Monitoring the Urban Forest: A National Network for Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships
-
Upload
arbor-day-foundation -
Category
Education
-
view
257 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Monitoring the Urban Forest: A National Network for Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships
Monitoring the Urban Forest: A Na3onal Network for Researcher-‐
Prac33oner Partnerships
7 November 2013
Lara Roman, USDA Forest Service
www.urbantreegrowth.org
Prac33oner-‐driven urban tree monitoring: A na3onal survey
Survey goals
• Why do local organizaFons engage in urban tree monitoring?
• How do these organizaFons conduct monitoring projects?
• What are the common challenges? • How can researchers assist?
Reasons for monitoring
• Track mortality, health & growth (51%) • ProacFve tree care & management (44%) • Public engagement (21%) • Monitoring required by grant or contract (16%)
“The sense that we were losing trees as fast as they were being planted made [us] want to see whether that was true, so ge[ng some data together was essenFal to know if we were in fact gaining or losing ground.”
Monitoring methods
• Limited external assistance (17%) • Field crews
– Program staff (62%) – Volunteers (42%) – Arborists (36%) – Researchers (16%) – Interns (16%)
Field data
• Species (96%) • CondiFon raFng (89%) • Mortality status (76%) • DBH (71%)
Recording tree loca3on
• Street address (78%) • GPS (42%) • Site maps (31%) • Tree tags (16%)
Challenges
• Resource limitaFon (63%) ½ of organizaFons ≤ 6 staff
• Data management & technology (47%) • Developing protocols (28%) • Field crew training (25%) • ImplemenFng field work (25%)
“Not knowing what to monitor, no one to monitor, not knowing what quesFons to ask of the monitoring.”
Urban tree monitoring protocols
• How are these protocols different? – Emphasis on locaFonal accuracy – Longitudinal data – Training materials – Bojom-‐up process
New monitoring protocols
• Keep it simple
• Make it flexible
• Seek input from pracFFoners
• Answer key research quesFons
• Promote management objecFves
Guiding principles
MINIMUM Data Set date, locaFon, species, DBH
MANAGEMENT Data Set stewardship, program
staff and funding resources
COMMUNITY Data Set income, housing, educaFon, crime
SITE Data Set sidewalks, roads, buildings, soils
TREE Data Set tree size, health, pests & diseases
Field crew Date
Minimum data set
Project data
Field crew Date LocaFon Site type Land use
Minimum data set
Project data
LocaFon data
Field crew Date LocaFon Site type Land use Species DBH Mortality status CondiFon raFng
Minimum data set
Project data
LocaFon data
Tree data
Loca3on: NYC example
2nd STREET
1st STREET
2nd AV
1st AV
102 104 106
108
102
1 F
1 S
2 S
1 F
1 F 2 F
1 S
1 X
2 F
108
1 A 2 A
1 SX
2 S
XXX
2 AS 108 1st ST
1 SA
101103
100
102
1 AS 108 1st ST
Land Use Description
Single-family ResidentialDetached residential structures serving one to four families each (includes twins and duplex-es).
Multi-family ResidentialStructures containing more than four residential units (includes apartment complexes and row homes). Includes all trees associated with this land use type (e.g., street trees, park-like lawns, hardscape patios, parking lots).
CommercialDowntown commercial districts, malls, strip malls, and shopping plazas. Includes all trees associated with this land use type (e.g., street trees, park-like lawns, hardscape patios, parking lots).
IndustrialFactories, warehouses, and trucking businesses. Includes all trees associated with this land use type (e.g., street trees, park-like lawns, hardscape patios, parking lots).
InstitutionalSchools, colleges, hospital complexes, religious buildings, and government buildings. Includes all trees associated with this land use type (e.g., street trees, park-like lawns, hard-scape patios, parking lots).
Maintained ParkMaintained or landscaped public parks. Includes all trees in or adjacent to a park (i.e., locat-ed in hardscape, lawn, or adjacent sidewalks).
Natural Area/Vacant
Tree is located in a natural park or open space area that has minimal human intervention. All trees within natural area land use should have site type “natural area/vacant” but not vice-versa (i.e., trees may have that site type but be located on properties with different land uses). Natural areas include forests, prairies, woodlands, and other natural or minimally managed habitats.
Cemetery Self-explanatory
Golf Course* Self-explanatory
Agricultural*&URS�ODQG��SDVWXUH��RUFKDUGV��YLQH\DUGV��QXUVHULHV��IRU�IDUP�ODQG�WKDW�LV�IDOORZ�ZKHQ�WKH�¿HOG�work observations occur, the land uses is still agricultural).
*Category is unlikely to be relevant to most urban tree monitoring projects, but has been retained here for compatibility with i-Tree Eco.
Urban Tree Growth and Longevity http://www.urbantreegrowth.org
Land UseLeaf design
Land use is a description of the way the property around (or adjacent to) the tree is used by humans. Land use is GLVWLQFW�IURP�VLWH�W\SH��DOWKRXJK�WKH�WZR�YDULDEOHV�DUH�UHODWHG�DQG�WKHUH�LV�VRPH�RYHUODS�LQ�WKHLU�GH¿QLWLRQV��SDUWLFX-larly with parks and natural areas. This manual’s land use variable refers to land use at the property level, not at the tree site.
When collected: All treesDescription: Human land use at the property where the tree site is located (or adjacent to the site, in the case of street trees).Rationale: Tree species mortality and growth rates may vary by land use categories.
Urban Tree Growth and Longevity http://www.urbantreegrowth.org
The following pages contain examples of how to classify urban trees for site type and land use with our protocols, with examples of photos following. Please see sections 1.1 Land Use and 1.2 Site Type for more information and examples of those values
*Note that “natural area/vacant” is both a site type and a land use. All trees in “natural area/vacant” land use should have that same site type. However, the reverse is not necessarily true. Trees on a variety of land uses can have WUHHV�ZLWK�VLWH�W\SHV�FODVVL¿HG�DV�³QDWXUDO�DUHD�YDFDQW´�
Examples
1.3 Land Use & Site Type
Example 1.3ASidewalk Cut-out; Commercial
Example 1.3BSidewalk Cut-out; Multi-family Residential
Land Use Values• Single-family Residential• Multi-family Residential• Commercial • Industrial• Institutional• Maintained Park• Natural Area/Vacant• Cemetery• Golf Course• Agricultural• Utility• Water/Wetland• Transportation• Other
Site Type Values• Sidewalk Cut-out• Sidewalk Planting Strip• Median • Other Hardscape• Frontyard• Backyard• Maintained Park-like• Natural Area/Vacant+
Training & Project Management • Technical manual • Field guide • Project set-‐up “choose your own adventure” • FAQ • Training materials
Data Management • Mobile apps, field sheets • RelaFonal database
Final products
Sacramento shade tree survival study
Sacramento Shade Tree Program
Reduce energy use through tree shade 5 years annual monitoring data
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
time
survivorship
0 1 2 3 4 5
time (years since planting)
surv
ivor
ship
Fme (years since planFng)
survivorship
71% survivorship (5 yrs) 6.6% annual mortality
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
time
survivorship
PropertyStable2007Last=stablePropertyStable2007Last=unstable
0 1 2 3 4 5
time (years since planting)
surv
ivor
ship
stable homeownership unstable homeownership
Fme (years since planFng)
survivorship
unstable homeowners: 9.3% annual mortality
stable homeowners: 5.2% annual mortality
• The value of longitudinal data
• Need for bejer monitoring tools
• CollaboraFve process
Conclusions
“This is a great place to start. Update everyone as to your findings and get everyone together to talk about it.”
www.urbantreegrowth.org [email protected]