (no diploma) 24.0d 31.2d

High school diploma (or equiv.) 28.0d 36.5d

College educated 48.0d 32.3d

Dollars

Median household income $ 31,255 $ 22,997

a

 Includes census-recognized places within urbanized areas or located outside urbanized areas and

have a total population larger than 2,500.

b

 Includes census-recognized places located outside urbanized areas and have a total population of

less than 2,500.

c

 Highest level of education for adults over 25 years of age.

d

 Percentage of total adults over 25 years of age.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1992c.
37

Table 7—Forest land within a state and in metropolitan areas (MA), by state

State forest land State forest land

State State forest landa State forest land in MA in MAb

Percent – – – – Square kilometers – – – – Percent

Alabama 67.6 88,888 24,133 27.2

Arizona 10.0c 29,330c 13,654c 46.6c

Arkansas 56.4 76,045 9,589 12.6

California — — — —

Colorado 16.1c d 43,258c d 14,309c d 33.1c d

Connecticut 59.1 7,419 4,743 63.9

Delaware 31.1 1,576 618 39.2

Florida 46.9 65,648 30,898 47.1

Georgia 64.9 97,312 19,889 20.4

Idaho 35.0 74,934 635 0.9

Illinois 12.0 17,262 3,147 18.2

Indiana 19.3 17,965 5,421 30.2

Iowa 5.7 8,297 925 11.2

Kansas 2.6 5,500 864 15.7

Kentucky 49.3 50,720 5,617 11.1

Louisiana 49.5 55,815 16,133 28.9

Maine 89.6 71,629 10,190 14.2

Maryland 43.2 10,925 6,279 57.5

Massachusetts 62.0 12,582 11,000 87.4

Michigan 53.0 78,029 9,400 12.1

Minnesota 32.7 67,508 15,867 23.5

Mississippi 61.9 75,256 9,251 12.3

Missouri 31.7 56,651 7,287 12.9

Montana 13.9 52,344 1,219 2.3

Nebraska 1.5 2,907 246 8.5

Nevada 9.8c 28,003c 4,455c 15.9c

New Hampshire 84.8 19,703 3,750 19.0

New Jersey 39.8 7,645 7,645 100.0

New Mexico 10.1c 31,731c 3,593c 11.3c

New York 52.8 64,564 27,317 42.3

North Carolina 61.8 78,016 25,212 32.3

North Dakota 1.3 2,283 101 4.4

Ohio 30.2 32,042 12,793 39.9

Oklahoma 12.3e 21,925e 936e 4.3e

Oregon — — — —

Pennsylvania 57.3 66,532 27,371 41.1

Rhode Island 55.5 1,503 1,407 93.6

South Carolina 65.6 51,177 19,413 37.9

South Dakota 0.5e 1,059e 19e 1.8e
38

Table 7—Forest land within a state and in metropolitan areas (MA), by state (continued)

State forest land State forest land

State State forest landa State forest land in MA in MAb

Percent – – – – Square kilometers – – – – Percent

Tennessee 51.6 55,050 13,944 26.1

Texas 7.1e 48,334e 13,427e 27.8e

Utah 29.8 63,443 7,474 11.8

Vermont 74.9 17,953 1,995 11.1

Virginia 62.3 63,868 20,840 32.6

Washington — — — —

West Virginia 78.0 48,681 7,127 14.6

Wisconsin 46.0 64,765 9,025 13.9

Wyoming 5.1c 12,818c 884c 6.9c

— Data not reported for the state.

a

 Forest land is defined as “land currently growing forest trees of any size with a total stocking value of at least 16.7 (10 base 100 in the

West), or lands formerly forested, currently capable of becoming forest land, and not currently developed for nonforest uses” in Forest

Inventory Analysis (FIA) database (USDA Forest Service 1997a). These lands must be a minimum of 0.4 hectare in area.

b

 MAs include primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs), metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), and New England county metropolitan

areas (NECMAs) for the New England states. MA components are based on the 1996 U.S. census definitions for MSA, PMSA, and NECMA (U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1997).

c

 Does not include National Forest System land.

d

 Including western counties only.

e

 Including eastern counties only.

Source: USDA Forest Service 1997a.
39

Cities with the highest proportion of forest land within a 80.5-kilometer radius are in the

Southern United States and include Lafayette and Baton Rouge, LA, and Birmingham,

AL (table 8). The rankings among the 53 cities analyzed by percentage of forest land

were relatively consistent, regardless of the area’s radius (that is, 80.5, 160.9, or 240.4

kilometers); however, the overall percentage of land classified as forest tended to increase for most cities as the radius of analysis expanded. This pattern was most likely

attributable to a higher level of displacement of forest land by urbanization nearer to the

core of the city, as well as the tendency to classify land in and adjacent to cities as

nonforest.

Cities in forest ecoregions have the most forest land in their immediate vicinity. These

forest lands comprise a large resource that dominates the areas around some urban

centers. These areas are often in immediate threat of being converted to other land

uses or land covers as adjacent cities expand. Development of these surrounding forest lands for urban needs will significantly impact the regional landscape, production

of timber, and availability of outdoor recreation and other forest services for the urban

population. In the years ahead, the impacts of urban expansion on surrounding forest

land are likely to be greatest in the Southern United States, where areas near cities are

heavily forested and considerable population growth is expected to occur (Barlow and

others 1998). The expansion of Atlanta into surrounding forest areas (Moll and Berish

1996) is an example of the type of change that may be experienced in other areas,

particularly in the Southeast.

National Forests throughout the United States are increasingly affected by urban

expansion and increased use by urban populations. Some National Forests are located

partially within MAs and have relatively high population densities nearby (fig. 12). In

addition, seasonal home developments, particularly in the upper Great Lakes region

and the West, frequently are concentrated in areas near National Forests (fig. 17). The

owners of seasonal homes, many of whom are urban residents, can have a significant

influence on the management and use of National Forests and other nearby natural

resources.

Due to the intense and diverse pressures on forest management in National Forests

that are under a high degree of urban influence, 14 “urban National Forests” have

been identified. Urban National Forests (UNFs) are National Forests generally located within 80.5 kilometers of populations greater than 1 million people and at the

time of this writing included the following: Angeles (CA), Arapaho and Roosevelt (CO),

Chattahoochee-Oconee (GA), Cleveland (CA), Gifford Pinchot (WA), Los Padres (CA),

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie (WA), Mount Hood (OR), Pike and San Isabel (CO), San

Bernardino (CA), Tonto (AZ), Uinta (UT), Wasatch-Cache (UT), and White Mountain

(NH) (USDA Forest Service 1998b).

Special challenges faced by UNFs include wide-ranging and greater use; increased

pressures from and interactions with adjacent owners and developments, such as increased foot traffic, concerns over landscape views, trash, fire ignition, and invasion of

exotic plants and animals; a high degree of visibility to a large population; and increasingly complex planning and decisionmaking processes involving many diverse individuals, groups, and organizations. The pressures faced by UNFs are likely to be faced by

many other National Forests and large public holdings across the country as urban

influences spread across the United States. As urban populations continue to expand

and increase, not only will their effects disperse over larger areas but the intensity of

their impacts on forest resource management and use also are likely to increase.

Urbanization and the

National Forests

Text continues on page 46
40

Table 8—Forest land by area and timberland by area and ownership within 80.5-, 160.9-, and 240.4-kilometer

radii of selected cities

Forest landa Timberlandb Timberland ownership

National Other Forest Other

Radius and city Percentage Area Percentage Area Forest publicc industry privated

Percent Km2 Percent Km2 – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – –

80.5 kilometers (50 mi):

Lafayette, LA 98.1 5,479 100.0 5,479 0.0 5.5 14.1 80.3

Birmingham, AL 95.8 13,445 100.0 13,445 3.0 2.8 21.0 73.2

Baton Rouge, LA 93.7 11,533 100.0 11,533 0.0 4.2 19.3 76.5

New Orleans, LA 87.5 5,436 100.0 5,436 0.0 6.1 21.2 72.8

Shreveport, LA 83.9 13,525 100.0 13,525 0.9 2.7 23.3 73.1

Charleston, WV 81.1 16,185 99.9 16,168 0.1 3.4 5.1 91.4

Portland, ME 78.4 8,712 98.2 8,552 0.0 2.9 2.6 94.5

Nashville, TN 77.7 7,419 100.0 7,419 0.0 4.4 1.8 93.8

Richmond, VA 68.4 13,335 99.7 13,299 0.0 4.5 17.7 77.8

Charleston, SC 63.5 6,899 98.8 6,817 13.7 3.0 31.3 52.0

Jackson, MS 62.9 12,509 100.0 12,509 6.5 4.0 17.2 72.2

Atlanta, GA 58.4 11,670 99.9 11,653 0.0 2.8 11.9 85.3

Greensboro, NC 57.9 11,536 99.6 11,492 0.8 1.7 4.1 93.5

Little Rock, AR 56.7 11,234 98.5 11,065 6.3 6.0 37.0 50.7

Charlotte, NC 55.2 10,813 99.6 10,765 1.0 0.8 10.1 88.1

Raleigh, NC 54.8 10,924 99.7 10,890 0.0 2.9 5.1 92.0

Norfolk, VA 51.4 4,578 97.4 4,458 0.0 7.6 20.2 72.1

Pittsburgh, PA 50.8 10,266 95.6 9,818 0.0 6.9 0.5 92.6

Buffalo, NY 43.3 5,134 97.8 5,020 0.0 6.2 1.2 92.5

Washington, DC 40.8 6,975 87.6 6,108 0.0 7.5 1.4 91.1

Louisville, KY 40.1 8,117 98.2 7,969 4.0 9.1 0.3 86.6

Houston, TX 39.3 4,313 100.0 4,313 1.9 5.2 13.1 79.8

Orlando, FL 37.7 6,542 94.3 6,166 9.4 17.4 2.2 71.0

Rochester, NY 37.4 4,695 94.4 4,431 0.0 4.4 0.0 95.6

Lexington, KY 35.7 7,211 98.6 7,109 7.5 0.6 0.4 91.5

Philadelphia, PA 35.3 6,927 94.4 6,537 0.0 20.3 0.0 79.7

Memphis, TN 34.7 5,286 99.9 5,283 2.4 11.3 3.2 83.1

New York, NY 34.1 3,674 85.1 3,127 0.0 21.2 0.0 78.8

Grand Rapids, MI 33.7 5,750 99.3 5,712 6.9 12.2 0.0 80.9

Cleveland, OH 31.5 3,805 82.3 3,132 0.0 5.3 0.0 94.7

Baltimore, MD 30.5 5,506 84.4 4,648 0.0 4.9 1.2 93.9

Cincinnati, OH 30.0 5,972 97.0 5,793 0.0 1.6 0.0 98.4

Salt Lake City, UT 29.7 4,732 48.2 2,283 53.3 5.8 0.0 40.9

Boise, ID 29.5 5,624 99.1 5,574 83.3 6.8 3.6 6.3

Green Bay, WI 28.4 3,961 99.0 3,920 2.7 6.9 2.2 88.2

St. Louis, MO 24.9 4,959 95.0 4,711 0.0 5.4 0.5 94.2
41

Table 8—Forest land by area and timberland by area and ownership within 80.5-, 160.9-, and 240.4-kilometer

radii of selected cities (continued)

Forest landa Timberlandb Timberland ownership

National Other Forest Other

Radius and city Percentage Area Percentage Area Forest publicc industry privated

Percent Km2 Percent Km2 – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – –

Tampa, FL 24.3 3,007 91.0 2,736 0.0 33.7 0.0 66.3

Columbus, OH 20.5 4,003 96.5 3,862 0.4 3.0 3.9 92.7

Detroit, MI 19.2 2,280 92.9 2,117 0.0 7.4 0.0 92.6

Madison, WI 17.7 3,509 96.9 3,400 0.0 8.5 0.0 91.5

Indianapolis, IN 14.1 2,809 95.2 2,675 1.6 13.7 0.9 83.8

Minneapolis, MN 13.0 1,253 94.6 0 0.0 18.7 0.0 81.3

Miami, FL 13.0 2,505 0.0 2,370 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Milwaukee, WI 11.7 1,386 98.7 1,367 0.0 16.7 0.0 83.3

Kansas City, KS-MO 11.0 2,112 98.4 2,078 0.0 6.9 0.5 92.6

Billings, MT 10.2 1,975 96.5 1,906 0.0 8.6 0.0 91.4

Des Moines, IA 6.9 1,403 93.7 1,315 0.0 5.4 0.0 94.6

Great Falls, MT 6.3 1,191 100.0 1,191 0.0e 14.8e 0.0e 85.2e

Chicago, IL 5.7 802 69.1 554 0.0 4.4 0.0 95.6

Rapid City, SD 3.7 440 88.7 390 0.0 18.7 0.0 81.4

Omaha, NE 3.4 672 91.7 616 0.0 5.3 1.9 92.8

Fargo, ND 3.1 678 97.3 660 1.4 7.5 0.0 91.0

Wichita, KS 1.1 218 90.9 198 0.0 4.3 0.0 95.7

160.9 kilometers (100 mi):

Lafayette, LA 94.4 26,879 100.0 26,879 4.7 5.4 26.8 63.1

Birmingham, AL 93.7 50,935 99.8 50,827 4.1 2.7 20.8 72.4

Baton Rouge, LA 86.7 31,637 100.0 31,637 2.8 6.0 19.8 71.4

Portland, ME 84.1 37,697 98.3 37,063 7.2 3.5 11.6 77.7

New Orleans, LA 83.7 26,516 99.9 26,487 5.0 5.6 20.7 68.7

Charleston, WV 77.3 62,308 99.2 61,797 6.7 3.3 7.1 82.8

Shreveport, LA 77.0 54,604 99.9 54,532 4.6 2.6 29.8 63.0

Atlanta, GA 72.9 53,837 99.2 53,380 7.7 3.1 16.7 72.4

Nashville, TN 72.4 38,783 99.2 38,455 0.0 6.5 7.7 85.9

Jackson, MS 64.8 46,256 100.0 46,256 4.9 3.9 18.8 72.5

Charleston, SC 63.5 25,904 98.9 25,611 3.6 4.7 24.7 67.0

Charlotte, NC 62.6 49,621 98.9 49,078 3.7 3.6 9.5 83.3

Richmond, VA 61.9 42,030 97.0 40,749 1.1 3.9 15.0 80.0

Little Rock, AR 60.8 47,858 98.4 47,081 15.1 5.0 28.1 51.7

Raleigh, NC 60.7 48,501 99.8 48,415 0.4 4.2 13.6 81.8

Norfolk, VA 58.7 24,643 98.9 24,375 0.0 5.6 21.6 72.8

Greensboro, NC 58.5 46,524 99.3 46,182 2.1 3.6 5.9 88.4

Pittsburgh, PA 58.2 46,860 97.2 45,535 3.8 9.2 2.1 84.8

Buffalo, NY 54.7 20,708 97.2 20,129 7.8 7.4 7.8 76.9
42

Table 8—Forest land by area and timberland by area and ownership within 80.5-, 160.9-, and 240.4-kilometer

radii of selected cities (continued)

Forest landa Timberlandb Timberland ownership

National Other Forest Other

Radius and city Percentage Area Percentage Area Forest publicc industry privated

Percent Km2 Percent Km2 – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – –

Houston, TX 53.2 17,194 97.9 16,839 4.7 1.7 41.4 52.2

Rochester, NY 51.0 22,753 97.2 22,108 0.0 9.6 3.4 86.9

Lexington, KY 49.4 39,430 98.2 38,716 7.1 2.7 1.6 88.6

New York, NY 48.0 20,090 91.6 18,409 0.0 17.4 0.1 82.5

Washington, DC 46.1 33,058 93.6 30,926 1.8 7.4 6.2 84.5

Green Bay, WI 44.4 23,541 98.2 23,125 8.4 15.8 9.3 66.4

Baltimore, MD 40.9 29,228 93.1 27,224 0.2 11.7 3.5 84.6

Philadelphia, PA 39.4 22,729 94.1 21,391 0.0 20.3 0.6 79.0

Memphis, TN 37.0 24,623 100.0 24,613 2.9 11.1 7.6 78.4

Louisville, KY 36.3 29,121 97.4 28,367 2.4 5.6 0.6 91.4

Orlando, FL 34.7 17,923 95.0 17,033 8.0 14.6 15.4 62.0

Grand Rapids, MI 33.2 19,362 98.7 19,110 10.6 13.0 0.2 76.2

Cleveland, OH 32.8 16,390 94.0 15,403 0.0 4.3 0.2 95.5

St. Louis, MO 31.3 25,240 95.4 24,088 7.8 4.4 1.2 86.6

Columbus, OH 30.1 24,300 97.3 23,634 2.5 4.2 3.3 90.0

Boise, ID 29.4 15,955 92.4 14,735 83.6 6.2 4.8 5.4

Tampa, FL 28.9 11,991 92.8 11,123 7.4 19.0 7.0 66.7

Cincinnati, OH 28.0 22,639 96.8 21,910 3.3 4.8 2.8 89.1

Salt Lake City, UT 26.3 19,243 45.1 8,684 65.6 5.5 0.0 28.9

Miami, FL 22.3 5,597 21.9 1,223 0.0 7.2 0.0 92.9

Madison, WI 20.6 15,317 97.8 14,980 0.0 12.4 1.4 86.2

Minneapolis, MN 20.2 15,786 96.8 15,276 0.0 20.3 0.5 79.2

Indianapolis, IN 18.8 14,999 96.3 14,443 2.2 7.9 0.3 89.5

Detroit, MI 15.7 7,836 96.5 7,563 0.0 8.1 0.0 91.9

Milwaukee, WI 14.0 6,809 94.9 6,463 2.9 10.3 0.3 86.5

Great Falls, MT 12.3 8,320 73.6 6,120 25.7e 16.9e 3.4e 53.9e

Kansas City, KS-MO 11.2 8,954 97.7 8,749 0.0 6.3 0.8 92.9

Fargo, ND 9.8 7,507 96.1 7,216 0.1 28.8 2.8 68.3

Billings, MT 9.4 6,482 94.8 6,148 0.0 14.8 0.0 85.2

Chicago, IL 7.8 4,871 93.0 4,530 0.0 7.1 0.0 92.9

Rapid City, SD 6.8 3,671 78.2 2,871 2.8 14.6 0.4 82.1

Des Moines, IA 6.0 4,850 95.8 4,647 0.0 6.3 0.0 93.7

Omaha, NE 2.9 2,272 91.1 2,068 0.0 2.5 0.8 96.8

Wichita, KS 2.5 1,565 71.5 1,119 0.0 4.0 3.9 92.0

240.4 kilometers (150 mi):

Lafayette, LA 87.1 63,561 99.5 63,214 5.8 4.4 36.2 53.7

Portland, ME 85.5 75,597 97.8 73,942 5.1 5.0 20.6 69.3

Baton Rouge, LA 85.0 68,050 100.0 68,022 6.5 5.4 27.0 61.1
43

Table 8—Forest land by area and timberland by area and ownership within 80.5-, 160.9-, and 240.4-kilometer

radii of selected cities (continued)

Forest landa Timberlandb Timberland ownership

National Other Forest Other

Radius and city Percentage Area Percentage Area Forest publicc industry privated

Percent Km2 Percent Km2 – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – –

