Evaluating the impact of government land use policies on tree canopy coverage

Land Use Policy

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 407-414

  Hill, Elizabeth ^a   Dorfman, Jeffrey H ^b   Kramer, Elizabeth ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Local governments; Tree canopy; Tree ordinances; Urban forests

Indexed keywords

CANOPY; FOREST COVER; LAND USE PLANNING; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; METROPOLITAN AREA; POLICY MAKING; TREE; URBAN FORESTRY; URBAN POLICY;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 70449624969     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.05.007     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allen L. A Social, Economic and Political Analysis of Missouri's Urban Forest (1995), University of Missouri, Columbia, MO p. 135
2. American Forests, 2002. American Forests Unveils CITYgreen 5.0: Nonprofit Provides New Emphasis on the Environmental and Economical Benefits of Urban Tree Cover. http://www.americanforests.org/news/display.php?id=44 (accessed 1/5/07). Washington, DC.
3. Athens-Clarke County Government, 2009. Planning Code. Available online at http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?sid=10&pid=12400.
4. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy (Brookings), 2000. Moving Beyond Sprawl: The Challenge for Metropolitan Atlanta. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
5. CensusScope, 2006. Your Portal to Census 2000 Data. Available on the internet at http://www.censusscope.org.
6. Center for Urban Forestry Research, 2008. U.S. Forest Service. Research summarized on the internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/research/studies.php?TopicID=2.
7. Clark J.R., and Matheny N.P. A model of urban forest sustainability: application to cities in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 24 2 (1998) 112-120
8. Coughlin R.E., Mendes D.C., and Strong A.L. Local programs in the United States for preventing destruction of trees on private land. Landscape and Urban Planning 15 (1988) 165-171
9. Daniels T. When the City and the County Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe (1999), Island Press, Washington, DC
10. Dillman D.A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (1978), Wiley-Interscience, New York
11. Dillman D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. second ed. (2007), John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York
12. Elmendorf W.F., Cotrone V.J., and Mullen J.T. Trends in urban forestry practices, programs, and sustainability: contrasting a Pennsylvania, U.S., study. Journal of Arboriculture 29 4 (2003) 237-248
13. Gatrell J.D., and Jensen R.R. Growth through greening: developing and assessing alternative economic development programmes. Applied Geography 22 (2002) 331-350
14. Georgia Forestry Commission. Tree Benefits: Environmental Benefits of Urban Trees. Accessed on 10.1.06 at http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/CommunityForests/TreeBenefits.cfm.
15. Georgia Wildlife Web (GWW), 2000. Regions of Georgia. http://museum.nhm.uga. edu/gawildlife/gawwregions.html (3/15/07).
16. Giles W., Gabris G., and Krane D. Dynamics in rural policy development: the uniqueness of county government. Public Administration Review 1980 (1980) 24-28 Jan/Feb
17. Green T.L., Howe T.J., and Schroeder H.W. Maryland's forest conservation act: a process for urban greenspace protection during the development process. Journal of Arboriculture 26 5 (1998) 275-279
18. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis. sixth ed. (2008), Prentice-Hall, New York
19. Head C. Georgia's Tree Ordinances: Results of the Survey of Community Tree Regulation in Georgia (2006), The Georgia Urban Forest Council, Inc., Atlanta, GA
20. Heim C.E. Leapfrogging, urban sprawl, and growth management: Phoenix 1950-2000. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 60 1 (2001) 245-283
21. Heynan N.C., and Lindsey G. Correlates of urban forestry canopy cover: implications for local public works. Public Works Management and Policy 8 1 (2003) 33-47
22. Hodler T.W., and Schretter H.A. The Atlas of Georgia (1986), University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA
23. Konijnendijk, C.C., 1999. Urban Forestry in Europe: A Comparative Study of Concepts, Policies and Planning for Forest Conservation, Management and Development in and Around Major European Cities. Doctoral Dissertation. Research Notes No. 90. Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu.
24. Konijnendijk C.C. A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173-186
25. Lo C.P., and Yeung A. Concepts and Techniques of Geographic Information Systems (2002), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
26. Lu D., and Weng Q. Use of impervious surface in urban land-use classification. Remote Sensing of Environment 102 (2006) 146-160
27. McPherson G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Maco S.E., and Xiao Q. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five U.S. cities. Journal of Forestry 103 (2005) 411-416
28. Municipal Code Corporation, 2006. MuniCode. Available on the internet at http://www.municode.com.
29. Natural Resources Spatial Analysis Laboratory (NARSAL). Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area. Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia. http://narsal.ecology.uga.edu/msa/atlanta _msa.pdf (3/14/07).
30. Nowak D.J., Rowntree R.A., McPherson E.G., Sisinni S.M., Kerkmann E.R., and Stevens J.C. Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Landscape and Urban Planning 36 (1996) 49-57
31. Nowak D.J., Crane D.E., and Dwyer J.F. Compensating value of urban trees in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 28 (2002) 194-199
32. Olsen, P., 2000. Development Impact Fees in Georgia. FindLaw. http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Sep/1/127281.html (accessed 3/1/07).
33. Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), 2004. Urban and Community Forestry in Oregon: Results of the 2004 City Survey. Urban and Community Forestry Assistance Program.
34. Real Estate Center, 2005 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA MSA Population and Components of Change: 2005 Definition. Located at: http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa12060.html (accessed 4/1/07).
35. Ricard R.M. Urban and Community Forestry Survey Results (1994), University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System, Haddam, CT p. 54
36. Schroeder H.W., Green T.L., and Timothy J.H. Community tree programs in Illinois, U.S.: a statewide survey and assessment. Journal of Arboriculture 29 6 (2003) 218-225
37. Scott K.I., Simpson J.R., and McPherson E.G. Effects of tree cover on parking lot microclimate and vehicle emissions. Journal of Arboriculture 25 3 (1999) 129-142
38. Taha H. Modeling impacts of increased urban vegetation on ozone air quality in the south coast air basin. Atmospheric Environment 30 20 (1996) 3423-3430
39. Trieman T. Community forestry in Missouri, U.S: attitudes and knowledge of local officials. Journal of Arboriculture 30 4 (2004) 205-213
40. U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. Current List of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas and Definitions. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletins, December, 2005 (OMB Bulletin No. 06-01). Located at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/e stimates/metrodef.html (accessed 4/1/07).
41. Wiersum, K. F., 1999. Social Forestry: Changing Perspectives in Forestry, Science or Practice? Dissertation, Wageningen University. ISBN 90-5808-055-2.
42. Zhu P., and Zhang Y. Demand for urban forests in United States cities. Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 293-300