Comparing street tree assemblages and associated stormwater benefits among communities in metropolitan Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 734-741

  Berland, Adam ^a   Hopton, Matthew E ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Basal area; I Tree Streets; Municipal street trees; Stormwater interception; Urban forest structure

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; FOREST CANOPY; GREENSPACE; HETEROGENEITY; INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING; INTERCEPTION; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; METROPOLITAN AREA; NUMERICAL MODEL; SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATOR; STORMWATER; URBAN FORESTRY;

CINCINNATI; OHIO; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84940163146     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Arbor Day Foundation Tree City USA 2014, Retrieved from http://www2.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/ (30.01.14).
2. Benjamini Y., Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 1995, 57:289-300.
3. Berland A. Long-term urbanization effects on tree canopy cover along an urban-rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst. 2012, 15:721-738.
4. Berland A., Manson S.M. Patterns in residential urban forest structure along a synthetic urbanization gradient. Annals Assoc. Am. Geograph. 2013, 103:749-763.
5. Boone C.G., Cadenasso M.L., Grove J.M., Schwarz K., Buckley G.L. Landscape, vegetation characteristics, and group identity in an urban and suburban watershed: why the 60s matter. Urban Ecosyst. 2010, 13:255-271.
6. Conway T.M., Bourne K.S. A comparison of neighborhood characteristics related to canopy cover, stem density and species richness in an urban forest. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 113:10-18.
7. Conway T.M., Urbani L. Variations in municipal urban forestry policies: a case study of Toronto, Canada. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 2007, 6:181-192.
8. Conway T.M., Shakeel T., Atallah J. Community groups and urban forestry activity: drivers of uneven canopy cover?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 101:321-329.
9. Delucchi K.L., Bostrom A. Methods for analysis of skewed data distributions in psychiatric clinical studies: working with many zero values. Am. J. Psychiatry 2004, 16:1159-1168.
10. Dwyer J.F., McPherson E.G., Schroeder H.W., Rowntree R.A. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J. Arboricult. 1992, 18:227-234.
11. Escobedo F.J., Nowak D.J. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 90:102-110.
12. Escobedo F.J., Kroeger T., Wagner J.E. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159:2078-2087.
13. Franco M., Diez Roux A.V., Glass T.A., Caballero B., Brancati F.L. Neighborhood characteristics and availability of healthy foods in Baltimore. Am. J. Prevent. Med. 2008, 35:561-567.
14. Franzini L., Taylor W., Elliott M.N., Cuccaro P., Tortolero S.R., Gilliland M.J., Gunbaum J., Schuster M.A. Neighborhood characteristics favorable to outdoor physical activity: disparities by socioeconomic and racial/ethnic composition. Health Place 2010, 16:267-274.
15. Green O.O., Shuster W.D., Rhea L.K., Garmestani A.S., Thurston H.W. Identification and induction of human, social, and cultural capitals through an experimental approach to stormwater management. Sustainability 2012, 4:1669-1682.
16. Grove J.M., Troy A.R., O'Neil-Dunne J.P.M., Burch W.R., Cadenasso M.L., Pickett S.T.A. Characterization of households and its implications for the vegetation of urban ecosystems. Ecosystems 2006, 9:578-597.
17. Heynen N.C., Lindsey G. Correlates of urban forest canopy cover: implications for local public works. Public Works Manage. Policy 2003, 8:33-47.
18. Hirabayashi S. i-Tree Streets/Design/Eco rainfall interception model comparisons 2013, Retrieved from http://www.itreetools.org/eco/resources/iTree_Streets_Design_Eco_Rainfall_Interception_Model_Comparisons.pdf (30.01.14).
19. i-Tree i-Tree Streets User's Manual v. 5.0 2012, Retrieved from http://www.itreetools.org (30.01.14).
20. Kirkpatrick J.B., Daniels G.D., Zagorski T. Explaining variation in front gardens between suburbs of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79:314-322.
21. Lachenbruch P.A. Comparisons of two-part models with competitors. Stat. Med. 2001, 20:1215-1234.
22. Landry S.M., Chakraborty J. Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environ. Plan. A 2009, 41:2651-2670.
23. Landry S., Pu R. The impact of land development regulation on residential tree cover: an empirical evaluation using high-resolution IKONOS imagery. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 94:94-104.