Birmingham, AL 84.8 116,511 99.9 116,375 2.3 3.1 21.5 73.1

New Orleans, LA 83.5 57,154 99.9 57,125 5.2 4.2 21.7 69.0

Shreveport, LA 77.1 110,281 99.4 109,594 5.3 3.5 39.8 51.5

Atlanta, GA 75.9 116,571 98.9 115,327 6.9 3.6 16.5 73.0

Jackson, MS 70.8 109,632 100.0 109,600 4.3 4.8 26.3 64.7

Charleston, WV 66.1 118,735 98.7 117,169 10.0 3.1 4.7 82.2

Nashville, TN 66.0 85,142 99.1 84,342 3.8 6.4 7.5 82.3

Charleston, SC 65.5 61,771 99.4 61,385 2.2 5.7 25.3 66.8

Charlotte, NC 64.4 112,518 98.7 111,034 6.2 3.9 10.5 79.3

Greensboro, NC 64.2 114,886 99.2 113,985 6.4 3.2 10.6 79.8

Houston, TX 62.0 35,431 98.5 34,884 5.9 1.4 44.0 48.8

Raleigh, NC 61.6 101,252 99.2 100,431 2.2 4.0 16.0 77.9

Rochester, NY 60.9 58,767 95.4 56,093 3.4 16.1 5.6 74.9

Pittsburgh, PA 60.0 99,615 95.3 94,937 6.0 11.0 4.5 78.5

Buffalo, NY 59.0 49,651 94.9 47,139 4.1 15.1 5.0 75.8

Richmond, VA 58.1 85,692 96.9 83,053 7.0 4.0 11.5 77.4

Norfolk, VA 57.7 55,364 98.8 54,719 0.5 5.0 17.7 76.9

Little Rock, AR 56.9 96,924 97.9 94,852 11.2 5.5 23.7 59.6

Washington, DC 53.6 80,900 94.8 76,718 4.7 10.9 6.6 77.7

Green Bay, WI 52.1 68,457 97.9 67,030 13.8 19.1 8.3 58.8

Lexington, KY 51.5 88,974 98.4 87,558 4.8 4.8 2.5 87.9

Baltimore, MD 51.4 75,789 94.2 71,404 2.0 14.5 3.9 79.6

New York, NY 50.0 42,680 94.5 40,351 0.0 14.4 0.8 84.7

Memphis, TN 48.4 75,810 99.3 75,267 4.1 6.9 12.8 76.2

Philadelphia, PA 47.1 54,280 92.4 50,153 0.0 16.8 2.0 81.2

Louisville, KY 37.6 65,360 97.8 63,946 5.5 4.7 1.8 88.0

Orlando, FL 37.4 31,417 93.9 29,499 6.5 11.2 26.1 56.2

Columbus, OH 36.6 62,913 97.5 61,340 2.1 3.4 2.9 91.7

Tampa, FL 36.0 28,247 92.2 26,040 5.2 12.2 23.0 59.6

Cleveland, OH 35.1 44,910 95.8 43,016 4.8 4.9 1.6 88.6

Cincinnati, OH 34.4 62,285 97.8 60,934 4.9 4.9 2.0 88.2

Boise, ID 29.1 28,397 89.3 25,345 86.4 6.2 3.2 4.2

St. Louis, MO 29.0 52,148 95.3 49,715 10.6 4.9 2.2 82.3

Grand Rapids, MI 28.2 38,287 97.2 37,219 9.2 19.4 0.2 71.2

Minneapolis, MN 26.8 47,309 97.1 45,922 4.9 27.3 4.6 63.3
44

Table 8—Forest land by area and timberland by area and ownership within 80.5-, 160.9-, and 240.4-kilometer

radii of selected cities(continued)

Forest landa Timberlandb Timberland ownership

National Other Forest Other

Radius and city Percentage Area Percentage Area Forest publicc industry privated

Percent Km2 Percent Km2 – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – –

Salt Lake City, UT 25.0 40,173 40.0 16,073 65.9 12.0 0.0 22.1

Milwaukee, WI 24.0 33,230 97.4 32,363 6.8 10.7 1.3 81.2

Detroit, MI 22.7 27,068 96.2 26,037 1.6 10.8 0.0 87.6

Madison, WI 21.0 31,707 97.6 30,941 0.3 13.3 1.8 84.6

Miami, FL 18.9 7,849 38.9 3,052 0.0 11.1 0.0 88.8

Indianapolis, IN 17.9 32,225 96.9 31,232 2.2 6.3 0.3 91.3

Great Falls, MT 16.8 22,862 83.0 18,983 29.4e 16.2e 12.2e 42.1e

Fargo, ND 13.6 23,428 93.8 21,974 8.6 37.1 2.5 51.7

Kansas City, KS-MO 12.4 22,276 95.0 21,156 0.2 5.0 0.7 94.1

Chicago, IL 11.2 17,003 95.5 16,245 1.4 7.9 0.1 90.5

Billings, MT 8.7 12,590 91.6 11,530 0.0 20.3 4.8 74.9

Des Moines, IA 6.5 11,689 96.0 11,223 0.0 6.3 0.1 93.6

Omaha, NE 3.8 5,802 91.5 4,453 0.0 3.5 0.8 95.7

Rapid City, SD 3.8 6,872 76.7 6,285 2.8 15.3 1.3 80.7

Wichita, KS 3.3 4,141 86.1 3,566 0.0 4.2 4.0 91.9

a Forest land is “land currently growing forest trees of any size with a total stocking value of at least 16.7 (10 base 100 in the West), or lands

formerly forested, currently capable of becoming forest land, not currently developed for nonforest use.” These lands must be a minimum of 0.4

hectare in area. (USDA Forest Service 1997a).

b

 Timberland is forest land that is producing, or capable of producing, in excess of 1.4 cubic meters per hectare per year of industrial roundwood

products, and is not withdrawn from timber utilization by statute or administrative regulation.

c

 Includes Bureau of Land Management land, miscellaneous Federal land, state-administered land, and county and municipal land.

d Includes farmer- and rancher-owned land, private corporate land, private individual land, and tribal trust land.

e

 Includes reserved timberland (not displayed in table): Timberland that has statutory or administrative restrictions prohibiting the harvest of trees

(USDA Forest Service 1997a).

Source: USDA Forest Service 1997a.
Click here for fig 17 color map page 45
46

Metropolitan areas represent the broadest extent of urbanization, including 24.5 percent of the U.S. area and 80 percent of the population. With an average tree cover of

33.4 percent, metropolitan areas collectively support nearly one-quarter of the Nation’s

total tree canopy cover—some 74.4 billion trees. In narrowing the focus to cities, towns,

and villages, forest resources in urban areas continue to comprise a substantial portion

of the Nation’s resource base. Covering 3.5 percent of the total area and housing more

than 75 percent of the total population, urban areas account for 2.8 percent of the total

tree canopy cover in the country—about 3.8 billion trees. The average percentage of

tree canopy cover for both metropolitan areas (33.4 percent) and urban areas (27.1

percent) is close to that for all U.S. land (32.8 percent), thereby demonstrating that

urban areas and urban influence can coexist with a significant tree canopy.

Between 1950 and 1990, metropolitan areas nearly tripled in size; urban areas doubled

in size between the late 1960s and early 1990s. As urban development continues to

expand over the landscape, the relation among urban growth, urban influence, and

natural resource systems will become increasingly important. Many cities, particularly

in the Southeast, are surrounded by forest land. The expansion of these cities likely will

have a significant impact on the extent, use, and management of forest resources. As

urbanization spreads into less developed rural areas, a growing percentage of the Nation’s natural resources will become part of urban forest ecosystems, and increasing

amounts of forest outside these systems also will be subject to urban influence.

The expansion of urban and metropolitan areas has particularly important implications

for the use and management of public holdings, including National Forests, National

Parks, and state and locally administered natural resources. As urban residents frequently travel to exurban areas for outdoor recreation, the demands placed on forest

ecosystems in close proximity to growing urban centers pose difficult challenges to

natural resource managers. Heightened resource use, increased mobility or ignition of

potential hazards (for example, insects and disease, fire, invasive species), conflicts

regarding recreational opportunities, and seasonal and permanent home development

can greatly complicate the issues that must be addressed in protecting the health and

sustainability of these valuable areas.

Review
47

The previous chapter outlined the extent of tree canopy at the urban, metropolitan, and

national levels. Urban forests are far more than tree canopy, however; their structure

includes several other resources that differ substantially across urban areas. Although

characterized by the presence of trees, urban forests also contain ground covers (for

example, grasses, shrubs, cement, and tar), buildings and structures, other urban infrastructure (for example, power lines and sewers), people, and wildlife. These elements combine to create diverse forest environments throughout the urban system.

The environments range from individual trees on residential or institutional properties

to dense forest stands in parks and preserves. The overall urban forest landscape is

a mosaic of these different forest environments and sometimes is termed the “green

infrastructure” of an urban area. Recognition of the complexity and variability of the

green infrastructure at the local level is critical for developing effective policies and

programs for urban forestry.

Data on urban forest ecosystem complexity and variability at the local scale unfortunately are limited. National and regional statistics on important attributes of the urban

forest, such as variability in species composition, tree health, and ground cover across

the urban ecosystem, are not yet available. This type of information has been compiled

from comprehensive urban forest case studies of a few selected cities. Subsequent

discussions of the distribution, variation, complexity, and interactions among components of urban forests over time and space are largely drawn from these studies.

This chapter draws from the findings of comprehensive urban forest studies in Chicago

(McPherson and others 1993, Nowak 1994) and Oakland, CA (Nowak 1991, 1993a) to

illustrate the diversity and connectedness of urban forests at the local level. Less intensive information from some other cities around the United States (Nowak and others

1996) supplements the discussion. The chapter begins with a review of the factors

shaping forest structure by using data and observations from the literature to show how

resource components differ across the urban system. The discussion continues with a

look at the connections among trees, people, wildlife, structures, utilities, and roads and

their interactions to influence the quality of the urban environment. The chapter concludes by exploring the potential effects of urban expansion on the structure and function of forest resources.

Introduction

Chapter 3: The Urban Forest

Resource at the Local Level
48

Every urban area is unique, but resource patterns and factors influencing those patterns found in the Chicago and Oakland areas are likely similar to what might be found

in other cities around the country.

In the Chicago area, comprehensive urban forest data are available for three major

geographic areas: the city of Chicago, suburban Cook County (Cook County exclusive

of Chicago), and DuPage County. These two counties, which are in the grassland ecotype, comprise the central portion of the Chicago primary metropolitan statistical area

(PMSA) and have the lowest percentage of tree cover of the nine counties included in

this metropolitan area (appendix 3). The city itself is the most densely populated of the

three areas, with 4,730 people per square kilometer (1990), followed by 1,248 people

per square kilometer in suburban Cook County, and 902 people per square kilometer in

DuPage County (appendix 2). The area contains nearly 51 million trees, whose crowns

cover roughly one-fifth of the landscape (table 9) (Nowak 1994).

The city of Oakland is the central place of the Oakland PMSA, which includes Alameda

and Contra Costa Counties. Oakland also exists within a grassland ecotype, contains

372,242 people (1990), and has a population density of 2,564 people per square kilometer (appendix 2). Tree canopy cover in Oakland is 21 percent with about 1.6 million

trees (Nowak 1991, 1993a).

Vegetation data from Chicago and Oakland demonstrate the complexity and spatial

variability of the urban forest resource. Variability is a function of the distribution of land

uses, species composition, ground cover types, tree canopy cover, characteristics of

the street tree population, available growing space, and tree age, size, and condition.

Several natural and human factors combine to shape the extent and character of forests across the urban landscape. Of particular importance are the surrounding natural

environment (ecotype), land use, intensity of urban development, duration of the land

use, and resource management. The development of policies and programs to enhance management of highly variable and complex urban forest resources must recognize the influence of these important factors on current and potential forest structure

and function. By understanding the connections among land use, population characteristics, management practices, ground covers, and vegetation patterns, managers can

tailor their efforts to meet the needs of the people in a particular region, land use, or

neighborhood. Knowledge of the key determinants of urban forest structure is also

essential for designing comprehensive management plans and determining the appropriate allocation of management efforts across the urban landscape.

A primary determinant of urban tree cover and species composition is an area’s natural capacity to sustain vegetation. This capacity depends on several environmental

conditions, including climate (temperature, precipitation, wind, and solar radiation), geographic location (altitude and aspect), and soil-water characteristics (chemical properties and water retention). These environmental conditions help determine the potential

natural vegetation (PNV) type found in an area (for example, desert, grassland, or forest). By setting the environmental context for natural regeneration and the development

of planted vegetation, PNV type is an important influence on overall tree canopy cover

in a city. Results from this assessment indicate that cities in forest ecotypes have significantly more tree cover (34 percent) than cities in grasslands (18 percent) or deserts

(9 percent).

The Chicago and

Oakland Studies

Factors Influencing

Spatial Variability in

Urban Forest

Resources

Surrounding Natural

Environment (Ecotype)
49

Table 9—Land cover, available growing space (AGS), and canopied greenspace

(CG), by geographic area, in the 2-county Chicago study area

Land covera

Geographic area Land area Tree Grass Bldg. Paved Water AGSb CGc

Km2 – – – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Chicago 589 11.1 26.9 27.4 32.4 2.2 38.0 29.2

Suburban Cook Co. 1,861 22.5 44.7 12.6 18.2 1.9 67.2 33.5

DuPage Co. 866 18.6 56.0 9.4 13.9 2.1 74.6 24.9

All 3,316 19.4 44.4 14.5 19.7 2.0 63.8 30.4

a

 Land cover from sampling of aerial photographs.

b

 Available growing space = percentage of ground area occupied by pervious surfaces (bare soils and

vegetation).

c

 Canopied greenspace = percentage of available growing space filled with trees (that is, the ratio of trees

to bare soils and all vegetation).

Source: McPherson and others 1993.

The surrounding environment also may influence the management of urban trees and

forests. The motivation for planting urban trees, for example, may be related to the

climate of a region; trees may be planted to provide shade in hot climates, to reduce

runoff in areas with high precipitation, or to block winter winds in northern regions. Further, decisions to restrict tree planting also may be a function of the regional environment; for example, a limited water supply may discourage tree planting efforts in arid

regions.

Ecotype has a particularly strong influence on the structure of the urban forest on lands

where manipulation of the vegetation is minimal. Such lands may include forest and

wildlife preserves, natural areas, and vacant lands. Even in areas aggressively managed, the natural environment sets important ecological limits on what can be accomplished through management activities.

With variations in temperature, altitude, precipitation, solar radiation, and other factors

influencing PNV, different forest species compositions can be expected across and

among urban areas. The species composition of the urban forests in Chicago and

Oakland are very different (appendix 3). Each city includes species native to the area

plus exotic (introduced) species. The most common species in each of the two cities is

not native to that region, or even to the United States.

The two-county Chicago area (Cook and DuPage Counties) contains a wide range of

tree species, with the most common species (in number of trees) being buckthorn

(Rhamnus spp.), green and white ash (Fraxinus spp.), Prunus spp., boxelder (Acer

negundo L.), and American elm (Ulmus americana L.). Trees that dominate the landscape in terms of leaf surface area are silver maple (A. saccharinum L.), green and

white ash, white oak (Quercus alba L.), American elm, and boxelder (Nowak 1994).

Oakland’s urban forest is comprised largely of bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus Labill.),

Monterey pine (Pinus radiata D. Don), coast live oak (Q. agrifolia Née), and Californialaurel (Umbellularia californica (Hook. & Arn.) Nutt.), which account for nearly half of

the tree canopy and total number of trees in the city (Nowak 1991, 1993a).
50

The designated function of the land inherently defines a number of site characteristics

and environmental conditions that influence tree canopy cover and urban forest structure. These site characteristics include intensity of use of open space, available growing space, building and infrastructure density, and management intensity. With the

establishment, growth, and decline of urban trees heavily dependent on these factors,

land use can be an important determinant of the extent, composition, and condition

of forest resources in an area. Different combinations of land uses across urban areas

provide a wide range of settings for growth and development of forest resources, resulting in a variable matrix of vegetation types across an entire urban system.

On average, U.S. cities typically are dominated by residential land (40.6 percent)

followed by vacant and wildland (23.7 percent), commercial and industrial areas

(12.7 percent), “other” land uses (that is, agriculture, orchards, transportation, and

miscellaneous) (11.7 percent), institutional (6.0 percent), and parks (5.3 percent)

(Nowak and others 1996).

The juxtaposition of land use and ecotypes strongly influences regional patterns of

urban forest resources (Nowak and others 1996). Tree cover analyses of 37 U.S.

cities in three different ecotypes show that in the forest ecotype, the land uses with the

highest percentages of tree cover are parks (47.6 percent) and vacant and wild lands

(44.5 percent). The lowest percentage of tree cover in the forest ecotype is found in

commercial and industrial lands (7.2 percent). In the grassland ecotype, land uses with

the highest and lowest percentages of tree cover are park (27.4 percent) and commercial and industrial (4.8 percent), respectively. The land use with the highest percentage of tree cover in the desert ecotype is residential (single family and multifamily)

(17.2 percent); the lowest percentage of tree cover is found in vacant and wild land

areas (0.8 percent). The low tree cover for the latter is most likely the result of a lack

of natural regeneration or tree planting in these areas, which indicates an absence of

management activities and limited availability of water. The higher percentage of tree

cover in desert residential areas as compared to other land uses is likely a result of tree

planting and irrigation efforts in these neighborhoods.

Variation in urban forest structure by land use also is apparent in Chicago and Oakland.

In Oakland, land uses with the highest percentages of tree cover are vacant and wild

lands, followed by residential (single family and multifamily), institutional, transportation,

and commercial and industrial (table 10). Tree cover by land use in the Chicago area

reveals a pattern similar to that in Oakland. Of all the land uses in the two-county

Chicago area, institutional (vegetation) (that is, institutional lands dominated by vegetation; for example, cemeteries and golf courses), vacant, and residential (single family

and multifamily) lands support the highest percentages of tree cover (table 11).

Other aspects of forest structure, including available growing space (AGS), canopied

greenspace (that is, percentage of AGS covered by tree canopies), ground cover, and

street tree populations, also differ by land use. Across 37 cities nationwide, land uses

with the highest percentages of AGS are vacant and wildlands, parks, “other” land

uses (agriculture, orchards, transportation, and miscellaneous), institutional, residential

(single family and multifamily), and commercial and industrial (Nowak and others

1996). Residential areas tend to have the highest percentage of their AGS covered by

tree canopy (table 12); “other” land uses have the lowest canopied greenspace. In the

Chicago study area, the land uses with the highest percentages of AGS are agriculture,

vacant, and institutional (vegetation); those land uses having the lowest amount of AGS

are multiresidential, and commercial and industrial (appendix 3).

Land Use
51

Table 10—Land area, tree density, tree cover, and total number of trees, by land

use, Oakland, 1989

Land use Land area Tree density Tree cover No. of trees

Km2 Trees/km2 Percent

Commercial and industrial 15.4 1,013 2.2 15,600

Institutionala 13.4 11,254 18.3 150,800

Residentialb 57.9 9,698 21.2 561,500

Transportationc 19.3 3,342 3.8 64,500

Vacant and wildland 26.3 29,202 45.9 768,000

Street treesd 1,000e 27.3f .4 27,300

City of Oakland 132.4 11,992 21.0 1,587,700

a Including parks, schools, golf courses, and cemeteries.

b

 Single family and multifamily.

c

 Including airports, shipyards, and freeways.

d Between sidewalk and curb of street.

e

 Linear kilometers of planted streets.

f

 Trees per linear kilometer of planted street.

Source: Nowak 1993a.

Table 11—Tree cover by land use and geographic area for the 2-county Chicago

area

Tree cover

Suburban Cook

Land use Chicago Co. DuPage Co. All

Percent

Institutional (vegetation)a 32.5 50.0 36.8 45.6

Vacant 19.6 39.2 31.7 35.3

Residentialb 15.0 24.4 25.3 22.9

Multiresidentialc 6.6 8.9 10.2 8.1

Institutional (building)d 7.1 6.4 9.9 7.3

Agriculture 0 4.1 2.4 3.4

Commercial and industrial 2.6 2.9 1.6 2.6

Transportation 2.2 1.3 .8 1.6

All land 11.0 22.5 18.6 19.4

a

 Institutional land dominated by vegetation (parks, cemeteries, golf courses).

b

 1- to 3-family residential units.

c

 Buildings with 4 or more apartment units.

d

 Institutional land dominated by buildings (schools, hospitals).

Sources: McPherson and others 1993, Nowak 1994.
52

Table 12—Mean canopied greenspace,a by land use, and standard error (SE) for

U.S. cities in different potential natural vegetation (PNV) typesb c

Forest PNV Grassland PNV Desert PNV

Land use Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE

Residentiald 53.6 3.3 42.6 2.1 33.4 6.1

Park 50.9 6.1 33.7 2.5 12.6 4.0

Vacant and wildland 46.6 7.7 11.4 2.6 0.8 2.0

Institutional 33.5 3.3 16.4 1.9 12.3 3.3

Commercial and industrial 24.8 3.3 25.8 3.7 18.4 2.4

Othere 12.9 2.2 9.1 2.1 4.6 1.7

a

 Canopied greenspace = percentage of available growing space filled with trees (that is, the ratio of trees to

bare soils and total vegetation).

b

 Küchler 1969.

c

 Total n = 37 (forest n = 12; grassland n = 18; desert n = 7). d

 Single family and multifamily.

e

 Includes agriculture, orchards, transportation (freeways, airports, shipyards), and miscellaneous.

Source: Nowak and others 1996.

