Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 17, Issue , 2016, Pages 104-115

  McPherson, E Gregory ^a   van Doorn, Natalie ^a   de Goede, John ^b  

^a PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Community forest; Municipal forest; Tree benefits; Urban ecosystem services

Indexed keywords

BASELINE SURVEY; CARBON DIOXIDE; COST ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; FOREST; FUTURE PROSPECT; SPECIES DIVERSITY; TRANSPORT VEHICLE; URBAN AREA; URBAN PLANNING;

ENGLAND; LONDON [ENGLAND]; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

PLATANUS; PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA;

EID: 84964378566     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.013     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Anderson L.M., Cordell H.K. Influence of trees on residential property values in Athens, Georgia: a survey based on actual sales prices. Landscape Urban Plann. 1988, 15:153-164.
2. Bailey R.G. Ecoregion-based Design for Sustainability 2002, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
3. Ball J., Mason S.J., Kiesz A., McCormick D., Craig B. Assessing the hazard of emerald ash borer and other exotic stressors to community forests. Arboric. Urban For. 2007, 33:350-359.
4. Bernhardt E., Swiecki T.J. The state of urban forestry in California. Results of the 1988 California Urban Forest Survey 1989, p. 68. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA.
5. Bernhardt E., Swiecki T.J. The State of Urban Forestry in California - 1992 1993, p. 61. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA.
6. Breckle S.W. Walter's Vegetation of the Earth 1999, Springer, Berlin. 4th ed.
7. Brenzel K. Sunset National Garden Book 1997, Sunset Books, Inc., Menlo Park, CA.
8. California Air Resources Board Emission Reduction Offset Transaction Costs Summary Report for 2008 2011, http://www.arb.ca.gov/nsr/erco/erc08.pdf (accessed 08.12.14).
9. Climate Policy Initiative California Carbon Dashboard 2014, http://calcarbondash.org/ (accessed 08.12.14).
10. Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, Guide for Plant Appraisal (9th ed.). International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL, 2000.
11. Cowett F., Bassuk N. State-wide assessment of street trees in new York state, USA. Urban For. Urban Greening 2014, 13:213-220.
12. Cumming A.B., Twardus D.B., Smith W.D., National forest health monitoring program: Maryland and Massachusetts street tree monitoring pilot projects. NA-FR-01-06. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, p. 23. 2006.
13. Cumming A.B., Twardus D.B., Hoehn R., Nowak D.J., Mielke M., Rideout R., Butalla H., Lebow P., National forest health monitoring program: Wisconsin street tree assessment 2003-2003. NA-FR-02-08. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, p. 23, 2008.
14. Davey Resource Group Indiana's Street Tree Benefits Summary 2010, http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/files/Fo-INSpeciesDistributionUrbanTrees709.pdf (accessed 01.07.15).
15. Davey Resource Group Indiana's Street Tree Species Distrubution Accessed 2010, http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/files/Fo-INSpeciesDistributionUrbanTrees709.pdf (accessed 01.07.15).
16. Gartner J.T., Treiman T., Frevert T. Missouri urban forest - a ten-year comparison. J. Arboric. 2002, 28:76-83.
17. Jim C.Y., Liu H.T. Species diversity of three major urban forest types in Guangzhou City, China. For. Ecol. Manage. 2001, 146:99-114.
18. Kielbaso J.J., Cotrone V. The state of the urban forest. Make Our Cities Safe for Trees: Proceedings of the Fourth Urban Forestry Conference 1990, 11-18. American Forestry Association, Washington DC. P.D. Rodbell (Ed.).
19. Kielbaso J.J., Beauchamp B., Larison K., Randall C. Trends in Urban Forestry Management. Baseline Data Report 1988, International City Management Association, Washington, D.C.
20. Lesser L.M. Street tree diversity and DBH in southern california. J. Arboric. 1996, 22:180-186.
21. Maco S.E., McPherson E.G. A practical approach to assessing structure function, and value of stree tree populations in small communities. J. Aboric. 2003, 29:84-97.
22. McPherson E.G., Berry A.M., Climate-ready urban trees for Central Valley cities, 41, (1), 58-62. 2015.
23. McPherson E.G., Kotow L. A municipal report card results for california, USA. Urban For. Urban Greening 2013, 12:134-143.
24. McPherson E.G., Peper P.J. Urban tree growth modeling. Arboric. Urban For. 2012, 38:172-180.
25. McPherson E.G., Rowntree R.A. Using structural measures to compare twenty-two U.S. street tree populations. Landscape J. 1989, 8:13-23.
26. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R. A comparison of municipal forest benefits and costs in Modesto and Santa Monica California, U.S.A. Urban For. Urban Greening 2002, 1:61-74.
27. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R. Potential energy saving in buildings by an urban tree planting programme in California. Urban For. Urban Greening 2003, 3:73-86.
28. McPherson E.G., Nowak D., Heisler G., Grimmond S., Souch C., Grant R., Rowntree R. Quantifying urban forest structure function, and value: the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban Ecosyst. 1997, 1:49-61.
29. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Xiao Q. Tree Guidelines for San Joaquin Valley Communities 1999, p. 63. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA.
30. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Scott K.I., Xiao Q., Tree Guidelines for Coastal Southern California Communities, in: USDA Forest Service, P.S.R.S., Center for Urban Forest Research (Ed.). Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA, p. 98. 2000.
31. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Xiao Q., Pittenger D. Tree Guidelines for Inland Empire Communities, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Center for Urban Forest Research 2000, p. 116. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA.
32. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Maco S.E., Xiao Q., Mulrean E., Desert Southwest Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting. Arizona Community Tree Council, Inc, Phoenix, AZ, p. 76. 2004.
33. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Maco S.E., Xiao Q. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five U.S cities. J. For. 2005, 103:411-416.
34. McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Crowell A.M.N., Xiao Q., Northern California coast community tree guide: benefits, costs, and strategic planting. PSW-GTR-228. Gen. Tech. Rep. Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Albany, CA, p. 118. 2010.
35. McPherson E.G. Expenditures associated with conflicts between street tree root growth and hardscape in California, United States. J. Arboric. 2000, 26:289-297.
36. McPherson E.G. Selecting reference cities for i-Tree Streets. Arboric. Urban For. 2010, 36:230-240.
37. Muller R.N., Bornstein C. Maintaining the diversity of California's municipal forests. J. Arboric. 2010, 36:18.
38. Nowak D.J., Hirabayashi S., Bodine A., Greenfield E. Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 193:119-129.
39. Peper P.J., McPherson E.G., Mori S.M. Predictive equations for dimensions and leaf area of coastal Southern California street trees. J. Arboric. 2001, 27:169-180.
40. Peper P.J., McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Gardner S.L., Vargas K.E., Xiao Q. New York City, New York Municipal Forest Resource Analysis USDA Forest Service 2007, p. 65. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
41. Raupp M.J., Cumming A.B., Raupp E.C. Street tree diversity in Eastern North America and its potential for tree loss to exotic borers. Arboric. Urban For. 2006, 32:297-304.
42. Richards N.A. Diversity and stability in a street tree population. Urban Ecol. 1983, 7:159-171.
43. Santamour F.S. Trees for urban planting: diversity, uniformity and common sense. Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance. Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance 1990, 57-65.
44. Scott K.I., McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R. Air pollutant uptake by Sacramento's urban forest. J. Arboric. 1998, 24:224-234.
45. Templeton S.R., Campbell W., Henry M., Lowdermilk J. Impacts of Urban Forestry on California's Economy in 2009 and Growth of Impacts During 1992-2009 2013, p. 44. Cal Fire, Clemson, SC.
46. Thompson R.P., Ahern J.J., The state of urban and community forestry in California: Status in 1997 and trends since 1988. California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, Tech. Report 9, Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, p. 48. 2000.
47. Thompson R.P., The state of urban and community forestry in California: Status in 2003 and trends since 1988. California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, Tech. Rep. 13, Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, p. 48. 2006.
48. Treiman T., Atchison B., McDonnell T., Barden C., Moshe W.K. Economic Loss Associated with the Introduction of Thousand Canker Disease of Black Walnut to Kansas 2010, p. 4. Agricultural Experiment State and Cooperative Extension Service, Manhattan, KS.
49. Treiman T., Kuhn N., Gartner J.T., Koenig A. Missouri's 2010 Street Tree Economics 2011, p. 2. Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO.
50. Treiman T., Kuhn N., Gartner J.T., Koenig A. Missouri's 2010 Street Tree Inventory 2011, p. 2. Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO.
51. Trulia.com Trulia 2015,http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/ accessed 02.07.15).
52. Tschantz B.A., Sacamano P.L., Municipal Tree Management in the United States. International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, IL. p. 58. 1994.
53. U.S.Census Bureau Tiger Line 2010, https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/pdfs/tiger/tgrshp201/TGRSHP10SF1.pdf (accessed 02.07.15).
54. Ulmer J.M., Blain C., Wolf K.L., Backman D.R., O'Neil-Dunne J., Frank L.D. In Review. Green Prescription: Associations Between Urban Tree Cover and Multiple Health Benefits 2016, Health & Place, (in press).
55. Vargas K.E., McPherson E.G., Simpson J.R., Peper P.J., Gardner S.L., Xiao Q. Interior West Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting, (PSW-GTR-205) 2007, p. 95. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station Albany, CA.
56. Wildenthal R., Keilbaso J.J. Michigan Street Trees: An Assessment of Twenty Cities - 1994 1994, p. 14. Department of Forestry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
57. Wray P.H., Prestemon D.R. Assessment of street trees in Iowa's small communities. Iowa State J. Res. 1983, 58:261-268.
58. Xiao Q., McPherson E.G., Ustin S.L., Grismer M.E. A new approach to modeling tree rainfall interception. J. Geog. Res. Atmos. 2000, 105:29173-29188.