24. Lowry J.H., Baker M.E., Ramsey R.D. Determinants of urban tree canopy in residential neighborhoods: household characteristics, urban form, and the geophysical landscape. Urban Ecosyst. 2012, 15:247-266.
25. Mayer A.L., Shuster W.D., Beaulieu J.J., Hopton M.E., Rhea L.K., Roy A.H., Thurston H.W. Building green infrastructure via citizen participation: a six-year study in the Shepherd Creek (Ohio). Environ. Pract. 2012, 14:57-67.
26. Maco S.E., McPherson E.G. Assessing canopy cover over streets and sidewalks in street tree populations. J. Arboricult. 2002, 28:270-276.
27. McGarigal K., Cushman S., Stafford S. Multivariate Statistics for Wildlife and Ecology Research 2000, Springer, New York.
28. McPherson G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Maco S.E., Xiao Q. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. J. Forest. 2005, 103:411-416.
29. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Xiao Q., Wu C. Million trees Los Angeles canopy cover and benefit assessment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 99:40-50.
30. Moore L.V., Diez Roux A.V. Associations of neighborhood characteristics with the location and type of food stores. Am. J. Public Health 2006, 96:325-331.
31. NOAA NOWData - NOAA Online Weather Data 2014, Retrieved from http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate (30.01.14).
32. Nowak D.J., Crane D.E., Stevens J.C., Hoehn R.E., Walton J.T., Bond J. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboricult. Urban Forest. 2008, 34:347-358.
33. Peper P.J., McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Vargas K.E., Xiao Q. Lower Midwest Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting PSW-GTR-219 2009, USDA Forest Service, Albany, CA.
34. Peper P.J., Alzate C.P., McNeil J.W., Hashemi J. Allometric equations for urban ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) in Oakville, Southern Ontario, Canada. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 2014, 13:175-183.
35. Pickett S.T.A., Buckley G.L., Kaushal S.S., Williams Y. Social-ecological science in the humane metropolis. Urban Ecosyst. 2011, 14:319-339.
36. Pike N. Using false discovery rates for multiple comparisons in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2011, 2:278-282.
37. Project Groundwork Lick Run Project 2014, Retrieved from http://projectgroundwork.org/downloads/lickrun/Lick_Run_Factsheet.pdf (12.02.14).
38. Rae R.A., Simon G., Braden J. Public reactions to new street tree planting. Cities Environ. (CATE) 2011, 3:10.
39. Roman L.A., Scatena F.N. Street tree survival rates: meta-analysis of previous studies and application to a field survey in Philadelphia, PA, USA. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 2011, 10:269-274.
40. Sanders R.A. Some determinants of urban forest structure. Urban Ecol. 1984, 8:13-27.
41. Schroeder H., Flanningan J., Coles R. Residents' attitudes toward street trees in the UK and U.S. communities. Arboricult. Urban Forest. 2006, 32:236-246.
42. Soares A.L., Rego F.C., McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Xiao Q. Benefits and costs of street trees in Lisbon, Portugal. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 2011, 10:69-78.
43. Stovin V.R., Jorgensen A., Clayden A. Street trees and stormwater management. Arboricult. J. 2008, 30:297-310.
44. Troxel B., Piana M., Ashton M.S., Murphy-Dunning C. Relationships between bole and crown size for young urban trees in the northeastern USA. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 2013, 12:144-153.
45. Troy A.R., Grove J.M., O'Neil-Dunne J.P.M., Pickett S.T.A., Cadenasso M.L. Predicting opportunities for greening and patterns of vegetation on private urban lands. Environ. Manage. 2007, 40:394-412.
46. U.S.Census Bureau American FactFinder 2012, Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov (02.01.14).
47. U.S.Census Bureau TIGER Products 2013, Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html (02.01.14).
48. U.S.Mayors Protecting and developing the urban tree canopy: a 135-city survey 2008, The United States Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC.
49. Verhoeven K.J.F., Simonsen K.L., McIntyre L.M. Implementing false discovery rate control: increasing your power. Oikos 2005, 108:643-647.
50. Xiao Q., McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Ustin S.L. Rainfall interception by Sacramento's urban forest. J. Arboricult. 1998, 24:235-244.
51. Xiao Q., McPherson E.G. Rainfall interception by Santa Monica's municipal urban forest. Urban Ecosyst. 2002, 6:291-302.