Ground cover in the Chicago area differs substantially among various land use types

(appendix 3). In the two-county study area, 59.7 percent of the ground surface is

covered by vegetation or soil, 20.7 percent by paved surfaces, and 13.3 percent by

buildings. The most common ground covers in the study area are maintained grass

(29.3 percent), tar (14.3 percent), and herbaceous (12.9 percent). Impervious ground

surfaces (for example, buildings and structures, cement, and tar) dominate commercial and industrial (69 percent), multiresidential (63.2 percent), and transportation

(60.3 percent) areas.

The extent to which street tree populations contribute to the total tree cover of an area

also differs among land uses. Although street trees constitute a relatively small portion

of the total number of trees in the Chicago area, they comprise a significant portion of

the total number of trees in commercial and industrial, transportation, and residential

areas (appendix 3). The importance of street trees to the urban landscape is most significant in the residential (1- to 3-family dwellings) areas of Chicago, where street trees

comprise 27.9 percent of total trees and 43.7 percent of total leaf surface area in that

land use. In Cook and DuPage Counties, street trees in commercial and industrial and

residential (1- to 3- family dwellings) sectors account for an appreciable portion of the

total leaf surface area of each land use (25.8 percent and 18.0 percent, respectively)

(appendix 3). Street trees tend to increase in overall importance within a land use as

the use becomes more intensely developed and available planting space decreases.

Regardless of which land use supports the most vegetation, all land uses contribute

important resources to the forest structure across an urban area. In sustaining the total

greenspace in an urban area, each land use and location within the urban area supports an essential component of the urban forest ecosystem. The distribution of trees

and other urban forest resources across multiple land uses and varying degrees of

urbanization create a complex, dynamic urban forest. The consideration of vegetation

and other resources on all land uses is crucial for effective management of the urban

forest.
53

As an urban area becomes more intensely developed, the amount of available growing

space decreases, residential lot size is reduced, the amount of impervious ground

cover increases, and tree canopy cover decreases. Intensity of urbanization generally

decreases as one moves from the inner city toward rural areas, though patches of intensely urbanized or more natural areas exist throughout the urban to rural continuum.

The variation in opportunities for growth of trees and other plants among locations with

different degrees of urbanization contributes to the substantial differences in the structure of vegetation across land uses and the entire urban landscape. Changes in the

intensity of urban development are partly responsible for an urban to rural gradient in

forest structure.

The Chicago study revealed important variations in the factors and components of

urban forest structure by the intensity of urbanization, including land use distribution,

tree cover, ground cover, available growing space, and street tree populations. For example, the proportion of land devoted to transportation, commercial and industrial, and

multiresidential ( > 3 family units per dwelling) land uses decreases as one moves from

the city of Chicago to suburban Cook and DuPage Counties (table 13). Conversely, the

proportion of institutional (vegetation), agriculture, and vacant lands increases from

inner city Chicago to its suburban areas. Variation in the distribution of land uses creates different environmental conditions, management goals, opportunities for tree establishment and growth, and vegetation patterns across the Chicago area.

These differences are illustrated with variations in tree cover across the two-county

Chicago area. Overall percentage of tree cover increases from 11.0 percent in the city

of Chicago to 22.5 percent in suburban Cook County (table 11). This increase seems to

be due, in part, to a decrease in the intensity of urbanization from inner city Chicago to

its surrounding suburban areas. The rise in percentage of tree cover also may be a

function of additional opportunities for the natural regeneration of trees on the increasing proportion of institutional (vegetation) and vacant lands in areas outside Chicago

(table 13). Tree canopy cover decreases from 22.5 percent to 18.6 percent as one

continues from suburban Cook County to DuPage County (table 11). This trend can be

explained partially by an increase in agriculture land use and a decrease in the amount

of institutional (vegetation) land, such as parks, cemeteries, and forest preserves from

suburban Cook to DuPage County (table 13). The reduced tree canopy cover in

DuPage County also may be due to small trees associated with relatively new developments on previously cleared agricultural land. In these and many other instances, land

use and degree of urbanization combine to influence the structure and function of the

urban forest across the landscape.

The Chicago study also revealed variation in available growing space and the distribution of ground covers across the three geographic areas. Available growing space

increases from 38 percent in Chicago to 67.2 percent in suburban Cook County and

74.7 percent in DuPage County (appendix 3). The overall distribution of ground cover

types across all land uses also changes as one moves from the highly urbanized inner

city toward the less intensely developed suburban areas. An increase in herbaceous,

grass (maintained and unmaintained), and shrub cover occurs from inner city Chicago

to suburban Cook and DuPage Counties (appendix 3). The proportion of ground

covered by rock, tar, cement, buildings, and other impervious structures and covers

decreases from Chicago to DuPage County. This variability in ground cover distribution across the two-county Chicago area reflects the influence of the intensity of urbanization and different combinations of land use designations (table 13) on urban forest

structure.

Intensity of Urbanization
54

By influencing the maturity, size, and condition of forest resources, the length of time

that an area supports a particular land use can play an important role in determining the

urban forest structure (Sanders 1984). Land use changes often bring significant alterations to the existing vegetation as well as opportunities to establish new vegetation

through planting or natural regeneration. The development of new residential neighborhoods, for example, often involves removal of vegetation, tree planting activities, and

efforts to protect and maintain remaining vegetation. With continuation of residential

land use over time, tree canopy cover is likely to increase. Older residential neighborhoods therefore are more likely to have established, mature tree canopies and more

tree cover than newly developed residential areas. The duration of a specific land use

also can influence the intensity of the associated environmental impacts on urban

forests.

Because several other factors influence the size, distribution, and condition of forest

resources (for example, maintenance efforts, storms, insect and disease outbreaks),

broad generalizations cannot be made on the relation between forest structure and

the age of an area or the duration of a land use. Observations from the Chicago study

indicate, however, that forest structure may be related to the history of the geographic

area; for example, because the inner city often has older, more established land use

sectors than suburban areas have, one might expect a higher proportion of large,

mature trees in Chicago than in suburban Cook or DuPage Counties. Results show

that the relative percentage of large trees within land uses generally decreases from

Chicago to suburban Cook and DuPage Counties (appendix 3). Similarly, the percentage of trees in good to excellent condition across all land uses gradually increases from

Chicago (59.9 percent) to suburban Cook (65.4 percent) and DuPage (67.7 percent)

Counties.

Table 13—Distribution of land uses by geographic area for the 2-county

Chicago area

Portion of total geographic area

Suburban

Land use Chicago Cook Co. DuPage Co. All

Percent

Agriculture 0.1 12.6 20.9 12.5

Commercial and industrial 25.3 14.2 9.7 15.1

Institutional (building)a 4.7 3.8 3.2 3.8

Institutional (vegetation)b 8.4 17.8 10.4 14.2

Multiresidentialc 7.7 2.1 2.4 3.2

Residentiald 40.1 37.9 41.1 39.1

Transportation 10.9 4.0 2.7 4.9

Vacant 2.7 7.6 9.6 7.2

All land 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

a

 Institutional land dominated by buildings (schools, hospitals).

b

 Institutional land dominated by vegetation (parks, cemeteries, golf courses).

c

 Buildings with 4 or more apartment units.

d

 1- to 3-family residential units.

Source: McPherson and others 1993.

Duration of Land Use

and Site History
55

The most notable difference in tree condition among the three geographic areas is in

their street tree populations (appendix 3). Only 71.3 percent of the street tree population in the Chicago area was classified as in good to excellent condition. This proportion climbs significantly for the street tree populations of suburban Cook (82.9 percent)

and DuPage Counties (85.3 percent). This gradient in street tree conditions is most

likely the result of differences in tree maturity across the three areas. The street tree

population in Chicago contains a higher proportion of large, mature trees likely to be in

declining condition (appendix 3). The health and condition of this street tree population

also may reflect harsh environmental conditions common in densely populated, highly

developed areas.

Through time, older areas may exhibit a decrease in tree cover as mature trees, remnants of past planting programs, decline and are removed. Thus, generalizations about

forest structure based on the duration of the land use are limited. The specific site history (for example, planting schedules, storms, and outbreaks of insects and disease)

plays an important role in determining current attributes of urban forest structure.

A critical factor in determining urban forest structure is the nature of management

activities (Sanders 1984). In areas where management activities are limited, natural

regeneration, growth, and development processes dominate and strongly influence

vegetation patterns. Under these conditions, future forest structures can be predicted

from natural plant succession processes in conjunction with alterations to succession

from byproducts of urbanization (for example, pollution, increased temperatures, introduction of exotic species) (Nowak 1991).

In areas where vegetation is managed, management practices combine with plant

succession and developmental processes to shape vegetation structure. Many factors influence the type and frequency of management activities that occur on parcels

of urban land. These factors include (1) land use (What vegetation structure enhances

the functions of the land?), (2) ownership (Is the land publicly or privately owned and

managed?), (3) available resources to maintain and manage vegetation (funds, equipment, and information), and (4) goals of vegetation managers (What benefits do land

owners want from urban vegetation?).

Because individual land uses often involve similar goals and management practices,

characteristic patterns of vegetation and other resources tend to occur within land

uses; for example, vegetation on residential properties often is managed to provide

aesthetic quality, privacy, shade, places for relaxation, and liability reduction. These

goals often yield the controlled and well-maintained landscapes seen in residential

neighborhoods across urban areas. In these areas, management activities, such as

tree planting and removal, lawn mowing, and use of herbicides, directly alter urban

forest structure. Other land uses, such as nature preserves and vacant areas, may

have limited or no management activities; these areas are more likely to have vegetation patterns driven largely by natural forest succession.

Forest structure also can vary within an individual land use. This variation often is the

result of differing management goals and activities among different tracts and land

owners. For public urban forest holdings, citizen input and perceived public interest

affect the overall management goals (for example, to decrease liability of damage by

trees or enhance public recreational opportunities). If the land is privately owned, the

type and frequency of management activities are determined by the land owner’s specific goals, personal preferences, knowledge, and available resources. One homeowner may take great pride and have ample resources to invest in intensive care of

Management Activities
56

his or her yard, while another resident may prefer to leave vegetation on his or her property largely unmanaged. Because goals, preferences, and financial resources differ

among the multiple owners of the urban forest, the extent and condition of forest resources can differ considerably across a land use, even at the neighborhood or block

level.

The large-scale variation in urban forest resources is partly a function of the different

planning and land use zoning decisions made for particular areas. These decisions

govern the configuration of land uses and ultimately influence the systemwide interactions among land uses, land owners, and management activities. Understanding the

effects of previous city planning and land use zoning decisions on urban areas and

their forest resources is a crucial step in designing new management programs to improve the urban environment. Through recognition of the relation among land use, land

owners, management activities, and forest structure, future plans may be developed to

either continue previous successes or avoid past mistakes.

The data from Chicago, Oakland, and other U.S. cities illustrate how urban forest resources can differ across various land uses and varying degrees of urban development. Contributing at least as much to the complexity of the urban ecosystem are the

connections among these resource components within and across urban areas—

connections involving vegetation and wildlife, people and institutions, buildings, roads,

and utilities. These links may bring desirable outcomes (psychological benefits to

people from trees) or undesirable ones (conflicts between trees and utilities). Urban

natural resources combine across the urban system to influence landscape-level attributes such as air and water quality, microclimatology, wildlife habitat, recreational

opportunities, the risk of fire and outbreaks of insects and disease, and numerous

urban-wildland interactions.

The connectedness of the urban forest is easily observed at the site scale. People and

wildlife are influenced by vegetation—trees and shrubs provide aesthetic quality, shade,

opportunities for recreation, and other benefits to urban residents while supplying food

and shelter for animals. Urban infrastructure is affected by vegetation— trees can

buckle roads and sidewalks and can grow into power lines and water and sewer systems. Vegetation is influenced by people, their institutions, and their developments—

residents manage their properties; they establish regulations and agencies to plant,

maintain, and remove vegetation; and people alter existing vegetation with the development of new neighborhoods and shopping malls to accommodate growth.

The interactions among these elements extend beyond the site scale and link properties and land uses across the urban system. Corridors of trees and associated resources can connect land uses along rivers, greenways, and transportation routes

(Gobster 1995, Gobster and Westphal 1998, Westphal 1997, Westphal and Gobster

1995). These corridors often facilitate the movement of wildlife and people and may be

attractive areas for outdoor activities including hiking, walking for pleasure, and observing nature. At the same time, trees can form boundaries between different land uses,

such as screening commercial and industrial areas from nearby residences. Loss of

these screens has led to conflict and controversy involving those who live nearby

(Gobster 1997, Ross 1997, Shore 1997). Trees and associated resources perform

the joint functions of partitions and bridges throughout the urban environment.

Resource

Connections Within

and Across the

Urban System
57

In many instances, the management and use of adjacent holdings are linked. Residential resource management may be strongly influenced by the management of nearby

residences, street trees, parks, and forest preserves. Similarly, the management of

street trees, parks, and forest preserves may be influenced by nearby residential

landowners.

Urban forest research shows that forest resources interact across an urban area to

have a cumulative effect on several important attributes at the landscape level. The

structure and function of vegetation at a broad scale can influence livability of an urban

area as well as the quality of the extended environment. Connections among urban

forests and other components of the urban ecosystem can influence features such as

the following:

Air and water quality: Industrial properties, automobiles, and tree canopies interact to

influence air quality in urban areas and beyond. Trees can influence air quality by reducing temperature, removing air pollutants, emitting volatile organic compounds that

contribute to formation of ozone and carbon monoxide, and altering building energy

use, which subsequently affects pollutant emissions from utilities (Nowak and others

1998). In addition, the mix of tree canopy and other ground covers, such as buildings,

paved surfaces, and vegetation, throughout an urban area can significantly influence

the runoff from precipitation. Changes in tree canopy and ground cover can have serious implications for flooding and the need for water retention and flood control structures (Neville 1996, Sanders 1986). Urban forest management activities and use also

can influence air and water quality. For these reasons, the management of urban trees

and associated resources can be an integral part of air quality and water resource management across an urban system and beyond.

Local climate: Urban forests affect local climate, including air temperature, wind

speed, relative humidity, and ultraviolet radiation loads. The presence of trees and

other vegetation in urban areas can help to offset the formation of urban heat islands

(Moll and Berish 1996). Accordingly, appropriate urban tree selection, design, and management can positively influence the urban atmosphere and the health and well-being

of urban residents (Akbari and others 1992, Heisler and others 1995, Nowak and

others 1998).

Wildlife habitat: A number of holdings in the urban environment may collectively form

critical habitats for wildlife. The optimal configuration of habitat can differ widely with

wildlife species, but an intricate system of tracts and corridors throughout an urban

area often provides habitats and the means for wildlife to move through the urban system. Sightings of deer and other animals throughout many urban systems offer ample

evidence of these phenomena. Management of wildlife habitats for particular species

may require an approach encompassing the entire urban system with an understanding

of its relation to surrounding areas.

Opportunities for outdoor recreation: The interactions among people, their developments, and natural resources can influence opportunities for outdoor recreation in urban areas. The holdings may include extensive areas and corridors, such as corporate

and educational campuses, zoos, parks, and nature trails, where sports, hiking, and

nature study are popular. Environmental education programs administered in these

areas can help to connect people with natural resources in the urban environment.
58

Risk of fire and outbreaks of insects and disease: Fires, insects, and diseases do

not recognize boundaries between land use types in urban forests or between urban

and exurban ecosystems. Vegetation structure and management in one area can influence the extent to which outbreaks can affect surrounding areas (Nowak 1993b,

Nowak and McBride 1992). Consequently, the prevention of fire ignition and spread

and management of serious insect or disease problems in urban areas often require a

systemwide approach. This has happened with Dutch elm disease (Ceratocystis ulmi),

gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), oak wilt (Ceratocystis fagacearum), and the Asian

longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabrapennis).

Urban-wildland interface interactions: The system of forests with which urban residents interact is continuing to extend beyond the boundaries of urban areas (Bradley

1984, Ewert and others 1993). This expansion has brought urban needs, concerns,

and impacts to the attention of many natural resource managers. Increasing urban

influences on previously exurban areas not only requires managers to consider the

needs of their growing urban constituency but also forces them to adjust their management tactics to address the environmental consequences of urban expansion (for example, soil compaction, litter, pollution, and introduction of exotic plants and animals).

The increased attention given to urban National Forests reflects this trend.

The combined influences of vegetation and wildlife, people and their institutions, and

urban infrastructure on the large-scale attributes listed above ultimately determine the

overall character of an urban area and its surrounding environment. Changes to the

elements of the urban system can significantly alter landscape features because of the

complex interactions involved.

As urban development expands into rural areas, many of the land use and vegetation

patterns, influences, and interactions previously described for cities move outward. The

attributes of forest resources in urban areas provide a forecast of the natural resource

health, use, and management issues likely to emerge with development of rural areas.

By understanding urban issues and influences, forest resource managers can anticipate changes in exurban areas as they develop. This forethought is critical to establishing appropriate management plans for an urbanizing ecosystem.

Urban expansion is inherently associated with increases in population and population

density. These changes trigger a diversification of land uses as residential neighborhoods, associated developments (commercial and business, utilities, parks, schools,

and religious institutions), and additional infrastructure (sewers and power lines) are

constructed to accommodate growth. The expansion of business opportunities, establishment of transportation corridors, and immigration of new residents to developing

areas brings an influx of financial, natural, and human resources.

With the influx of new land owners and resources comes an array of needs, concerns,

perceptions, and management goals. As the urban forest is increasingly shared among

multiple owners, conflicts regarding desired urban forest structure and function likely

will emerge. Systemwide management becomes increasingly difficult without specific

programs to coordinate management efforts.

Because different land uses contain a range of vegetation covers, the expansion of

cities brings an increased variability in vegetation cover types and available growing

space. Changes in land use also may include direct tree and forest removal, such as

clearing land for residential development, or bring efforts to increase tree cover (for

example, tree planting in residential areas or parks). Further, with the detrimental

Consequences of

Urban Expansion

Changes in Human

Population and

Distribution of

Land Uses

Changes in Community

Desires and Management

Goals

Changes in Forest

Structure
59

effects of increased land and resource use (such as soil compaction, soil contamination, and other pollution), the introduction of new hazards, including diseases, nonnative insects, and fires, may reduce the extent of tree cover in the developing area.

Postdevelopment replanting efforts may replace mature forest resources with new

trees and shrubs, thus changing the distribution of young vs. old, small vs. large, and

healthy vs. dying trees within the developing area. The introduction of non-native pests

and pathogens also could affect the proportion of healthy vs. dying trees. Selection of

non-native tree species for planting or accidental transport of non-native competitive

species via railroads, cars, and ships can alter the species composition of the developing area over time. Detrimental environmental impacts from development activities

(such as erosion, flooding, and trampling) also may affect the quality of existing forest

resources.

By directly impacting the physical, biological, and social elements of the ecosystem, the

interactions among these elements are likely to change. Because these connections

shape the overall character of the environment, the expansion of urbanization has

landscape-level consequences; both the removal of vegetation and the resource intensity of urban development impose substantial pressures on the environment. Air and

water pollution, soil erosion, solid and hazardous waste, and urban heat islands are just

a few of the potential impacts from the expansion of urban areas.

City planning and land use zoning efforts affect the extent and distribution of urban forest resources over an entire urban area. The distribution of land use patterns affects

the configurations of forests across an urban area. Sound planning and zoning can

minimize some of the negative impacts associated with urbanization.

Urban forests are complex ecosystems. Trees and ground cover, buildings, infrastructure, wildlife, and human populations all contribute to the diversity of urban forests,

interacting to create intricate relations among the components of the system. These

interactions influence the character of an urban area, affecting attributes such as air

and water quality, local climate zones, wildlife and wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, the risk of fire and pest outbreaks, and urban-wildland interactions.

The unique physical, biological, and social elements of each neighborhood create vegetation structures that differ across the entire urban area. The extent of tree canopy,

species composition, tree sizes, and tree condition changes across the urban landscape, adding to the complexity of the urban forest ecosystem.

Trees play an important role in urban areas, particularly when connected with other elements of the urban environment and natural resource systems. Trees and associated

resources can help form bridges, or greenways, among natural areas in the urban environment. Trees also can form barriers that separate land uses, sometimes screening

commercial and industrial areas from residences. Forest stands in urban areas also

represent avenues for wildlife, hikers, and other recreationists to travel through the urban system and to reach the exurban wilderness.

Multiple factors, including ecotype, land use, duration of land use, intensity of urbanization, and type of management activities, can influence the extent, use, and management of urban forests. These factors affect the space and opportunities for tree establishment and growth, as well as the suitability of environmental conditions to sustain

urban forest resources through time.

