Memo 12: Urban Forestry, Street Trees & CPR's

Cristin A. Williams
Date: 4/19/11
Readings Discussed: Steed/Fisher, Tree City Stds, Urban Forest Sustainability, Tree Canopy Goals


SUMMARY:
The topic of urban forestry has always been interesting and appealing to me. The idea of integrating nature into human built environments is seems logical and attainable concept. The Steed/Fisher article addresses the issue of street trees. Street trees are loosely defined as natural space and trees located within the close vicinity of a street. Steed & Fisher point out that the original street trees were not planted, but existed before a road was built through a forest. Today, however, most street trees are planted and usually reside in sidewalk-embedded planters. If you've been to any major US city, you've likely seen street trees. They are important for a multitude of reasons. Street trees have the following ecological benefits:

• Provide a habitat for city-dwelling wildlife, like birds and squirrels
• Reduce storm water runoff
• Reduce flooding
• CO2 absorption
• Filtering of air pollutants
• Beautification of urban landscape

Street trees are also responsible for interesting psychobenefits, like:

• Increased property values
• Slower driving speeds
• Less auto accidents
• More robust commercial areas

It is clear that street trees and urban forestry are helpful notions. Why don't cities have hundreds of parks and widespread street tree planting? Steed & Fisher point out that the street tree agenda runs into complications with funding, maintenance confusion, and liability. Seeing as these trees need to be planted, someone has to provide funding for the trees and establishment of a planting location. Sometimes city governments fund street trees, but other times private companies and NGO's provide funding via grants. Steed and Fisher spend a great deal of time debating as to whether urban trees are a common pool resource or a public good. They state that, "Although the benefits associated with street trees can be considered a public good, the
trees themselves and the spaces on which they reside are seemingly better defined as CPRs." They go on to describe that access to street trees can also be rivalrous. Shared (perceived) ownership of tree space can result in excessive paving, driveway expansion, road expansion and sidewalk expansion. When these other interests are presented, they are often favored and viewed as more beneficial than the tree area. Lastly, the two authors present the interesting predicament of legal liability of street trees. They present cases where city governments have been sued over pedestrians being injured by falling branches, and motorists getting in accidents due to tree-obstructed street signs.

The other 3 articles echo the Steed/Fisher article by presenting specific programs and plans for urban tree development. The Tree City USA article outlines the requirements a city must achieve before it can be denoted a Tree City. They consist of an establishment of a tree board or department, a tree care ordinance, a community forestry program, and an Arbor Day observance and proclamation. The next article talks about the American Forests organizations plans for and explanation of tree canopy goals. It explains the importance of urban forestry. Lastly "A MODEL OF URBAN FOREST SUSTAINABILITY" is just that, a plan for how cities can develop sustainable tree areas. This plan's central themes are a healthy tree and forest resource, community-wide support and a comprehensive management approach.

COMPARISON
The major difference between the articles was their tone. The Steed/Fisher article was an academic article that sought to clarify why there was confusion about street trees. The Urban Forest Sustainability article was also academic in nature, but provided more of a sustainability outline than the Steed/Fisher article did. The other two articles were shorter and seemed to be more of reference-type documents. Both the Steed/Fisher and Sustainability articles agreed on the importance of monitoring and human intervention within the urban forestry realm. Both also thoroughly explained the benefits of urban forestry. I guess another difference would be that the Steed/Fisher article focused on exclusively "street trees" while the other articles talk about a wider notion of urban tree cover.

QUESTIONS
After reading the Tree City USA requirements, I wondered why exactly cities would want to carry that title. Does the Tree City organization offer grants to promote forestry? Or is it simply an honorable title for a city to hold? I can imagine it would be a pull factor for families searching for a city to call their home. I know Bloomington is a Tree City USA because I have seen signs posted around town. What has the Tree City designation done specifically for Bloomington?

Another notion I thought about was the concept of ownership. Though the Steed/Fisher article discussed it, I still wonder if it is better for urban trees to be publicly or privately owned. When I say publicly owned, I mean owned and maintained by the government. Other looser, community group and NGO owned options are possible, but probably lack funding to do an adequate job. I realize that you can apply the public/private question to many things, including utilities, military, healthcare, et cetera. Though the debate still rages on, which ownership option is better? The government collects funds through taxes, but is often burdened by the snails pace of bureaucracy. Many argue that privatization is the most efficient way to achieve progress, though I sometimes doubt its equity.