Applying spatial analysis techniques to assess Tennessee urban forests

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 184-186

  Bridges, Christopher A ^a  

^a Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation   (United States)

Author keywords

GIS; Spatial analysis; Tennessee; Urban forestry; Urban rural interface

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; REMOTE SENSING; SPATIAL VARIABLES MEASUREMENT; TIMBER;

COMMUNITY FORESTRY; ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS; FOREST SUSTAINABILITY; REMOTE SENSING DATA; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; TENNESSEE; URBAN FORESTRY; URBAN-RURAL;

FORESTRY;

CITIES; DATA; FOREST CANOPY; FORESTRY; FORESTS; GIS; REMOTE SENSING; SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT;

EID: 63349089243     PISSN: 01484419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sjaf/32.4.184     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. AMERICAN FORESTS s]. 2008. Setting urban tree canopy goals. Available online at www.americanforests.org/resources/urbanforests/ treedeficit.php; last accessed June 18, 2008.
2. ANDERSON, J.R., E.E. HARDY, J.T. ROACH, AND R.E. WITMER s]. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. US Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 964. 36 p.
3. CARVER, A.D., D.R. UNGER, AND C.L. PARKS s]. 2004. Modeling energy savings from urban shade trees: An assessment of the CITYgreen energy conservation module. Environ. Manag. 34(5):650-655.
4. CARVER, A.D., R.G. THURAU, E.G. WHITE, AND M. LAZDINIS s]. 2006. Applying spatial analysis to forest policy evaluation: Case study of the Illinois Forestry Development Act. Environ. Sci. Policy 9:253-260.
5. DWYER, J.F., E.G. MCPHERSON, H.W. SCHROEDER, AND R.A. ROWNTREE s]. 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J. Arboricult. 18(5):227-234.
6. GALVIN, M.F., B. WILSON, AND M. HONECZY s]. 2000. Maryland's Forest Conservation Act: A process for urban greenspace protection during the development process. J. Arboricult. 26(5):275-280.
7. GALVIN, M.F., AND D. BLEIL s]. 2004. Relationship among tree canopy quantity, community demographics, and Tree City USA program participation in Maryland, U.S. J. Arboricult. 30(6):321-327.
8. GRONINGER, J.W., D.D. CLOSE., AND C.M. BASMAN s]. 2002. Can small, rural communities practice urban forestry? J. For. 100(1):23-28.
9. LAVERNE, R.J., AND K. WINSON-GEIDMAN s]. 2003. The influence of trees and landscapes on rental rates at office buildings. J. Arboricult. 29(5):281-290.
10. MCPHERSON, G., J.R. SIMPSON, P.J. PAULA, S.E. MACO, AND Q. XIAO s]. 2006. Multiple forest benefits and costs in five U.S. cities. J. For. 103(8):411-416.
11. NOWAK, D.J.2006. Institutionalizing urban forestry as a biotechnology to improve environmental quality. Urban For. Urban Green. 5:93-100.
12. NOWAK, D.J., M.H. NOBLE, S.M. SISINNI, AND J.F. DWYER s]. 2001. People and trees: Assessing the U.S. urban forest resource. J. For. 99(3):37-42.
13. STEHMAN, S.V., J.D. WICKHAM, J.H. SMITH, AND L. YANG s]. 2003. Thematic accuracy of the 1992 National Land-Cover Data (NLCD) for the eastern United States: Statistical methodology and regional results. Remote Sens. Environ. 86:500-516.
14. WOLF, K.L.2005. Business district streetscapes, trees and consumer response. J. For. 103(8):396-400.