Changes in Local and

Regional Landscape

Connections

Review
60

Comprehensive studies in Chicago and Oakland highlighted substantial variation in the

extent, distribution, and condition of urban forest resources across different land uses

and among locations within the urban system. This diversity and variability complicate

vegetation management by blending the social, economic, and physical attributes of

urban systems with natural environmental factors, thereby resulting in connections both

across and among urban ecosystems. Because the urban system represents a mosaic

of land uses and land owners across both intensely urbanized and less developed

lands, the variation in the character of vegetation across an entire system is remarkable. This large-scale variation in forest resources across urban areas is partly a function of the different planning and land use zoning decisions made for particular areas.

These decisions govern the configuration of land uses, and ultimately influence the

systemwide interactions among land uses, land owners, and management activities.

The expansion of urban areas into less developed rural areas brings several important

changes to the surrounding environment. Diversification of land uses, increasing intensity of development, increasing populations, and influx of financial and material

resources all accompany urban sprawl. The expansion of urban centers brings alterations to the extent of tree cover, species composition, the configuration of the forest

and associated resources, and distribution of tree age, size, and condition. The resulting forest becomes a hybrid of remnant trees and newly established vegetation across

the urban landscape.
61

Human activities and natural events combine to change the urban forest landscape

over time. These changes, in turn, influence the direction of resource management and

the flow of benefits from urban forest resources. By identifying the forces for change

important in the past, planners and managers can anticipate and prepare for pressures

likely to influence the structure, management, and use of urban forests in the future.

Management efforts can enhance urban forests and their benefits by minimizing or

moderating undesirable changes and encouraging favorable changes. Because many

of the important forces for change in the urban forest result from individual choices and

public decisions, cooperation among forest managers, planners, government agencies,

and the public is critical to effectively manage the urban forest ecosystem over time.

The forces that can alter urban forest structure, management, and use over time can

be classified into four general categories: direct human, indirect human, direct natural,

and indirect natural (Nowak 1993b). Human forces include activities that either directly

change the character of the urban forest (for example, tree planting and removal) or

indirectly transform forest structure through alteration of land use patterns, human preferences, or the physical environment. Direct natural forces include weather events,

fire, and insects. Examples of natural phenomena that indirectly modify urban forest

structure and management are population and demographic shifts that may occur in

an area owing to the influx of people from areas where natural disasters have occurred.

Urban forests differ most markedly from exurban forests in that the forces exerting the

most influence on their structure, use, and management are direct human forces. The

relative impact of direct human forces varies across urban areas, with city centers and

the urban fringe often the most heavily affected.

Urban tree planting and maintenance are important direct forces for change in the

urban forest. Urban residents own and manage a majority of the urban forest resource

in most cities. They consequently have a tremendous influence on forest structure. In

addition, more residents are becoming involved in the management of public urban

forest resources. Community-based forestry programs facilitate citizen involvement in

planting and maintenance of public trees along streets, in parks, and other areas (for

Chapter 4: Temporal Change in the

Urban Forest

Introduction

Direct Human

Forces

Urban Resident

Involvement in Tree

Planting and

Maintenance
62

example, TreeKeepers) (Dwyer and Schroeder 1995; Grove and others 1993; Nannini

and others 1998; Schroeder 1998; Sommer 1997; Sommer and others 1994, 1995;

Westphal 1994, 1995a, 1995b; Westphal and Childs 1994).

Citizen preferences for the composition, size, and location of urban forests can significantly influence urban forest structure in parks, in natural areas, at schools, at

churches, and in residential neighborhoods. Particular species or plant communities

often become popular among urban residents. Popular urban tree species currently

include red maple (Acer rubrum L.), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.), callery

pear (Pyrus calleryana Decne.), honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.), crab apple

(Malus spp.), and Norway maple (A. platanoides L.) (Nowak and Sydnor 1992). Another

trend in urban natural resource management that is influencing species composition is

a growing public interest in restoring, protecting, and maintaining native plant communities (Gobster 1997; Nassauer 1993, 1997; Raffetto 1993; Ross 1997; Shore 1997).

Funds from a wide range of sources have become available to facilitate tree-planting

projects of varying scales. In addition to supporting tree planting projects, the allocation

of funds to municipal park and public works agencies also finances long-term maintenance programs for urban forest resources. Frequently, funds for tree planting are

more easily secured than funds for subsequent tree maintenance and long-term forest

management. Because both external and internal funding sources for urban forest

management can fluctuate, urban forest structure, condition, and character may

change considerably over time.

Relocation, maintenance, expansion, and upgrading of roads, power lines, pipelines,

water management structures, and other components of the urban infrastructure have

important implications for change in the urban forest. Many urban trees are found

along streets, within utility rights-of-way, and in other areas where much of the urban

infrastructure is concentrated. The installation, replacement, and removal of electrical

cables, sewers, and gas pipelines can result in substantial alterations to surrounding

vegetation. These influences can occur both above and below the ground and are

particularly significant in developing areas.

Some utilities are experiencing failures of underground cables installed in the 1970s.

Since the installation of these underground utilities, landscapes have matured in the

areas surrounding them. The spread of tree roots and shrubs into utility systems complicates the removal and replacement of infrastructure elements and often causes utility

management to significantly modify the entangled vegetation (Goodfellow 1989).

Continuous alterations to urban infrastructure can drastically change the urban forest,

not only through direct removal, modification, or damage to existing trees, but also

through the creation of opportunities for establishment of new vegetation in areas

where infrastructure has been abandoned (such as deserted roads, railways, and

parking lots).

Perhaps the most powerful human force directly influencing urban forest structure is

land use change. Developments to create residential neighborhoods, parks, and related land uses directly influence forest structure and associated management activities. The expansion of residential neighborhoods into areas with a heavy tree canopy

cover can change urban forest structure by removing existing vegetation to provide

space for new residences and their associated infrastructure, and through the subsequent planting of vegetation after the development is established. The amount,

configuration, and condition of urban forest resources within a particular land use also

Plant Community and

Species Preferences

Influx of Funds to Plant

Trees and Other

Vegetation

Management of Urban

Infrastructure

Land Use Change
63

may change over time. In some areas of the United States, particularly in the Midwest

and parts of the West, cities continue to expand into previously cleared croplands, pasture, and rangeland. In these areas, residential tree planting associated with urbanization increases the extent and density of tree cover. For some cities, the movement of

people and industrial and commercial developments out of inner city areas brings

transformations in the inner city land use and urban infrastructure that create opportunities to establish new natural areas. These changes may provide space for tree planting

and natural regeneration of forest resources.

In many regions of the United States, cities are extending into surrounding forested

landscapes, thereby causing substantial changes to the character of existing forests.

As rural and heavily forested areas continue to experience high rates of population

growth, the diversification of land use patterns from urban expansion likely will trigger

additional changes in forest resources over time. Because they impose urban pressures on resources outside of urban areas, these developments link forest resources

and management issues in urban centers with those in exurban areas. Not only are

resources altered by urban development and the associated land use changes, but

these changes also influence the types and urgency of management issues across the

landscape.

Developments in management techniques (for example, plant propagation, tree planting and removal techniques, and insect and disease controls) can bring changes in the

structure and health of urban trees and forests. Innovations in pest management programs, for instance, may significantly improve the condition of urban forest resources

and increase and prolong urban forest benefits. Changes in the directions of urban forest management also may modify the urban forest structure to correspond with a community’s current management goals. Changes in management priorities, as well as

improvements in the means of achieving urban forest benefits, can bring considerable

variation in urban forest structure and management.

Research on the environmental, physiological, psychological, health, and social benefits of urban natural resources indicates that urban forests can be instrumental in maintaining and improving environmental quality and human well-being. Increasing concern

for the quality of the urban environment and urban life is expanding interest in the contribution of urban trees to these concepts. As a result, many partnerships among urban

residents, municipal officials, and agencies concerned with natural resources, environmental quality, human health, and social well-being have been established (Bradshaw

1995, Loomis 1995, Piotrowski 1995, Westphal 1995a). These efforts involve a wide

range of state and Federal agencies and their local partners in the management of urban forests. Community partnerships indirectly alter the extent and quality of urban

forest resources by facilitating citizen participation in natural resource management.

Involvement in urban forestry projects may provide a catalytic boost to other community

improvement activities, particularly in communities lacking cohesion or feeling disenfranchised from traditional government programs.

Elevated citizen concern regarding the contribution of trees and forests to environmental quality and human well-being in urban areas also can have an impact on management of forest resources outside urban areas. The interest and participation of

urban residents in urban forest management can encourage concern, enrollment, and

political action in large-scale regional natural resource issues. Increasing environmental

awareness among urban residents can indirectly alter forests in exurban areas by promoting participation in the development and implementation of natural resource policies

and management programs.

Development of

New Urban Forest

Management Techniques

Indirect Human

Forces

Increased Interest in

Quality of Urban

Environment and Urban

Life
64

Changes in the character of the urban population often trigger alterations in the management and use of urban forest resources. Some of the differences in preferences

between past and current residents may be associated with age, income, education,

and racial and ethnic background. Increases in the age and racial and ethnic diversity

of a community are associated with differences in the types and frequency of leisure

activities, travel patterns, and the use of urban forests and other outdoor environments

(Dwyer 1994). Such population shifts may result in altered trends in public use of parks

and other open spaces, as well as changes in public interest and participation in a wide

range of resource management activities.

Changing population characteristics also can influence the extent to which residents

benefit from the effects of urban vegetation. The contributions of urban vegetation to

air and water quality are likely to have a particularly significant impact in communities

at increased risk from the detrimental effects of urban development. Investigation

of some population and development trends may help to identify areas having the

greatest need for certain urban forest benefits; for instance, particulate air pollution has

been tied to increased hospital admissions for children with acute respiratory ailments

and older people with heart and lung problems (Shprentz 1996). Other individuals more

likely to be affected by air pollution are those with preexisting disease, those exposed

to outdoor air pollution (Lipfert 1994), and those with an increased susceptibility to the

detrimental health effects from air pollution due to both the cumulative impacts of their

depressed socioeconomic conditions (for example, malnutrition, poor living conditions,

and emotional stress) and their continued exposure to other urban environmental

stresses (Sexton and others 1993). These at-risk populations are likely to benefit

substantially from reductions in air pollution that can be provided by urban trees. To

address the changing needs of an urban community, urban forest managers need to

be aware of areas with environmental health issues, susceptible populations, and how

they both change over time.

The migration of urban citizens to more rural settings stimulates the development of

new residential neighborhoods, associated infrastructure, and commercial developments. Changes in population and land uses in developing suburban and rural areas

often bring modifications to the structure and management of forest resources.

Coupled with urban expansion is an increasing range of land uses, which can have direct impacts on ground and canopy cover, available growing space, and other dimensions of urban forest structure. In addition, the changing population characteristics of

these urbanizing areas can bring changes in the perceptions and desires of local residents about natural resources and their management. Urbanites who move to new

residential communities at the urban-wildland interface or in exurban areas may have

different perceptions and attitudes about some aspects of natural resource management than long-time rural residents, who may have environmental concerns and preferences originating from agriculture, mining, timber production, tourism, and associated “rural” activities. Urban residents who move to interface or rural areas may take a

strong interest in forests and the benefits that they provide in urbanizing environments.

These individuals may be important catalysts for changes in forest resource management and use.

The establishment of new residential developments in and near forests frequently influences forest structure and management strategies. Homes intermingled with a forest environment can impose new hazards to forest health, including an increased risk

of forest fires, as well as the introduction of insects, disease, and exotic plants and

animals. Residential developments near forests also can trigger increased forest use,

Changing Character of

the Urban Population

Urban to Rural Migration

and New Developments

Across the Landscape
65

leading to trampling and compaction of forest soils and vegetation; creation of edge

habitats due to opening of forest stands for development; introduction of exotic plants

and animals; increased pet predation on wildlife; and increased releases of pesticides,

herbicides, or other toxic substances that may impact forest health. These factors can

directly affect forest structure, functions, and management needs.

Significant amounts of materials and energy are used to develop and sustain the urban

ecosystem. The use of energy (primarily fossil fuel) and other natural resources produces byproducts, such as air and water pollution, carbon dioxide emissions, and heat,

that alter the local, regional, and global environment.1 These modifications (global climate change, reduced stratospheric ozone, and associated increase in ultraviolet radiation and air and water pollution) can impact structure and health of vegetation. Plant

communities may change according to their ability to adapt to changes in microclimate

and pollution levels.

An increasing number of public, private, and not-for-profit groups are becoming involved in the management of urban forest resources. Much of the involvement has

resulted from a growing recognition of the significance of urban forest benefits. Many

groups have assembled as part of community-based beautification and revitalization

efforts. The benefits that individuals and communities receive from their involvement

in establishing and managing urban forests have become important considerations in

the development and enhancement of urban communities (Bradshaw 1995; Grove

and others 1993; Loomis 1995; Piotrowski 1995; Schroeder 1998, Sommer and others

1994, 1995; Westphal 1995a, 1995b).

Many early volunteer efforts in urban forestry were in response to cutbacks in local

public forestry programs. Those efforts have subsequently led to more widespread

undertakings, including partnerships that involve volunteers, community groups, public

agencies, and private groups in projects to support and improve the effectiveness of

urban and community forestry programs. Expanded training of volunteers has enabled

these groups to take on an ambitious agenda (Ross 1994), thus increasing the impacts

on the structure and management of the urban forest.

New developments in remote sensing, global positioning equipment, resource inventory

technology, and geographic information systems offer significant promise for improved

and expanded measurement, monitoring, and mapping of the urban forest and associated resources. These tools could provide managers and planners with an increased

ability to obtain relatively low-cost, accurate information on the status and trends of urban forest resources. The ability to effectively monitor the structure of the urban forest

and document trends over space and time is likely to have a significant impact on forest resource management. An improved information base regarding the urban forest

resource could lead to considerable advancements in managing urban forests to increase the flow of provided benefits.

Byproducts of

Urbanization

Involvement of New

Individuals and Groups

in Forest Management

New Developments in

Measurement and

Monitoring Tools

1 Birdsey, R.A.; Alig, R.; Adams, D. Mitigation options in

the forest sector to reduce emissions or enhance sinks

of greenhouse gases. Manuscript in preparation. R. Alig

is at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry

Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way,

Corvallis, OR 97331.
66

Episodes of extreme precipitation or temperature are likely to have a direct influence

on the survival, growth, and development of the urban forest. Communities enduring

droughts, flooding, and freezing rain and temperatures frequently experience substantial loss of urban forest resources. Some of the problems caused by extreme intensity

or duration of precipitation and temperature events can be reduced by planting species

able to tolerate these extremes (for example, drought-tolerant or winter-hardy species).

Just as extreme temperature and precipitation events can impact urban forest health,

the frequency and intensity of storms (high winds, thunderstorms, ice storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes) also can cause considerable damage to the forest structure.

Although relatively little can be done to prevent vegetation change in severe storm

events or other natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.), some forethought

about species selection, location, and management can reduce the impacts (Andresen

and Burban 1993).

Urban wildfires can pose a significant threat to the extent, structure, and health of urban

forests (Laughlin and Page 1987). Fire episodes may become increasingly common

as urban developments expand into areas where wildfires are common (for example,

chaparral vegetation) (Lotan and others 1978). Vegetation structure can be managed,

however, to help reduce the spread of wildfires in urban areas (Fischer and Arno 1988).

Natural regeneration is an important force for change in some urban forests, particularly in areas of the country where trees naturally regenerate (for example, in forest

ecotypes) and management practices do not control or limit regeneration (for example,

mowing grass). This natural force for the establishment and evolution of the urban

forest is especially evident in land uses containing a considerable amount of available

space for tree establishment and growth, such as vacant lands, transportation and

utility corridors, uncultivated agricultural lands, and natural areas and preserves.

Extensive tree planting efforts in an urban area over a short time often lead to an evenaged urban forest structure. At maturity, such forests may be subject to substantial

losses, within a limited time frame, due to tree decline, mortality, and subsequent removal. These even-aged urban forest stands can be found in parks, residential areas,

and other surrounding areas and may date to the establishment of the city or neighborhood. Under these circumstances, considerable changes in urban forest structure can

occur in these areas over relatively short periods.

Outbreaks of insects and diseases can have profound impacts on the urban forest and

its management. Several aspects of urban environment and vegetation management

practices can influence the potential for insect and disease episodes; for example,

urban stresses (air pollution, increased temperatures, compacted soils, and humaninduced tree injuries) on vegetation may increase forest susceptibility to insects and

diseases (Manion 1981). The proximity of urban areas to natural forest stands and

management practices within both urban and exurban areas (for example, pruning

wounds, watering, fertilization, forest configuration) can affect the incidence of insects

and diseases within an area, their movement between areas, and tree susceptibility to

insect and disease infestations (Nowak and McBride 1992).

The frequent movement of people and materials within and between urban areas

creates opportunities for distribution of pests. Notable examples of pest dispersal due

to human transportation include the gypsy moth, whose egg masses have been spread

by people, vehicles, and belongings leaving infested areas (Knight and Heikkenen

Direct Natural

Forces

Extreme Precipitation or

Temperature Events

Storms and Other

Natural Disasters

Fire

Natural Regeneration

Aging of the Existing

Forest

Insect and Disease

Outbreaks
67

1980); the Asian form of the gypsy moth that was introduced at various points in the

United States by ships from Siberia and Germany (USDA Forest Service 1994); and

the Asian longhorned beetle that was recently introduced into this country via shipments

from China (Barden 1997b, Stout 1996). The Asian longhorned beetle is the most destructive forest pest in China and has the potential to significantly alter forest structure,

particularly in forests dominated by maples (Barden 1997a). As of June 1998, 2,011

beetle-infested trees had been removed from the New York City area alone. Initial quarantine zones are expanding, as new beetle infestations have been found outside the

original zones.2 In 1998, three separate infestations were reported in the Chicago area

(USDA Forest Service 1998a).

Urban forest resources also have been severely damaged by other insects and diseases. Dutch elm disease, for example, has precipitated the loss of many trees, leaving

parts of some urban communities barren of tree cover. Species-specific epidemics like

Dutch elm disease have revealed the risks involved with limited species diversity in the

urban forest. As with the decline of even-aged forest stands, insect and disease outbreaks can markedly alter some urban forests in a short time, especially those with

limited species diversity.

Even though urban residents may express considerable concern over forest health,

insects, and diseases, human health concerns may limit the range of management

responses, particularly the use of chemical pesticides and other pest management

techniques.

Although the immediate impacts of indirect natural forces for change in urban forests

are relatively modest, their long-term effects on urban forest structure can be important.

Major natural disasters may displace human populations into new locations. These demographic shifts and associated developments can trigger alterations to the urban forests in areas experiencing a new population influx. Isolated natural disasters also may

alter the regional environment and impact forest health in other ways; for example, the

heat, ash, and chemical emissions from volcanic eruptions can indirectly degrade forest health in surrounding regions by changing environmental conditions (acidic and

particulate deposition). Though not likely of immediate concern, the total impact of indirect natural forces over time can bring significant modifications to the use and management of urban forests.

Both human and natural forces can directly and indirectly impact the structure and

management of urban forest resources. Whether from cumulative impacts of human

activity or the immediate consequences of natural disasters, the extent, shape, and

characteristics of urban forests constantly change to present new issues, questions,

and opportunities for management. With the fluctuation of human and environmental

pressures over time, changes in urban forest resources can occur gradually or suddenly. An understanding of the potential forces for change in an urban forest requires

knowledge of the local population, environment, and history.

Detailed information on the history of urban forests in the United States is scarce (for

example, McPherson and Haip 1989, McPherson and Luttinger 1998, Nowak 1993b).

Data regarding trends in urban forest management also are limited (for example,

Kielbaso 1990, Tschantz and Sacamano 1994). Although specific details on the history

Indirect Natural

Forces

Examples of

Temporal Variation

in an Urban Forest

2 Personal communication. 1998. Bernard Raimo,

entomologist, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern

Research Station, Louis C. Wyman Forestry Sciences

Laboratory, 271 Mast Road, P.O. Box 640, Durham, NH

03824-0640.
68

and development of urban forests and their management differ significantly across the

country, the general patterns of change encountered in cities are likely to be similar. To

provide specific examples of how forces for change influence urban forest structure, the

following sections illustrate historical changes in the urban forest resources of Oakland,

CA (Nowak 1993b), and the recent alterations to the urban forest of Atlanta, GA (Moll

and Berish 1996).

Oakland has changed drastically from a preurbanized area (c. 1850) with about

2 percent tree cover to a thriving metropolis with a present tree cover of 19 percent

(fig. 18). The species composition of trees was dominated previously by coast live oak,

California-laurel, and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens (D.Don) Endl.) and currently is dominated by blue gum, Monterey pine, and coast live oak. Oakland’s tree

species composition has increased from about 10 species to more than 350. Tree

species diversity, as expressed by the Shannon-Weiner diversity index, increased

from about 1.9 in 1850 to 5.1 in 1988.

Many factors throughout the history of Oakland have brought changes in the vegetative

structure. A chronology of some of these factors illustrates how many different forces

can bring about such changes. The incorporation of the city of Oakland occurred in

1852, but the first two “events” listed in the chronology happened before then.

1500 B.C. to early 1800s: Costanoan Indians (forces for change category: direct

human)—The Costanoan Indians deliberately manipulated the vegetation of the

Oakland area. They altered the native oak stand composition and its extent by

burning vegetation to facilitate the collection of acorns.

1840s: Discovery of gold in California and removal of redwoods (direct and

indirect human)—With the gold rush in 1848 came an overwhelming demand for construction lumber, and by 1860 not a single redwood was left in Oakland. Besides decimating the redwoods, the gold rush also brought a large influx of immigrants and

began the urbanization of Oakland.

1850 to 1890s: Early city development and destruction of native oak stand (direct

human)—The development of a grid street pattern in a stand of coast live oak was a

key component of the early urbanization of Oakland. This development gradually destroyed the dominant coast live oak stand. By the 1890s, nearly all the original oaks

were gone. As trees and other natural resources were replaced with roads and buildings, the structure of Oakland’s forest changed markedly.

1880s through 1920s: Afforestation of Oakland hills (direct human)—The first

major afforestation effort in the Oakland hills was coordinated by Joaquin Miller, who

purchased 27.92 hectares (69 acres) and proceeded to plant pines, cypress, acacia,

and eucalyptus. More large-scale plantings were accomplished around the start of the

20th century for three major purposes: (1) “primarily as a measure against the recurring

fires that almost every year swept over the hills...” (Oakland Tribune 1923); (2) to increase the value of land holdings; and (3) to generate revenue from future sales of

eucalyptus trees for lumber. From 1910 to 1913, Frank Havens planted between 1 and

8 million trees (mostly eucalyptus) on the hills in and around Oakland for eventual sale

to lumber producers. The eucalyptus boom ended in 1913, and the trees were never

harvested, so that many of these trees still dominate the Oakland hills today.

Oakland
69

1903: City involvement in street tree planting (direct human)—In the early 1900s,

the “city beautiful movement” began. During this period, the city of Oakland gave increasing attention to urban vegetation. In 1903, a citizen committee was organized;

it persuaded the city to begin a street tree-planting program.

1906: San Francisco earthquake (indirect natural)—After the 1906 earthquake, a

large influx of people relocated to Oakland to escape the damage in San Francisco.

This sudden increase in population prompted a housing boom that directly altered

Oakland’s vegetation in a relatively short time.

1920s: Start of the automobile era (indirect human)—The automobile allowed residents to live farther from places of employment, thereby expediting housing developments outside the city. Oakland rapidly expanded into the surrounding hills during this

era. In 1923, the number of dwellings built increased 900 percent over the number built

during the previous 5 years. Though indirectly affecting urban forest structure, the use

of the automobile and other transportation systems has been a powerful human force

in the evolution of urban natural resources over time.

Early 1940s: World War II (indirect human)—World War II brought an increase in

jobs, thereby increasing Oakland’s population. The war also facilitated a shift in the

socioeconomic makeup of Oakland, with a large increase in women and minorities.

These alterations to the socioeconomic character of Oakland’s population likely

prompted changes in preferences for vegetation and its management.

Figure 18—Estimated historical changes in percentage of tree cover in Oakland, CA, based on data

collected from 1850, 1939, 1959, 1988, and 1992. Tree cover probably remained relatively static in the late

1800s because destruction of cover from removal of oaks and redwoods was offset by tree plantings

associated with new developments and orchards. Tree cover increased around 1900 owing to afforestation

of the Oakland hills and continuing development in grasslands. Loss of cover in 1991 was associated with

the Oakland fire.

0

5

10

15

20

25

1850 1900 1950 199

Year

Tree cover (percent)
Click here for page 70 foldout figures 19 and 20
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
72

Fire and fire potential (direct and indirect natural)—A major factor that continues

to impact vegetation in Oakland is fire and the threat of fire. Past fires in the Oakland

area (for example, 1923—625 houses destroyed; 1970—37 houses destroyed; 1991—

3,210 houses and apartments destroyed) have directly altered the urban vegetation

structure and increased public concern over fire. The increased awareness among

residents of the threat of fire prompted them to remove damaged and dead eucalyptus

trees from high fire-risk areas. The removal of vegetation continues as a fire protective

measure, and it is likely to bring further alterations to the urban forest structure in

Oakland.

The Oakland landscape has changed markedly over the last 150 years (figs. 19 and

20). The change has involved gradual and sudden losses of vegetation, the introduction of new vegetation, and the continuous manipulation and alteration of vegetation

structure. Many forces for change in Oakland have been human and have been driven

by economic considerations (for example, the gold rush, desire for revenues from

future timber sales, urban residential development, and automobiles), though other

types of forces have made significant impacts as well. The history of Oakland’s urban

forest illustrates the many forces that can bring substantial changes to the urban forest

and its management.

With their important social component, urban forests are particularly susceptible to

human forces for change. The historical review of Oakland’s urban forest illustrates a

combination of human and natural forces, but a study of Atlanta’s changing landscape

over the past 20 years focuses almost exclusively on changes from human pressures

(Moll and Berish 1996).

Since 1972, Atlanta has grown from a small metropolitan area into a regional trade

center. With its expansion, about 65 percent of the previously forested land surrounding

the city has been converted into roads, buildings, and other built-up components of urban infrastructure, which has significantly reduced Atlanta’s tree canopy cover. Along

with reductions in the amount of trees and forests in the area, Atlanta’s recent history

also is characterized by reduced air and water quality and increased air temperatures

(that is, the development of an urban heat island). “In 1972 temperatures in the hottest

part of downtown were 6 to 9 degrees higher than in the surrounding countryside. Today

not only has the temperature increased, the hot center has tripled in size” (Moll and

Berish 1996). Continued growth of Atlanta’s urban heat island is expected to increase

the costs to cool buildings and to exacerbate existing air pollution problems.

Deforestation and urban development directly impact urban forest structure and can

lead to indirect changes in structure as well. With the development and expansion of

the urban heat island, the quality, growth, and character of Atlanta’s remaining urban

forest resources may be altered in response to increased air temperature and pollution.

Recognition of the relation between decreased tree canopy cover and the detrimental

effects of urban heat islands may prompt future efforts to replace lost cover. In this

instance, the activities responsible for expanding the urban heat island would be indirectly responsible for management plans to increase tree canopy cover. Whether directly or indirectly, urban expansion and development have been powerful instruments

for change in the urban forest of Atlanta, and they continue to be important factors for

change in urban forests across the United States.

Atlanta
73

The structure of the urban forest changes through time in response to a wide range

of powerful forces. These changes originate from diverse human and natural forces

operating directly and indirectly on the urban forest and its management. The impact

of these forces differs over time and across and among urban systems. This variation

often brings very different types and rates of change across urban areas.

In chapter 3, the urban forest ecosystem was characterized as a matrix of diverse resources that intermingle with other aspects of the urban system. With fluctuations in

the operation of forces for change over space and time, this matrix can be seen as a

kaleidoscope of interacting and changing urban forest structures. Changes in each

component of the matrix, as well as the relations among these components across

the system, will continue to shape urban forests in the years ahead.

A review of the forces for change in the urban forest highlights an intricate web of connections with other aspects of urban life and a need for coordination of urban forest

resource management with many other urban activities: land use planning, residential

development, infrastructure development and maintenance, community empowerment

and revitalization, environmental education, and efforts to improve other attributes of

the urban environment, including aesthetic value, air and water quality, and opportunities for outdoor recreation.

What most distinguishes the urban forest from forests in exurban areas is the dynamic

influence of people. Given the inherently slow development of urban trees amid rapid

changes to the environments in which they are found, human forces for change pose

significant challenges for natural resource planning and management in urban areas.

Review
74

In accordance with the provisions of the RPA (Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 1974), this assessment of urban and community forestry provides

background information to help guide future policies and programs for sustaining the

structure, function, and benefits of urban forests in the United States. The findings of

the assessment highlight (1) the large and increasing extent and significance of the

Nation’s urban forests; (2) the broad scope, complexity, and connectedness of urban

forest resources, their management, and use; and (3) a lack of comprehensive information on urban forest resources and their management.

As illustrated by the management model presented in figure 1, planning and management to achieve urban forest sustainability are driven by a constant input of information.

This study represents the beginning of a continuous cycle of knowledge entering into

the policy, program planning, and management processes. To evaluate the usefulness of this and future urban forest assessments, the following questions should be addressed: What does the assessment reveal about the resource? What do the findings

mean? and How can the information be used to guide future policies and programs for

sustaining the structure, function, and benefits of the urban forest?

At the national level, this assessment has focused on the extent and distribution of

tree canopy and human populations in urban and metropolitan areas across the

United States. In the absence of more detailed information about urban forests at this

scale, discussions of variation in the character, use, and management of urban forest

resources have relied heavily on comprehensive urban forest studies in Chicago and

Oakland as well as more limited information from other cities throughout the country. A

scarcity of long-term data on trends in urban forest resources, their use, and management also limited the assessment. Illustrations of the dynamics of urban forests and the

forces that bring change were drawn from case study data (particularly from the urban

forests of Oakland and Atlanta).

This chapter summarizes key attributes of the urban forest that emerged from the

assessment and explores their implications for policies and programs concerning urban

forest planning and management. The discussion is built around the model presented

in chapter 1. Though the information provided in this first assessment of urban forests

Chapter 5: Moving Toward Urban

Forest Sustainability

Introduction
75

has been limited primarily to urban forest structure and canopy cover, the ideas and

discussions offered in this chapter should provide a solid platform from which future

studies may be launched. Policy and program applications of the results are organized

into six emphasis areas for working toward sustainability of the urban forest. These

themes represent important directions for urban forestry to focus on to maintain or enhance urban forest structure, functions, and benefits. Finally, in light of insufficient information to assess important topics like urban forest health and sustainability, suggestions for additional areas of investigation are presented.

The key attributes of urban forests and forestry that emerge from this assessment are

their significance, diversity, connectedness, and dynamic character.

The urban forest covers a large and expanding area of the United States. About

3.5 percent of the United States is currently classified as urban (that is, urban areas);

nearly 25 percent is either located in or functionally tied to urban areas (that is, metropolitan areas). Urban and metropolitan areas grew tremendously in the 20th century.

Between 1950 and 1990, metropolitan areas increased threefold; between 1969 and

the early 1990s, urban areas doubled in size. Significant population growth in areas

outside urban and metropolitan areas continues to extend urban influences to forest

resources across the landscape, particularly in places having considerable scenic and

recreational value. With this expansion of urban influences, the urban forest resource

has increased in extent. As urbanization continues, more forests will come under the

direct management of urban residents and institutions.

Urban and metropolitan areas include an extensive amount of forest resources with

great potential for significantly improving the quality of the urban environment and wellbeing of residents. Across the United States, tree canopy cover in urban and metropolitan areas averages 27 percent and 33 percent, respectively, approaching the national

average tree cover over all lands of 33 percent. With about 74.4 billion trees in metropolitan areas and 3.8 billion trees in urban areas, the magnitude of the urban forest

resource is substantial.

Urban forests can make a considerable difference in the quality of life in a sizable portion of the United States and can directly influence the daily lives of nearly 80 percent of

the population. What happens in urban areas also can have a profound impact on forests and forestry across the urban to wilderness landscape. The increasing extent and

significance of urban influence across the United States call for resource policymakers,

planners, and managers at national, regional, and local levels to focus their attention on

forest resources in urban settings.

Diversity is one of the most distinctive attributes of the urban forest. This feature is

primarily a function of the many components of the urban forest, including trees and

ground covers, soil types, microclimates, wildlife, people, buildings, infrastructure, and

other developments. These elements are found in almost unlimited combinations in an

intricate mosaic across the urban landscape. The elaborate mixture of natural and

human-made resources in complex urban ecosystems broadens the scope of urban

forestry beyond traditional forestry, arboriculture, and other natural resource disciplines.

Summary of

Assessment

Findings

Significance

Diversity
76

The diversity of urban forests is also a function of variations in land uses, land ownerships, residents and visitors, and management objectives across and between urban

systems. Urban areas are characterized by multiple land uses and diverse populations;

consequently, the management of activities by different individuals and groups creates

a complex landscape pattern reflecting an area’s unique combinations of physical, biological, and social attributes. With the diversity of land uses and owners in urban areas,

the objectives and issues facing managers of the urban forest are wide ranging, extending from wildlife management to the mitigation of air pollution, enhancing aesthetic

value, and providing recreation, flood control, fire prevention, and other benefits.

Several factors serve as catalysts for increased diversity in urban forest ecosystems.

Shifts in population, changes in economic activity, improvements in transportation, and

other developments increase the range of land uses, broaden the spectrum of people

involved, and complicate the mixture of old and new, artificial and natural, and native

and exotic natural resources in urban areas.

Connectedness among resource components, and with other resources, activities, and

functions within and beyond the urban environment, is another key attribute of the urban forest. Other elements of urban environments include roads, homes, industrial

parks, and downtown centers. Whether connected by the logistics of managing urban

infrastructure (for example, coordinating maintenance of urban trees and power lines,

sewers, sidewalks, and roads), or by contributing to the overall character of the area,

urban forests link “landscape” with “architecture” and become an important component

of urban planning.

The connectedness of urban forests is reflected in their contribution to a wide range of

urban issues, programs, and initiatives. Urban forests and their management are connected to programs for improving air and water quality, flood control, energy conservation, microclimate control, aesthetic enjoyment, recreational opportunities, environmental education, and other goods and services in the urban environment. With the

many benefits that urban vegetation can provide, the management of urban forests

may be linked to an array of other urban initiatives, including urban renewal and community revitalization, economic development, community empowerment, and environmental education.

Urban forests are connected to the condition, use, and management of natural resources in exurban areas as well. Management issues regarding wildlife, fires, insects,

and disease do not stay within community boundaries but are shared among managers

in both urban and rural environments. Further, many of the externalities of urbanization

(such as pollution and acid rain) can affect the health of exurban forests. The designation of the 14 urban National Forests formalized the links between urban and exurban

natural resources, as the USDA Forest Service has recognized the effects of urban

pressures on areas traditionally considered to be “natural” landscapes.

Finally, urban forests represent a critical link between people and forest resources.

Ownership and use of residential holdings, as well as experience with public parks and

forest preserves in urban areas, are how many citizens experience, appreciate, and

learn about natural resources. The experiences that urban residents have with trees

and associated resources in the urban environment are likely to influence their perceptions, expectations, and use of more distant natural resource areas, such as National

Forests, parks, and monuments. Experiences with urban forests help to bridge the gap

between urban populations and more remote natural environments.

Connectedness
77

Like all forests, urban forests undergo significant change with the growth, development,

and succession of their biological components over time. The growth and development

of urban forest resources occur, however, in the context of much more powerful and

swift human-induced factors. Coupled with the relatively slow rate of tree growth and

plant succession, the swift human forces for change make the dynamics of the urban

forest particularly challenging for managers and users.

The expansion and development of urban areas bring important changes in urban vegetation and other urban resources. Alterations to the distribution of land uses, intensity

of urbanization, and population characteristics in urban areas result in different combinations of ground cover, increased or decreased opportunities for tree establishment

and growth, changing environmental conditions, different resource-use patterns, and

altered management objectives. New developments in transportation technology or

manufacturing and service industries can bring considerable change to the condition,

function, and management of urban lands and associated resources. The introduction

of exotic plants and animals into interstate and international trade centers can have a

profound influence on the urban forest, as has been the case with Dutch elm disease,

gypsy moth, and the Asian longhorned beetle. Changes in the composition of neighborhoods can prompt different approaches to the management of forests in residential

areas, parks, and other open spaces. Urban trees are becoming more widely appreciated for their ecological, economic, social, cultural, and historical value throughout

the urban environment.

Urban forests are significant and complex ecosystems with intricate links among their

physical, biological, and social components as well as with other elements of urban and

natural resource systems. Because urban forests involve trees and other vegetation,

buildings and roads, people and wildlife, air and water quality, community empowerment, and other important considerations, the task of sustaining these forests and their

benefits crosses disciplinary, jurisdictional, and cultural boundaries. Urban forests are

dynamic systems, strongly influenced by the relatively slow growth and development of

trees in the context of rapidly changing urban environments. Changes in the distribution

of land uses, distribution and composition of urban populations, and objectives of urban

forest management simultaneously bring significant alterations to vegetation patterns

across the urban landscape.

These findings broaden some traditional perceptions of urban forestry from street

tree-planting and maintenance into an essential and highly valued component of largescale, long-term environmental and community sustainability. In developing management programs to maintain the resource and enhance important forest benefits, the

diversity, complexity, connectedness, and dynamics of urban forests must be considered. These features have an array of management implications, particularly regarding

the scale of policies and programs, types of management activities, duration of management efforts, links with a wide range of urban initiatives, and number of individuals

and groups involved in planning and management of urban forests. The following sections investigate the implications of these key urban forest attributes for the management framework needed to sustain forests, their functions, and their benefits. Findings

are interpreted in terms of the planning and management model (fig. 1, presented in

chapter 1) to identify opportunities for improvement in policies and programs that

encourage urban forest sustainability.

Dynamics

Synopsis of Key

Attributes
78

Because urban forests represent a significant portion of the Nation’s natural resource

base, their management is a critical component of preserving environmental quality

across the country. Urban forest planning and management represents an excellent

opportunity to connect people with natural ecosystems and enhance the quality of life

for a major proportion of the U.S. population. Once it is established that urban forests

in this country are large and growing, are complex ecosystems with diverse resources

owned and influenced by a number of important groups, are connected to other urban

and natural systems, and undergo significant change over time, implications for

planning and management begin to emerge.

The attributes of urban forests reveal a great deal about the type of management

needed to sustain their structure, functions, and benefits. The diversity of urban forest

resources and their extension across land uses, property lines, and political boundaries

call for management programs that bridge jurisdictions and employ multiple disciplines.

Among the fields that may be involved in urban forest planning and management are

forestry and wildlife management, entomology and pathology, hydrology and soils, meteorology and atmospheric science, landscape architecture, recreation management,

psychology, sociology, economics, and political science. Understanding how each discipline relates to the extent, condition, use, and management of urban forests contributes to the development of policies and programs tailored to fit particular situations.

Given the unique character of urban forests in particular settings, effective management requires different forest management strategies within an urban environment (for

example, by land use, land ownership, degree of development, and population density)

and among urban areas (with different ecoregions, populations, surrounding areas, and

other attributes). With the complexity of land uses, ownership, and resources, a “onesize-fits-all” urban forest management scheme is not appropriate for these complex

and diverse ecosystems. Managers should develop specific local goals and management strategies to meet the needs of local populations within the context of the local

and regional environments and their management.

A key element in managing urban forests regionally is to coordinate activities among

different owners and managers across jurisdictions. The participation of multiple stakeholders in urban forest management will rely on the creation of a forum to help link forest structures and their management throughout the urban system and beyond. Such

collaborative stewardship not only involves owners, users, and managers of natural

resources but also includes individuals and groups involved in the management of

other urban components (for example, commercial developers, city planners, nonprofit

groups, utilities, and residents). Partnerships among the decisionmakers who affect

urban forest resources provide opportunities for those involved to identify common

interests, resolve potential problems, and coordinate efforts to meet multiple objectives.

The diversity and connectedness of urban forest resources demand comprehensive

approaches to their planning and management. The relation of urban forest components to air and water quality, wildlife habitat, utilities and other infrastructure, and the

overall aesthetic character of the community suggests that focusing management

activities on a single aspect of the urban forest is likely to yield a decreased flow of

some benefits, or other unanticipated complications from management efforts. Thus,

the findings of this assessment support the adoption of an ecosystem-based approach

to planning and management.

Relevance of

Assessment

Findings
79

Because urban forests are dynamic systems, their management must accommodate

rapid changes in the extent, health, and use of resources over time. Implicit in adaptive management of urban forests is the ability to monitor progress and evaluate the

effectiveness of management decisions. To evaluate the efficiency of management

activities, management plans should include a way for managers to observe and review

the outcomes of their efforts. By monitoring the effects of program activities on the extent, health, and use of the resource, identifying areas for improvement, and modifying

management plans to address problems, adaptive management provides the flexibility

necessary to sustain and enhance important forest resources in changing urban

environments.

The advantages of comprehensive and adaptive planning and management are clear;

however, the operation of this method is one of the most difficult challenges facing

urban forest managers. Several factors complicate the application of this strategy to

management of urban and community forest resources, including the diversity and

fragmentation of the resource and its ownership, a lack of consistent information

across the urban system and in rural areas, inadequate funding, and different types

and levels of resource management across land uses and ownership. Comprehensive

and adaptive approaches also are constrained by limited knowledge of the goals and

objectives of urban landowners, their interest and willingness to participate in cooperative management programs involving multiple holdings, how forest structure at the

landscape level influences local and regional benefits, and how urban forest resources

have changed through time. With these limitations, the narrow scope of some urban

forestry programs to simply maintain street trees and publicly owned vegetation is not

surprising. Yet the current focus on maintaining forest structure on public holdings

neither encompasses the entire urban forest nor recognizes the concept of urban forest sustainability.

The concept of urban forest sustainability involves maintaining healthy and functional

vegetation and associated systems to sustain long-term benefits desired by the community. Although maintaining forest health and survival has long been a mission of

urban forestry, it represents only one component of urban forest sustainability. From

figure 1, it can be seen that traditional urban forestry practices like tree planting and

arboriculture focus only on implementation (fig. 21). If management programs aimed

at the health and survival of urban trees and associated resources are administered

independently of community goals, they do not represent the convergence of the

socially desirable and ecologically possible. Because deciding what to sustain, for

whom, and at what scale is the core of sustainability, management for urban forest

sustainability needs to incorporate these factors into a decisionmaking process. This

task involves broadening current management strategies from simply maintaining forest structure in a particular area to a community-wide effort to exchange information,

prioritize benefits, design management objectives, coordinate maintenance activities,

and evaluate progress.

Knowing that the planning and management process for urban forest sustainability

needs to be open, participatory, and continuous, the final question remains, How can

the information gained from this assessment be used to attain sustainable urban forests? In other words, What specifically can be done to encourage the transition from an

emphasis on tree planting and maintenance to comprehensive and adaptive urban forest management? The following sections discuss areas of emphasis in urban forestry

that can facilitate comprehensive and adaptive management in the years ahead. Discussions present ongoing initiatives, ideas, and management questions that can help

guide the development of comprehensive and adaptive management strategies to

sustain urban forest resources and their benefits.

Moving Toward

Urban Forest

Sustainability:

Emphasis Areas for

the Future
80

Figure 21—Emphasis areas to encourage comprehensive and adaptive planning and management for urban

forest sustainability (adapted from Bormann and others 1994, Lee 1993, Maser and others 1994). Numbers

indicate specific emphasis areas.

1. Improving inventory and monitoring of urban forest resources: To generate information as input into the

planning and management process, and to provide a way to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and

appropriateness of management activities and objectives.

2. Improving dialogue among urban forest owners, users, and managers: To identify common management

goals.

3. Fostering collaboration among agencies and groups: To identify common management goals.

4. Improving the understanding of how forest configuration influences benefits and use: To enable managers

to design appropriate management objectives to attain community goals.

5. Increasing knowledge about the factors that influence urban forest health: To discourage reactionary

management, thereby allowing managers to effectively work toward management objectives in light of

common threats to urban forest health.

6. Improving the dissemination of information about urban forests, their benefits, and their management: To

continue the cycle of applied learning necessary for adaptive management of the urban forest.

Click here for figure 21
81

Comprehensive inventory and monitoring of the urban forest resource provide an

essential base for understanding the Nation’s diverse urban resources and how they

change over time and for helping to improve resource management and resulting benefits. This management focus has been identified as an emphasis area for several reasons: (1) to address the lack of critical urban forest resource information; (2) to identify

forces for change in the urban forest and their influence on the extent, use, and management of urban forest resources; (3) to provide a starting point for development of

predictive models to estimate the growth and development of urban forests in the

future; (4) to collect information essential to implementation of important urban forestrelated projects, such as air and water quality models; and (5) to monitor rates of

change, extent, and health of urban forests to provide a foundation for evaluations

of adaptive management programs.

Comprehensive urban forest inventories are needed to generate baseline information

as input for the planning and management process. Managers cannot begin to effectively sustain structure or function without an understanding of the resource characteristics. Because the urban forest is a dynamic matrix of social, physical, and biological

resources, data collection must be comprehensive and continuous to accurately reflect

the complex interactions among its resource components.

Besides compiling information to aid the decisionmaking process, comprehensive inventories are necessary to establish links among urban forestry and other urban and

environmental programs and initiatives; for example, knowledge of tree leaf surface

area is essential to quantify the impacts of urban trees on air pollution and is therefore

necessary to link urban forestry with air pollution abatement programs. Similarly, data

on the location or spatial configuration of vegetation are needed to guide development

of energy conservation and water quality enhancement programs related to urban

forestry.

Perhaps most critical is the role that continuous inventories play in the monitoring and

evaluation steps of the urban forest planning and management model (1 in fig. 21).

Without periodic inventories, the process lacks a feedback mechanism to monitor the

progress of management efforts. Regular inventories are needed to provide detailed

data on the extent, condition, and use of urban forests—information against which the

appropriateness of management objectives and activities can be evaluated. Because

inventories and assessments provide the basis for monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment in urban forestry, their exclusion from the planning and management process

immediately breaks the applied learning cycle (that is, adaptive management) needed

to sustain structure and benefits in the long run.

Reliable forest resource data to guide development of comprehensive and adaptive

urban forest management plans are currently limited. The information available often

is fragmented, restricted to street or park tree populations, and incompatible with assessments of rural resources. Consistent information is scarce on urban forest structure, health, management, use, and how these factors change over time. Most urban

forest managers are unable to answer even the most fundamental questions regarding

the character of their natural resources: What are the composition and health of the

city’s forest resource? and How do they vary across the urban area? Because no urban

forest baseline data sets have been established, trends in the extent, composition, and

health of the resource at the local, regional, and national levels are virtually unknown.

This scarcity of information makes the development of partnerships to manage forest

Improving Inventory and

Monitoring of the Urban

Forest Resource
82

resources across and between urban systems extremely difficult. In short, the scope

and frequency of urban forest data collection are inadequate for meeting the needs of

urban planners, designers, managers, researchers, and citizens across the country.

To accommodate the dynamics of resource components, comprehensive inventories

of urban forests should involve continuous, long-term monitoring. Permanent field plots

and continuous data collection are needed in urban areas to obtain long-term information on change in the urban forest resource. Comparisons of repeated inventories may

be used to monitor forest health, observe natural resource trends, and evaluate the

effectiveness of management programs at multiple landscape levels. Frequent inventories of urban forest structure throughout the United States are necessary to achieve

an adequate understanding of this diverse and important resource and to help develop

partnerships and guide comprehensive and adaptive management.

In facilitating easy and accurate estimates of urban tree cover and other urban surfaces, automated remote sensing technologies could significantly improve urban forest

inventory and management in the future. Although improvements in remote sensing are

being made, the current limitations of remote-sensing digital-image technologies (for

example, specialized equipment and training, cost, limited accuracy due to mixed surface types within pixels) suggest that interpretation of aerial photographs may be the

easiest and most cost-effective way at the local level to quantify canopy cover and

other urban surface attributes. Alternatively, remotely sensed digital images may provide the most cost-effective way to assess canopy cover for large-scale assessments

or to incorporate data into geographic information systems. Newer technologies, such

as the new generation of digital frame cameras, light detection and ranging (LIDAR, or

laser-radar) sensors, and high-resolution hyperspectral digital products offer promise

for accurate and cost-effective remote sensing of digital information that could be used

to assess urban forests. Nevertheless, because of the multiple surfaces within urban

areas, urban tree cover assessments using satellite and other digital imagery need to

be tested and improved (Nowak 1993c).

Field data on the composition and specific characteristics of urban forest resources

can provide essential information for all land uses throughout an urban system. Even

though mapping of canopy cover provides information on the spatial distribution of

trees and associated resources, field data should supplement tree cover data with detailed information on tree species, sizes, location, insects, diseases, and health. These

data are critical to understanding the resource and can be incorporated into geographic

information systems to link the management of urban vegetation with the planning and

management of other urban resources (such as transportation systems, utilities, and

water quality programs). Given the dispersed nature of the urban forest, its ties with

other urban components, and its complex ownership patterns, a combination of remote

imagery and field (ground) sampling is the most appropriate data collection technique

for urban forest assessments.

Urban forest resource inventories also can be linked with natural resource inventories

outside urban areas. With the increasing emphasis on managing forest resources

across the urban-rural interface, the use of compatible inventory systems in both urban

and exurban areas is critical. In this assessment, estimates of tree cover in urban, metropolitan, and exurban areas, as developed from satellite imagery, were used to provide information regarding the extent and distribution of urban forest resources at national and regional levels. Owing to the relatively high degree of uncertainty of satellite

data for small areas, improvements in this technology are necessary, however, to make

measurements more accurate at the local level.
83

Without a strong commitment to improve urban forest inventory and monitoring efforts,

information vital for effective urban forest management will be incomplete. The full

significance of the resource and its potential contribution to the quality of urban life cannot be realized without comprehensive and regular inventories. In addition to hindering

the ability of planners and managers to accommodate change in the urban forest over

time, a lack of comprehensive information impedes the development of partnerships

among urban forest managers, owners, and users. Without relevant information on air,

water, soil, and demographic characteristics of the urban forest mosaic, opportunities

for collaboration among residents, city foresters, politicians, environmental agencies,

and others to improve the quality of the urban environment may be missed. Infrequent

assessments of the extent, condition, management, use, and health of urban forests

are likely to impair implementation of monitoring efforts for evaluating the progress of

urban forest management programs.

Given the many stakeholders involved, the diverse and dynamic character of their interests and activities, and the potential for their actions to have a substantial impact on the

urban environment, an effective dialogue among urban forest managers and users is

critical. The needed dialogue among managers, owners, and users is complex; interaction must occur between groups that are disproportionately experienced and educated in scientific disciplines and that have a broad range of important concerns.

Improved participation of urban forest owners and users in decisionmaking is important

for several reasons. First, the values, attitudes, and concerns of urban residents provide the foundation for determining what structure and benefits should be sustained.

Thus, participation of owners and users in identifying the goals of urban forest management is fundamental to creating a sustainable urban forest (2 in fig. 21). If citizen input

is omitted from the management framework, the process is highly unlikely to achieve

urban forest sustainability. Further, because individual urban residents control a substantial portion of the urban forest, their understanding of how their activities influence

the urban ecosystem is crucial to sustaining desired benefits. Open dialogue between

the involved parties not only clarifies management issues but also creates a mechanism to enhance information sharing and technical assistance among land owners and

community residents. As part of this partnership, managers would have a heightened

ability to reduce detrimental human actions in the urban forest (such as improper pruning, unnecessary tree removal, damage to trees, and pollution).

Public participation in urban forest planning and management provides an opportunity

to build mutual understanding and trust between residents and managers. Managers

can share their knowledge of alternative management options and the possible outcomes; owners and users can share their preferences, concerns, and responses.

Participation of urban residents in development and administration of urban forest management activities can yield benefits ranging from increased volunteering and compliance with ordinances to a reduction in the potential for conflict between managers

and users over resource use and maintenance (Kuhns and others 1995, Westphal

1995b). The development of alliances between urban forest managers and the public

also may open doors for other opportunities to enhance the urban forest, including

community grant partnerships, cooperation among agencies and with not-for-profit

organizations, and other collaborative stewardship efforts.

The experiences that urban residents have with management and use of urban and

community forests can influence their involvement in and support of forest resource

management beyond the urban environment. Urban residents who are introduced to

natural resource concepts, management issues, and solutions to environmental

Improving Dialogue

Among Forest Resource

Owners, Managers, and

Users
84

problems in urban areas are likely to be more aware of similar issues in exurban areas.

By enhancing their interest in and awareness of natural resource management issues,

resident involvement in local level environmental decisionmaking may increase participation in broader, regional natural resource matters (including informing government

representatives or joining environmental and natural resource interest groups). Thus,

the participation of urban residents in use and management of urban forests has important implications for the sustainability of forests and management programs beyond

the urban environment.

Without dialogue among managers, owners, and users, urban forests may not be managed efficiently. The focus of management efforts on areas or issues different from

those of concern to community residents increases the potential for conflict among the

involved parties. Lack of an effective dialogue among resource owners, managers, and

users also reduces opportunities for collaborative efforts to enhance the benefits that

urban forest resources can provide. The absence of communication between urban

forest managers and residents also drastically decreases the ability of managers to

influence urban forest management in private holdings, thereby resulting in an opportunity lost to significantly enhance the benefits of the resource for the entire community.

Managers and stakeholders can accomplish far more to sustain and enhance urban

forests as partners than they can separately or as opponents. Because urban residents

ultimately shape management goals, their communication with managers is extremely

important for attaining urban forest sustainability. The ability of managers to meet user

needs can be enhanced by research on residents’ values, preferences, and expectations; however, managing the urban forest structure to meet the unique needs of an

individual community also requires open and continuous dialogue among these

individuals.

Given the many public agencies, not-for-profit groups, and other organizations influencing urban forests, their management, and use, the actions of these entities often have

far-reaching implications for the structure, functions, and benefits of urban vegetation.

Consequently, collaboration among these players is critical for working toward urban

forest sustainability.

Urban forestry can play a critical role in enhancing the sustainability of an urban community. Urban renewal and community revitalization programs have several dimensions

to which urban forest management can contribute. Urban trees can contribute to urban

improvement programs through microclimate improvement, pollution prevention and

mitigation, local economic development, and city beautification. The participation of urban residents in urban forestry programs can facilitate community organization and

empowerment, which subsequently strengthen the vitality of an area. The contribution

of urban forests to the quality of the urban environment, and the inherent links to other

components of urban and surrounding systems, enhance the desirability of integrating

urban forestry with the activities of other agencies and groups. Because management

of urban forest resources can improve the environmental and social well-being of communities, the collaboration among multiple groups to meet common goals has emerged

as an important emphasis area for the future (3 in fig. 21).

Collaboration among agencies and groups is essential for coordinating the management of resources across jurisdictions and at multiple scales. The implementation of

an ecosystem-based approach to management will rely on cooperation among urban

residents and community groups, national and local not-for-profit organizations, private

businesses and institutions, and Federal, state, and local agencies. These groups need

Fostering Collaboration

Among Agencies and

Groups
85

not only to collaborate in the process of defining community goals but also to ensure

that their individual activities are not counterproductive to meeting management objectives. By sharing fiscal, administrative, maintenance, and enforcement responsibilities,

initiatives to coordinate the activities of multiple actors in the urban environment can

significantly improve the efficiency of the overall planning and management process.

Successful integration of urban forest management with other urban initiatives requires

partnerships among groups concerned with urban forests, their use, and management.

The groups can range from local neighborhood associations to agencies concerned

with regional water or air quality. Because the focus and missions of different groups

can extend from the inner city to the urban-wildland interface, the roles of the involved

parties must be clearly defined for coalitions to work efficiently. Differences in the extent of agency jurisdiction and authority, as well as in group interests, resources, and

access to information require the clear understanding of participant roles and responsibilities in cosponsored activities.

In coordinating urban forestry with the efforts of different natural resource and urbancommunity groups, several key questions regarding group participants, their roles, and

the interactions among them emerge: What should be the roles of the different groups?

Given the variation in the characteristics and elements of urban forests, should interaction among these groups be cooperative? Multidisciplinary? Multilevel (national to local)? Open? Should a policy framework be created to direct the integration of multiple

urban and natural resource agencies and groups? Should partnerships be purely voluntary? Should partnerships include local, regional, and national level organizations, or

should they be forged at a single level? What should be the proportion of public participants to private members? The specific roles of the involved participants may depend

on their jurisdiction, resources, and access to information. Some considerations in

developing partnerships between different groups include group constituents, group

jurisdiction and authority, group goals, and group resources, knowledge, skills, and

abilities.

Coordinating and identifying specific roles for the numerous groups that influence urban

forest management are not easy tasks. Integration of group activities may differ significantly from one situation to another, depending on the characteristics of the urban forest resource, the role it plays in the urban environment, and organizations involved.

Many groups aid in coordinating urban forest and urban forestry efforts nationally (for

example, Alliance for Community Trees, International Society of Arboriculture, National

Arbor Day Foundation, USDA Forest Service State and Private Forestry, American Forests, Urban National Forests, National Urban and Community Advisory Council). At the

state level, state urban and community forestry councils, formed by state foresters, provide a forum for various interests to exchange ideas and provide guidance for administering state and Federal programs locally. These councils also encourage partnerships

among council members to enhance the management and use of urban forests. Several local urban forestry groups play important roles in the comprehensive management

of urban resources. Members of some national groups (like the Alliance for Community

Trees [ACT]) also play key roles in coordinating and strengthening the efforts of groups

to improve urban forest resources locally.

The grassroots summit, “Growing in Our Urban and Community Forest Movement,”

held in Wintergreen, VA (October 25-28, 1998), brought together some important

groups in urban and community forestry. Participants included members of ACT, statelevel urban and community forestry councils, and other public and natural resource
86

agencies. A major theme of the summit was to work collaboratively to strengthen urban

and community forestry at the grassroots level. Other focus areas of the workshop

were “strengthening our leadership,” “uniting our purposes,” and “sharing and celebrating our successes.” The summit was sponsored by the National Tree Trust, in cooperation with ACT, American Forests, USDA Forest Service, Virginia Tech College of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia Department of Forestry, and the Virginia Urban

Forest Council.

The community future forum (1998) is a 2-year project involving a diverse group of urban natural resource professionals in identifying and developing management strategies to address natural resource issues in urbanizing communities. The objectives of

the forum are to (1) stimulate dialogue that will address future and emerging natural

resource issues in and around urban and community areas; (2) provide opportunities

for creative thinking and new partnerships; (3) develop a shared urban land stewardship ethic; (4) identify a vision of a future that results in sustainable communities; (5)

identify resources, tools, partnerships, and policies that will move us to the desired

future vision; (6) construct a flexible, locally applicable national model or framework to

meet future natural resources needs; and (7) develop a series of strategies to achieve

the vision.

The effort began with an event in Washington, DC, August 25-27, 1998. It united nearly

125 urban natural resource professionals to pursue the forum objectives; the forum

continues to encourage collaborative efforts in urban forest research, the development

of urban forest policies and programs, and resource management among agencies and

groups. Key forum sponsors are the National Association of State Foresters, National

Urban and Community Forestry Council, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Pinchot Institute, and USDA Forest Service.

The urban resources partnership (URP), a partnership among Federal agencies and

local groups exists within 13 cities to encourage resource management in urban areas

at the ecosystem level. The URP demonstrates a wide range of useful approaches for

enhancing management of urban natural resources by spawning partnerships involving different participants, organizational structures, and group missions in each of the

selected cities. Variation in the types of groups, resources, and resource issues involved suggests that the most effective mix of partners, working relations, and leadership structures in collaborative urban natural resource management can be different for

each city. The URP effort also reinforces the importance of community involvement in

projects, as well as a strong need for technical assistance to accompany financial

assistance to effectively manage natural resources in urban areas.

The number of local partnerships can become large, as illustrated by the 100 or more

members of the Chicago Regional Biodiversity Council (or Chicago Wilderness) that

work to protect, restore, and enhance biodiversity in the Chicago area. Chicago Wilderness has brought significant attention to the management of more than 80 938 hectares of public and private land in northeastern Illinois, southeastern Wisconsin, and

northwestern Indiana. Revitalizing Baltimore, a federally funded urban and community

forestry pilot project, also involves several stakeholders in efforts to improve environmental health and the quality of life in that area. Partners in Revitalizing Baltimore work

to increase and improve neighborhood vegetation, support environmental education,
87

and encourage community-based environmental research and decisionmaking. Involved groups range from Federal and state agencies to businesses, academic institutions, and not-for-profit organizations. Coalitions such as Chicago Wilderness and

Revitalizing Baltimore serve as models for collaborative stewardship of urban natural

resources and are attracting national and international attention.

The best organizational framework and roles for the numerous groups involved in collaborative urban forest management are not yet clear. What is clear is that partnerships

are an increasingly critical key to effective management of the urban forest ecosystem.

Without cooperation among government agencies, not-for-profit groups, utility companies, and other corporate and community groups, increased conflicts over management and use of urban forest resources are almost certain. An absence of coordinated

management efforts across an urban area likely will continue to fragment the ecosystem. If collaborative partnerships are avoided, opportunities to cost-effectively enhance

the urban environment and quality of urban life will be foregone. Because urban forestry could play an important role in broad community improvement efforts (such as

redevelopment of brownfields [abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial properties that may have been contaminated by earlier industry, thereby complicating redevelopment plans with fears of liability and cleanup costs], air quality improvement, and watershed management initiatives), a wealth of funding opportunities for

urban forest programs may be missed if expanded partnerships are not developed.

Urban forest benefits depend directly on the configuration of vegetation and its location

relative to other natural and human-made attributes of the urban environment (urban

forest structure). To make community goals operational, managers need to design and

work toward a vegetation structure that will provide desired benefits. This requires an

understanding of how forest configuration influences the flow of benefits. Knowledge

about the relation among forest structure, function, and benefits enables development

of management objectives that reflect community interests and identification of the

scale needed for management efforts to attain community goals (4 in fig. 21).

The most desirable configuration of the urban forest resource depends on the conditions and goals unique to each location. Because the desired benefits from urban forests differ among individual communities and across land use types and land owners,

the best configuration of trees to provide the needed benefits for one area can be

dissimilar from the forest structure required to meet the goals in another area; for example, obtaining particular benefits from trees in an urban park site requires a different

landscape design than that needed to secure urban forest benefits in a residential or

transportation setting.

The structure of the urban forest influences the provision of important benefits at different geographic scales. The large-scale or landscape configuration of the urban forest is important for providing significant benefits to broad areas, including air and water

quality and wildlife habitat. Alternatively, small-scale configurations may be designed

primarily for local, more immediate benefits, such as aesthetics, microclimate, energy

conservation, or opportunities for outdoor recreation. These local-level effects often

combine to affect the entire region. Because urban forests often are managed at multiple scales, management decisions need to consider the complex interactions of management objectives and forest structure in meeting local and regional needs.

Improving the

Understanding of Urban

Forest Configuration
88

To make sound management decisions for multiple benefits, managers need to be

aware of appropriate urban forest configurations and management systems for providing particular benefits. Although much has been written about the wide range of benefits that urban trees and forests can provide, knowledge about how to provide specific

urban forest benefits in a particular situation is limited. Future research needs to continue the work on benefits and expand on topics involving the environmental, social,

and economic costs of providing these benefits. Information on specific forest configurations for maximum net benefits at the local scale also is needed.

Models to predict the environmental functions that may accompany particular forest

structures offer significant promise for providing guidelines for forest design and management to enhance certain urban forest benefits. A new urban forest effects (UFORE)

model using tree cover and field data from across the urban ecosystem quantifies urban forest structure and associated functions (for example, impacts on air quality and

greenhouse gases) across various urban areas (Nowak and Crane, in press). Previously developed models that predict scenic beauty, perceived safety, and probability

of human use as a function of forest structure also can be instrumental in developing

comprehensive management plans to enhance and maintain the beneficial functions of

urban forests (Dwyer and others 1989; Lein and Buhyoff 1986; Schroeder 1982, 1983,

1986, 1988, 1989; Schroeder and Anderson 1984; Schroeder and Cannon 1983, 1987;

Schroeder and others 1986).

In the absence of information relating urban forest benefits to forest and landscape

structure, urban forest management efforts likely will continue to focus on maintaining

urban forest structure with little consideration of design and management options to

enhance desired functions. Management plans based on incomplete information about

the links among forest structure, management, and beneficial functions can lead to increased costs, reduced benefits, and reduced effectiveness of urban forestry programs

in serving a wide range of public and private needs. The absence of this information

also will limit potential partnerships among urban foresters, individuals, and other urban

or natural resource groups. These outcomes could erode public support for urban

forests and forestry over time.

Inherent in sustaining urban forest benefits is preserving the health of the resource.

This emphasis area represents a continuing effort to maintain a healthy and functioning

urban forest system as a vital component of sustaining urban forest benefits. This area

addresses several critical concerns associated with the vitality and perpetuity of urban

forests and their surrounding environments: pests, disease, fire, environmental stress,

development, and long-term care for urban vegetation (continued maintenance after

tree planting). Besides targeting the key factors that directly affect trees and forest

health, this emphasis area also includes research and development efforts to identify

and deal with the indirect impacts of human activities (disturbance and pollution) on the

extent and condition of urban forests. Thus, programs in this area can provide managers with the means to attain their management objectives given the environmental

and human threats to urban forest health (5 in fig. 21).

Some of the most immediate concerns in maintaining the health of urban forest resources are natural forces, including insects and disease, invasive species, fires, and

storm events. Extensive losses of urban trees due to these threats in the past have

forced managers to expend significant percentages of their budgets on containment,

treatment, cleanup, and replacement activities. Such reactionary management eventually can become counterproductive, as efforts to sustain desired forest structure,

Increasing Knowledge

about Urban Forest

Health
89

functions, and benefits may be foregone to support damage control. Programs to encourage prevention measures and cooperative response to disaster events can allow

managers to pursue their management objectives while dealing with forest health

issues.

Recent responses to infestations of the Asian longhorned beetle in New York City and

Chicago illustrate the importance of collaborative efforts in pest control. Numerous Federal, state, city, and local organizations are working cooperatively to detect and eradicate the beetle from these two areas. In New York, USDA Forest Service programs in

State and Private Forestry and in Research, USDA Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS), New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, New York

City Department of Parks and Recreation, and local neighborhood groups have joined

forces in fighting this pest (Haack and others 1997, USDA Forest Service 1997b). A

similar team approach involving Federal, state, and local agencies is underway in

Chicago (USDA Forest Service 1998b). U.S. Customs Service agents are now being

trained to detect the insect, which enters the country in infested crates and pallets from

China. To control future infestations, the Secretary of Agriculture recently imposed a

moratorium on the import of untreated lumber from China, thereby illustrating the farreaching implications of policies and programs that deal with urban forest resources.

The forging of partnerships within and among communities to control the threat of fire in

urban forests is an essential aspect of this emphasis area in several parts of the United

States. Cooperation among residents and other land owners to establish fuel breaks for

fire prevention represents an important management focus in protecting the health of

many urban forests. By sharing the responsibility for discouraging fire outbreaks, managers are able to devote more time and resources to attaining community goals.

Also important in sustaining urban forest health is a better understanding of the effects

that urbanization can have on forest health. Soil characteristics, watersheds, wildlife,

insects and disease, air and water quality, and meteorological conditions in urban areas

may be significantly different from those of rural settings. Recognizing the differences in

ecological components of urban and rural forest ecosystems can substantially improve

our understanding and management of natural resources in urban environments.

The recent establishment of long-term ecological research (LTER) sites in urban environments (in Baltimore and Phoenix), funded by the National Science Foundation, has

affirmed the importance of researching natural environmental processes in urban settings. The research questions that are fundamental to the LTER projects will move both

researchers and managers forward in understanding specific factors threatening forest

health in urban areas. Some key questions now being addressed include the following:

How will the structure and function of an urban forest change over time, given a range

of management and ecological restoration techniques? How does urbanization impact

the soil, water, air, and meteorological conditions influencing urban forest growth and

development? How does natural plant succession in urban areas differ from that in

rural areas? What are the life spans of different urban tree species, and what environmental and management factors affect the life spans and health of urban trees?

Another important consideration in preserving urban forest health is the commitment of

funds and planning efforts for maintaining trees and other resources throughout their

life spans. Fiscal difficulties in municipal agencies often have led to decreased or interrupted funding for urban forest management programs. Without continued efforts to
90

sustain long-term tree survival, substantial tree planting investments can be wasted.

Failure to consider the influence of urban infrastructure, growing space, and other natural resource health factors in planning of tree planting programs can hinder the establishment, growth, and development of urban trees and potentially create significant treerelated problems and maintenance expenses in the future. Both the stability of urban

forest management budgets and appropriate planning for tree planting and other

programs are important to maintain the health of the urban forest resource. Forest resources need to be elevated to a status of critical importance within municipal budgets

to cost-effectively sustain the numerous forest benefits over the long term.

Successful management of urban forest health depends on an understanding of the

complex connections between natural resources in urban and rural settings. Managers

need to recognize, for instance, the vulnerability of urban forests to the same pest, disease, and fire issues of “natural forest environments.” Likewise, managers of exurban

forests are likely to experience the effects of development and related influences from

urban areas. Air pollution, insects, contaminated water, fire, and other risks to forest

health and sustainability are not bound by community borders and therefore call for

coordinated management efforts across the urban-rural interface. The recent discovery

of the Asian longhorned beetle in New York City and Chicago raises questions about

the introduction of exotic species into urban areas, their subsequent spread into other

urban and exurban areas, and the strategies needed to control the proliferation of these

pests. With expanding international and interstate trade, the risk of such infestations

increases.

A critical element of maintaining a functioning urban forest to sustain benefits is understanding the level of human intervention needed to keep the forest healthy. The extent

to which managers intervene in natural plant processes depends on the environmental

and social conditions specific to their areas. Because forest health issues in desert

cities (for example, water issues) may differ drastically from those in cities of grassland

or forest ecotypes (such as natural forest regeneration), and because each urban area

has distinct needs and problems, prevention and response regimens to protect urban

forest health should be developed locally. The type and frequency of management

activities needed to preserve forest health are determined by site-specific and regional

factors, including ecotype, type and severity of management issues (such as threats of

insects, disease, or fire), influence of exotic invasive plants and animals, meteorological or environmental conditions (storms, flooding, pollution episodes), availability of

funding and other resources necessary for management, level of expertise, and feasibility of cooperation between residents and managers.

Insufficient attention to maintaining urban forest health may lead to reactive management (that is, managing specific crises without an overall management plan to facilitate

sustainability of forest benefits), additional risks to exurban forest resources, and potential conflicts among urban forest owners, managers, and users. Each consequence

will substantially increase the costs of urban forest resource management in the years

ahead. Without long-term strategies to facilitate the growth and development of urban

forests after tree planting programs, the support and cooperation of citizens in future

urban forestry efforts likely would decline.
91

The key to adaptive management is applied learning—a process fundamentally driven

by a continuous influx and application of new information (Bormann and others 1994,

Lee 1993, Maser and others 1994). Thus, a critical responsibility of managers and

researchers is to provide stakeholders, decisionmakers, and users with information to

enhance communitywide planning and management. The effective distribution of information is an essential precursor to users (homeowners, planners, educators, and researchers) being able to sustain urban forest benefits (6 in fig. 21). As groups generate

new information on urban forest structure, functions, and management technologies,

the need for a reliable mechanism to ensure dissemination in a useful form and timely

manner continues to grow.

Improving the dissemination of urban forest information is an important element of

comprehensive and adaptive management of urban forests for several reasons: primarily, though, to educate public and private landowners and groups about urban forest

benefits, health issues, and management options to enable these participants to make

informed decisions in the process. Residents who are aware of the benefits and costs

associated with urban vegetation are more likely to achieve the potential for positive urban forest effects on their environment and community well-being. Improved dissemination of information also can be useful in coordinating management efforts across

the community. Public education on maintenance techniques, urban forest health

issues, and other management topics offers city foresters and others an opportunity to

influence the management of vegetation outside their immediate jurisdiction. Because

the activities of private residents and other landowners affect a large portion of the urban forest resource, informational programs aimed at these audiences provide managers with a way to enhance benefits from a significant segment of the resource.

While driving the adaptive management of urban forest resources, improved information exchange also can be a critical component of general environmental education for

all ages. Circulating pamphlets, providing literature, and hosting public workshops

about natural resource issues within the community may generate awareness of similar

issues beyond urban areas. These efforts may encourage environmentally responsible

behavior among residents, or may prompt citizens to volunteer their resources and

efforts toward natural resource-related causes outside their communities.

With the crucial links among forest resources and other components of the urban

environment, the variety of benefits they provide, and the number of individuals and

groups involved in their management, the exchange of information about urban forests

and forestry is a challenge. Though research continues to generate new information on

urban forest benefits and management technologies, the application of these findings

in the field often is limited. Contributing to this problem are incompatible information

systems, differences in technical capabilities, and obstacles to participation in conferences and other continuing education programs. The development of regional

technology-transfer and education centers to link researchers, managers, policymakers, and the public can greatly enhance the dissemination of existing and new

information about urban forests and forestry. Particularly important clientele for regional

centers are urban forest managers requiring information or assistance in developing

comprehensive management plans and policymakers needing information on how urban forests affect the health and well-being of cities. Other potential customers are

homeowners interested in how to manage their residential properties, and educators

who can incorporate urban forest ecological and management principles into their

curricula to help develop a better educational base concerning ecosystems.

Improving Dissemination

of Information
92

Because the urban forest resource is complex, variable, and managed by multiple

organizations and individuals, some common issues on dissemination of urban forest

information include lack of comprehensive information, providing public access to information, timely access to information, data quality, mechanisms for easy data sharing,

and other related issues (compatibility, reliability, metadata, methodologies, and misrepresentation). Clearly, gathering information is just one of the issues needing to be

addressed in developing a focus on information dissemination. Another key issue is the

development of opportunities to exchange and apply the compiled information in a way

that promotes effective management and use among urban forest owners, users, and

managers.

In identifying the dissemination of urban forest information as a management emphasis

area for the future, an array of policy questions on the development of information initiatives emerges: What can be done to facilitate quality information exchange among

managers, policymakers, researchers, homeowners, and other individuals? Should a

policy mandating certain standards for data quality and methodologies be developed?

Should partnerships among government agencies, research institutions, and interest

and community groups be created to compile and distribute information? Should community outreach programs be established to apply the gathered knowledge? What

measures for quality control of distributed information should be taken? In other words,

what policies will provide for the long-term assessments, information sharing, multidisciplinary research, and technology transfer needed to develop and administer comprehensive urban forest management plans?

These questions illustrate the difficulties involved in designing approaches for improving the dissemination of urban forest information, and they identify critical issues for the

future of urban forests and forestry in the United States. Without additional efforts to

communicate research findings, share innovative management technology, distribute

information, and facilitate application of this information to management of natural resources on private properties, opportunities to enhance the urban forest resource will

be missed. By limiting the dissemination of urban forest information, open dialogue and

the development of partnerships between urban forest managers and community constituents will be hindered. By reducing the effectiveness of open dialogue among

groups, inefficient distribution of information also may discourage public participation

in urban forest planning and management, curb citizen support of urban forestry programs in the future, and contribute to ineffective management of resources. As citizens

of urban areas represent owners, managers, and users of the urban forest, the focus of

urban forest management and research efforts on providing people with the information

necessary to enhance their environment is a fundamental part of linking people with

ecosystems.

All six of the above emphasis areas identify important tasks for encouraging comprehensive and adaptive management of urban forest resources in the future. These

focus points not only allow management approaches to be more compatible with

the diversity, complexity, connectedness, and dynamics of urban forests but also lay

groundwork for broadening urban forestry into a flexible, ecosystem-based management approach to sustaining forest benefits.
93

Because this report is the first national assessment of urban forests, it has focused on

quantifying the magnitude and variation of this resource and the human population

across the United States. Future urban forest assessments can build on this report to

enhance knowledge on this Nation’s urban forest resource and its management. Areas

of investigation for future reports include assessing (1) local attributes of the urban forest resource, (2) the roles and goals of urban residents and organizations, and (3) current management practices used to sustain the urban forest resource and opportunities

for improvement. Analyses of these topic areas currently are hampered by insufficient

or unorganized information at the national scale.

To better assess the current state and trends of the urban forest resource, additional

local data on the urban forest resource (that is, number of trees, species composition,

tree size, health, available planting space, and urban forest functions) need to be collected across the Nation. These locally specific data will provide information on the current structure and condition of this resource, which can serve as baseline data to determine trends in the urban forest. The establishment of permanent monitoring plots in

urban areas can enhance continuous and efficient gathering of information related to

urban forest conditions and trends. Once detailed information on urban forest structure,

condition, and trends has been developed across the country, an indepth assessment

of the national urban forest resource can be completed.

Although this assessment has presented broad information on population attributes

and trends across the Nation, more information on the human and organizational components of the urban forest is needed. Questions to be addressed in future assessments might include the following:

• What is the distribution of the urban forest resource across different ownership

groups, and how does this differ across the United States?

• What are the broad management goals of the various ownership groups (for

example, residential vs. public sector vs. commercial and industrial owners)?

• How do management goals differ within ownership groups, based on factors such as

region of the country and socioeconomic status?

• What other groups beside land owners are involved in developing and imple-menting

urban forest policy and management (for example, Federal, state, and local

agencies or not-for-profit groups)?

• What are the roles, responsibilities, and jurisdictions of owner and nonowner groups

involved in urban forestry?

Another task for future urban forest assessments is to compile and evaluate informa-tion

on current urban forest management practices across the Nation. This focus

could investigate how management practices differ among regions, and evaluate

which management procedures are most appropriate for sustaining the urban forest

The Urban Forest

Resource

The Urban Social

Resource

Current Urban Forest

Management Practices

Future Urban Forest

Assessments
94

and integrating urban forest owners. Topics covered in this type of study might include

determining the effects and degree of impacts of the following variables on the

effectiveness of management activities:

• Budgets and funding sources

• Ordinances, policies, and regulations

• Partnerships and public involvement

• Educational programs

• Innovative technologies and programs

• Scope of management (managing street trees, managing all publicly owned trees, or

managing all publicly and privately owned trees)

• Scale of management (neighborhood, city, metropolitan area)

• Goals of management

Urban forest resources in the United States are large and expanding in extent and

significance. They provide many valuable goods, services, and experiences to the

nearly 80 percent of the population that live, work, and recreate in urban areas. In

addition, urban forests have ecological and social links that extend the influence of

urban forests and forestry beyond urban areas. Involvement by urban residents with

urban forests and forestry often influences their perceptions and behaviors about

forests and forestry in exurban areas.

Urban forests are highly diverse, connected, and ever changing ecosystems. They are

complex environments linked with many other components of the urban system and

occur where people, their activities, and their developments play significant roles in

altering the physical and social environment. Management of these systems involves

a wide range of disciplines, organizations, owners, users, and managers to sustain

forest health and desired functions.

Because a principal goal of urban forestry is to sustain forest structure, health, and

benefits throughout the urban ecosystem over the long term, comprehensive and adaptive management approaches are needed. For various reasons, current urban forest

management often focuses on sustaining a healthy population of publicly owned trees

(that is, street and park tree populations). Expanding the management focus of urban

forests to all trees and their benefits in the urban ecosystem will be challenging and will

require nontraditional urban forest management techniques; however, the overall

societal benefits of doing so may be substantial.

Management must be comprehensive in terms of its process, and it must be adaptive

to allow for adjustments based on new information. To attain comprehensive and

adaptive management, urban forest managers should consider:

• The desires and needs of the community

• What urban forest structure is necessary to best address community needs

• Periodically reassessing community needs and urban forest structure to ensure that

management plans remain appropriate

Conclusions
95

To facilitate comprehensive and adaptive management to help sustain the entire urban

forest ecosystem, the following topic areas also need to be emphasized:

• Improving inventory and monitoring

• Improving dialogue among owners, managers, and users

• Fostering collaboration among agencies and groups

• Improving the understanding of how forest configurations influence forest use and

benefits

• Increasing knowledge about factors that influence urban forest health

• Improving dissemination of information about urban forests and their management

An important consideration in shifting to more comprehensive and adaptive management practices is whether the vegetation management and maintenance costs will be

reduced or societal benefits from vegetation be increased enough to warrant the additional expense of a comprehensive and adaptive management approach. Because the

societal costs and benefits from urban vegetation in the United States are easily on the

order of billions of dollars annually, the answer to this question likely is yes; however, the

question remains to be investigated.

This assessment is the first step in developing a comprehensive understanding of the

national urban forest resource and can assist in the development of comprehensive

and adaptive management plans in both urban and exurban environments. As urbanization continues to expand, and urban populations increasingly dominate the social

and political structure of the United States, understanding and managing urban forest

resources will be a critical mechanism for connecting people with ecosystems in the

21st century.
96

The authors thank Dan Crane, Myriam Ibarra, and Jack Stevens for their technical

assistance; Jonathan Fisher for compiling data and checking data analyses; the USDA

Forest Service, Southern Research Station, for the use of their AVHRR data; Brian

Johnston for assistance with RPA data; and Sue Barro, Lisa Burban, Joan Comanor,

William Cooke, David Darr, Ed Dickerhoof, Linda Langner, Greg McPherson, and Cindy

Zimar for reviewing the manuscript.

Acknowledgments
97

Akbari, J; Davis, S.; Dorsano, S. [and others]. 1992. Cooling our communities: a

guidebook on tree planting and light-colored surfacing. Washington, DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

Allen, L.; Sherfy, M. 1997. Show me ReLeaf: a unique partnership. In: Kollin, C., ed.

Cities by nature’s design: Proceedings, 8th national urban forest conference; 1997

September 17-20; Atlanta. Washington, DC: American Forests: 88-92.

Andresen, J.W.; Burban, L.L. 1993. Storms over the urban forest: planning, responding, and regreening—a community guide to natural disaster relief. Urbana, IL:

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Department of Forestry. 94 p. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State

and Private Forestry; Illinois Department of Conservation, Division of Forest

Resources.

Barden, C. 1997a. Asian long-horned beetle questions and answers. Radnor, PA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private

Forestry.

Barden, C. 1997b. Asian long-horned beetle update. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry.

Barlow, S.A.; Munn, I.A.; Cleaves, D.A.; Evans, D.L. 1998. The effect of urban

sprawl on timber harvesting. Journal of Forestry. 96(12): 10-14.

Bormann, B.T.; Cunningham, P.G.; Brookes, M.H. [and others]. 1994. Adaptive

ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-341.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 22 p.

Bradley, G.A., ed. 1984. Land use and forest resources in a changing environment: the

urban/forest interface. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 222 p.

Bradshaw, M. 1995. Cool Dallas: a model for community involvement. In: Kollin, C.;

Barratt, M., eds. Inside urban ecosystems: Proceedings, 7th national urban forest

conference; 1995 September 12-16; New York. Washington, DC: American Forests:

132-134.

Literature Cited
98

Clark, J.R.; Matheny, N.P.; Cross, G.; Wake, V. 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture. 23(1): 17-30.

Community Future Forum. 1998. Building an urban natural resources agenda for the

21st century. http://willow.ncfes.umn.edu//forum.

Coulombe, M.J. 1995. Sustaining the world’s forests: the Santiago agreement. Journal

of Forestry. 93(4): 18-21.

Cubbage, F.W.; O’Laughlin, J.; Bullock, C.S., III. 1993. Forest resource policy. New

York: John Wiley and Sons. 562 p.

Dwyer, J.F. 1991. Economic value of trees. In: A national research agenda for urban

forestry in the 1990’s. Urbana, IL: International Society of Arboriculture: 27-32.

Dwyer, J.F. 1994. Customer diversity and the future demand for outdoor recreation.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-252. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 58 p.

Dwyer, J.F.; McPherson, E.G.; Schroeder, H.W.; Rowntree, R.A. 1992. Assessing

the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture. 18(5): 227-234.

Dwyer, J.F.; Schroeder, H.W.; Louviere, J.J.; Anderson, D.H. 1989. Urbanites,

willingness to pay for trees and forests in recreation areas. Journal of Arboriculture.

15(10): 247-252.

Dwyer, J.F.; Schroeder, H.W. 1995. The human dimensions of urban forestry. Journal

of Forestry. 92(10): 12-15.

Ewert, A.W.; Chavez, D.J.; Magill, A.W., eds. 1993. Culture, conflict, and communication in the wildland-urban interface. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 410 p.

Fischer, W.C.; Arno, S.F., eds. 1988. Protecting people and homes from wildfire in the

interior West: Proceedings of the symposium and workshop; 1987 October 6-8;

Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. 251. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 213 p.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act. Act of Aug. 17, 1974.

88 Stat. 476, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614.

Frey, H.T. 1973. Major uses of land in the United States, summary for 1969. Agric.

Econ. Rep. 247. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service. 42 p.

Gangloff, D. 1995. The sustainable city. American Forests. May/June: 30-34, 38.

Geolytics, Inc. 1996. CensusCDTM. East Brunswick, NJ. Data source: Census of

Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 3 on CD-ROM [machinereadable data files]/prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC:

The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1992.

Gobster, P.H. 1995. Perceptions and use of a metropolitan greenway system for

recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning. 33: 401-413.

Gobster, P.H. 1997. Chicago wilderness and its critics: the other side—a survey of

arguments. Restoration and Management Notes. 15(1): 32-37.
99

Gobster, P.H.; Westphal, L.W. 1998. People and the river: perception and use of

Chicago waterways for recreation. Chicago Rivers Demonstration Project Report.

Milwaukee, WI: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Rivers,

Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program. 192 p.

Goodfellow, J. 1989. Trees and utilities. In: Rodbell, P., ed. Make our cities safe for

trees: Proceedings of the 4th urban forest conference; 1989 October 15-19; St.

Louis. Washington, DC: The American Forestry Association: 131-133.

Gregersen, H.; Lundgren, A.; Byron, N. 1998. Forestry for sustainable development:

making it happen. Journal of Forestry. 96(3): 6-10.

Grey, G.W.; Deneke, F.J. 1986. Urban forestry. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

299 p.

Grove, M.; Vachta, K.E.; McDonough, M.H.; Burch, W.R., Jr. 1993. The urban resources initiative: community benefits from forestry. In: Gobster, P.H., ed. Managing

urban and high-use recreation settings: Selected papers from the “Urban forestry

and ethnic minorities and the environment” paper sessions at the 4th North American

symposium on society and resource management; 1992 May 17-20; Madison, WI.

Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-163. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 24-32.

Haack, R.A.; Law, K.R.; Mastro, V.C. [and others]. 1997. New York’s battle with the

Asian long-horned beetle. Journal of Forestry. 95(12): 11-15.

Harris, R.W. 1983. Arboriculture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 688 p.

Heisler, G.H. 1986. Energy saving with trees. Journal of Arboriculture. 12(5): 113-125.

Heisler, G.H; Grant, R.H; Grimmond, S.; Souch, C. 1995. Urban forests–cooling

our communities? In: Kollin, C.; Barrat, M., eds. Inside urban ecosystems:

Proceedings, 7th national urban forest conference; 1995 September 12-16; New

York. Washington, DC: American Forests: 31-34.

Kielbaso, J.J. 1990. Trends and issues in city forests. Journal of Arboriculture. 16(3):

69-76.

Knight, F.B.; Heikkenen, H.J. 1980. Principles of forest entomology. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Co. 461 p.

Küchler, A.W. 1969. Potential natural vegetation. Survey Map, Sheet 90. Washington,

DC: U.S. Geological Survey.

Kuhns, M.; Ferenz, G.; Blahna, D. 1995. Effective community involvement in

urban forestry programs. In: Kollin, C.; Barratt, M., eds. Inside urban ecosystems:

Proceedings, 7th national urban forest conference; 1995 September 12-16; New

York. Washington, DC: American Forests: 184-187.

Laughlin, J.; Page, C., eds. 1987. Wildfire strikes home! The report of the national

wildland/urban fire protection conference. [Place of publication unknown]: Books On

Fire, Inc. 89 p.

Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the

environment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 243 p.
100

Lein, J.N.; Buhyoff, G.J. 1986. Extension of visual quality models for urban forests.

Journal of Environmental Management. 22: 245-254.

LeMaster, D.; Sedjo, R., eds. 1993. Modeling sustainable forest ecosystems.

Washington, DC: American Forests, Forest Policy Center.

Lipfert, F.W. 1994. Air pollution and community health. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold. 556 p.

Loomis, S. 1995. Revitalizing Baltimore: a model process for urban ecosystem

management. In: Kollin, C.; Barratt, M., eds. Inside urban ecosystems: Proceedings,

7th national urban forest conference; 1995 September 12-16; New York. Washington,

DC: American Forests: 40-43.

Lotan, J.E.; Alexander, M.E.; Arno, S.F. [and others]. 1978. Effects of fire on

flora: a state-of-knowledge review. In: National fire effects workshop; 1978 April

10-14; Denver, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-16. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 71 p.

Manion, P.D. 1981. Tree disease concepts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

399 p.

Maser, C.; Bormann, B.T.; Brookes, M.H. [and others]. 1994. Sustainable forestry

through adaptive ecosystem management is an open-ended experiment. In: Maser,

C. Sustainable forestry: philosophy, science, and economics. Delray Beach, FL:

St. Lucie Press: 304-340.

McPherson, E.G.; Haip, R.A. 1989. Emerging desert landscape in Tucson. Geographical Review. 79: 435-449.

McPherson, E.G.; Luttinger, N. 1998. From nature to nurture: the history of

Sacramento’s urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture. 24(2): 72-88.

McPherson, E.G.; Nowak, D.J.; Rowntree, R.A., eds. 1994. Chicago’s urban forest

ecosystem: results of the Chicago urban forest climate project. Gen. Tech. Rep.

NE-186. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Forest Experiment Station. 201 p.

McPherson, E.G.; Nowak, D.J.; Sacamano, P.L. [and others]. 1993. Chicago’s

evolving urban forest: initial report of the Chicago urban forest climate project. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NE-169. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 55 p.

Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban forestry. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 199 p.

Mills, E.S.; Hamilton, B.W. 1984. Urban economics. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman

and Company. 420 p.

Moll, G.; Berish, C. 1996. Atlanta’s changing environment. American Forests.

Spring: 26-29.

Nannini, D.K.; Sommer, R; Myers, L.S. 1998. Resident involvement in inspecting

trees for Dutch elm disease. Journal of Arboriculture. 24(1): 43-46.
101

Nassauer, J.I. 1993. Ecological function and the perception of suburban residential

landscapes. In: Gobster, P.H., ed. Managing urban and high-use recreation settings:

Selected papers from the “Urban forestry and ethnic minorities and the environment”

paper sessions at the 4th North American symposium on society and resource management; 1992 May 17-20; Madison, WI. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-163. St. Paul, MN:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment

Station: 55-60.

Nassauer, J.I. 1997. Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. In:

Nassauer, J.I., ed. Placing nature: culture and landscape ecology. Washington, DC:

Island Press: 65-83.

Neville, R.L. 1996. Urban watershed management: the role of vegetation. Syracuse,

NY: State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

143 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Nowak, D.J. 1991. Urban forest development and structure: analysis of Oakland,

California. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. 232 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Nowak, D.J. 1993a. Compensatory value of an urban forest: an application of the treevalue formula. Journal of Arboriculture. 19(3): 173-177.

Nowak, D.J. 1993b. Historical vegetation change in Oakland and its implications for

urban forest management. Journal of Arboriculture. 19(5): 313-319.

Nowak, D.J. 1993c. Remote sensing and urban forestry. In: 1992 Society of American

Foresters national conference proceedings; 1992 October 25-28, Richmond, VA.

Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters: 103-108.

Nowak, D.J. 1994. Urban forest structure: the state of Chicago’s urban forest. In:

McPherson, E.G.; Nowak, D.J.; Rowntree, R.A., eds. Chicago’s urban forest

ecosystem: results of the Chicago urban forest climate project. Gen. Tech. Rep.

NE-186. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Forest Experiment Station: 3-18, 140-164.

Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E. [In press]. The urban forest effects (UFORE) model:

quantifying urban forest structure and functions. In: Proceedings, 2d international

symposium: Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century;

1998 August 17-19; Boise, ID. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Research Station.

Nowak, D.J.; Dwyer, J.F. 2000. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest

ecosystems. In: Kuser, J.E., ed. Handbook of urban and community forestry in the

Northeast. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: 11-25.

Nowak, D.J.; McBride, J.R. 1992. Differences in Monterey pine pest populations in

urban and natural forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 50: 133-144.

Nowak, D.J.; McHale, P.J.; Ibarra, M. [and others]. 1998. Modeling the effects

of urban vegetation on air pollution. In: Gryning, S.E.; Chaunerliac, N., eds. Air

pollution modeling and its application XII. New York: Plenum Press: 399-407.

Nowak, D.J.; Rowntree, R.A.; McPherson, E.G. [and others]. 1996. Measuring

and analyzing urban tree cover. Landscape and Urban Planning. 36: 49-57.
102

Nowak, D.J.; Sydnor, T.D. 1992. Popularity of tree species and cultivars in the United

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-166. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 44 p.

Oakland Tribune. 1923. Oakland hills’ forest mantle all hand made. July 15.

Ossenbruggen, S.; Maller, L. 1997. The urban resources partnership: intergovernmental collaboration for community change. In: Kollin, C., ed. Cities by

design: Proceedings, 8th national urban forest conference; 1997 September 17-20;

Atlanta. Washington, DC: American Forests: 194-198.

Piotrowski, G. 1995. Revitalizing Baltimore and urban ecosystem policy at the

state and local level. In: Kollin, C.; Barratt, M., eds. Inside urban ecosystems:

Proceedings, 7th national urban forest conference; 1995 September 12-16; New

York. Washington, DC: American Forests: 158-161.

Pirone, P.P. 1972. Tree maintenance. New York: Oxford University Press. 574 p.

Raffetto, J. 1993. Perceptions of ecological restoration in urban parks. In: Gobster,

P.H., ed. Managing urban and high-use recreation settings: Selected papers from the

“Urban forestry and ethnic minorities and the environment” paper sessions at the 4th

North American symposium on society and resource manage-ment; 1992 May 17-

20; Madison, WI. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-163. St. Paul, MN:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment

Station: 61-67.

Ross, L.M. 1994. Illinois’ volunteer corps: a model program with deep roots in the

prairie. Restoration and Management Notes. 12(1): 57-59.

Ross, L.M. 1997. The Chicago wilderness: a coalition for urban conservation.

Restoration and Management Notes. 15(1): 17-24.

Sanders, R.A. 1984. Some determinants of urban forest structure. Journal of Urban

Ecology. 8: 13-27.

Sanders, R.A. 1986. Urban vegetation impacts on the urban hydrology of Dayton,

Ohio. Journal of Urban Ecology. 9: 361-376.

Schroeder, H.W. 1982. Preferred features of urban parks and forests. Journal of

Arboriculture. 8(12): 317-322.

Schroeder, H.W. 1983. Variations in the perception of urban forest recreation sites.

Leisure Sciences. 5(3): 221-230.

Schroeder, H.W. 1986. Estimating park tree density to maximize landscape esthetics.

Journal of Environmental Management. 23: 325-333.

Schroeder, H.W. 1988. The experience of significant landscapes at the Morton

Arboretum. In: Economic and social development — a role for forests and forestry

professionals: Proceedings of the 1987 Society of American Foresters national

convention; 1987 October 18-21; Minneapolis, MN. Bethesda, MD: Society of

American Foresters: 378-381.

Schroeder, H.W. 1989. Environment, behavior and design research on urban forests.

In: Zube, E.H.; Moore, G.L., eds. Advances in environment, behavior and design.

New York: Plenum Press: 87-107.
103

Schroeder, H.W. 1998. Why people volunteer. Restoration and Management Notes.

16(1): 66-67.

Schroeder, H.W.; Anderson, L.M. 1984. Perception of personal safety in urban

recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research. 16(2): 178-194.

Schroeder, H.W.; Buhyoff, G.J.; Cannon, W.N., Jr. 1986. Cross-validation of predictive models for esthetic quality of residential streets. Journal of Environmental

Management. 23: 309-316.

Schroeder, H.W.; Cannon, W.N., Jr. 1983. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. Journal of Arboriculture. 9(9): 237-243.

Schroeder, H.W.; Cannon, W.N., Jr. 1987. Visual quality of residential streets: both

street and yard trees make a difference. Journal of Arboriculture. 13(10): 247-252.

Sexton, K.; Gong, H., Jr.; Bailar, J.C., III [and others]. 1993. Air pollution health

risks: do class and race matter? Toxicology and Industrial Health. 9(5): 843-878.

Shore, D. 1997. Controversy erupts over restoration in Chicago area. Restoration and

Management Notes. 15(1): 25-31.

Shprentz, D.S. 1996. Breath-taking: premature mortality due to particulate air pollution

in 239 American cities. New York: Natural Resources Defense Council. 154 p.

Sommer, R. 1997. The value of resident participation in tree planting. Arborist News.

5(6): 43-44.

Sommer, R.; Leary, F.; Summitt, J.; Tirrell, M. 1994. Social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting: comparisons with developer-planted trees. Journal of

Arboriculture. 20(6): 323-328.

Sommer, R.; Summitt, J.; Leary, F.; Tirrell, M. 1995. Social and educational benefits of a community shade tree program: a replication. Journal of Arboriculture.

21(5): 260.

Stout, D. 1996. Brooklyn trees to be felled to stop invading beetles. New York Times.

December 25; Sect. B: 3.

Tschantz, B.A.; Sacamano, P.L. 1994. Municipal tree management in the United

States. Kent, OH: Davey Resource Group. 71 p.

Ulrich, R.S. 1986. Human response to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and

Urban Planning. 13: 29-44.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1982. An analysis of the timber

situation in the United States: 1952-2030. For. Resour. Rep. 23. Washington, DC.

499 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. Draft 1990 RPA program.

Washington, DC. 186 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Forest insect and disease

conditions in the United States 1993. Washington, DC. 73 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997a. FIA database retrieval

system. http://www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/scripts/ew.htm.
104

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997b. Forest health protection: the

Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis). http://www.fs.fed.us/

foresthealth/exotics/asianlh.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997c. Forest land distribution data

for the United States. http://www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/rpa/rpa93.htm.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998a. Asian longhorned beetle

in Chicago: update on the Northeastern Area State & Private Forestry response.

http://willow.ncfes.umn.edu/beetlechicago/beetlechicago09-18-98.htm.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998b. Urban national forest

homepage. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/permits/urban/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1994.

National resources inventory training modules. Washington, DC. 130 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995.

1992 national resources inventory [machine-readable data files]. Fort Worth, TX.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992a. 1990 census of

population. CP-1-1B: General population characteristics: metropolitan areas.

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992b. 1990 census

of population. CP-1-1C: General population characteristics: urbanized areas.

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992c. Census of population

and housing, 1990: Summary tape file 3 on CD-ROM [machine-readable data files].

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1994a. 1994 Tiger/Line® files

[machine-readable data files]. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1994b. Geographic areas reference manual. Washington, DC: Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau

of the Census.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1997. Previous metropolitan

area definitions. Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/

metro-city/maupdate.txt.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1998a. Annual inmigration,

outmigration, net migration, and movers from abroad for regions: 1980-1997.

Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/migration/tab-a-2.txt.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1998b. Inmigration,

outmigration, and net migration for metropolitan areas: 1985-1997. Washington, DC.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/migration/tab-a-3.txt.

Wear, D.N.; Liu, R.; Foreman, J.M; Sheffield, R. 1999. The effects of population

growth on timber management and inventories in Virginia. Forest Ecology and

Management. 118: 107-115.

Webster, H.H. 1993. Some thoughts on sustainable development as a concept, and as

applied to forests. The Forestry Chronicle. 69(5): 531-33.
105

Westphal, L.M. 1994. Urban forestry volunteers and effective outreach. In: Gobster,

P.H., ed. Managing urban and high-use recreation settings: Selected papers from the

“Urban forestry and ethnic minorities and the environment” paper sessions at

the 4th North American symposium on society and resource management; 1992

May 17-20; Madison, WI. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-163. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 436-441.

Westphal, L.M. 1995a. Birds do it, bees do it, but why do volunteers do it? A look at

motivations. In: Stearns, F.; Holland, K., eds. 1995. Proceedings, Midwest oak

savanna conference; 1993 February 20; Chicago. Chicago: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

Westphal, L.M. 1995b. Participating in urban forestry projects: how the community

benefits. In: Kollin, C.; Barratt, M., eds. Inside urban ecosystems: Proceedings, 7th

national urban forest conference; 1995 September 12-16; New York. Washington,

DC: American Forests: 101-103.

Westphal, L.M. 1997. If we can make it here we can make it anywhere: a case study

of urban ecosystem management. In: Caldwell, L.; Mon, S., eds. Integrating social

science and ecosystem management: a national challenge; 1995 December 12-14;

Helen, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-17. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 44-48.

Westphal, L.M.; Childs, G.M. 1994. Overcoming obstacles: creating volunteer

partnerships. Journal of Forestry. 92(10): 28-32.

Westphal, L.M.; Gobster, P.H. 1995. Legacy of the Clean Water Act: impacts of water

quality on urban river recreation. In: Proceedings, 4th international outdoor recreation

and tourism trends symposium and the 1995 national recreation resource planning

conference; 1995 May 14-17; St. Paul, MN. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota

College of Natural Resources; Minnesota Extension Service: 620-624.

Wiersum, K.F. 1995. 200 years of sustainability in forestry: lessons from history.

Environmental Management. 19(3): 321-329.

Zhu, Z. 1994. Forest density mapping in the lower 48 states: a regression procedure.

Res. Pap. SO-280. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station Research Paper. 11 p.
Click here to continue on to Appendices