Branching out to residential lands: Missions and strategies of five tree distribution programs in the U.S |
| |
| Institution: | 1. University of California, Berkeley, 130 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, United States;2. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Field Station, 100 N. 20th St., Philadelphia, PA, 19103, United States;3. Graduate School of Geography, Clark University 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA, 01610-1477, United States;4. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, MSBII 134, 702 N. Walnut Grove Ave. Bloomington, IN, 47405, United States;5. Casey Trees, 3030 12th St NE, Washington DC, 20017, United States;6. Philadelphia Parks & Recreation, 1515 Arch St. 10th floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, United States;8. City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation, 1234 Fifth Ave., New York, NY, 10029, United States;1. Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA;2. Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA;3. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Davis, CA, USA;4. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Field Station, Philadelphia, PA, USA;1. Discipline of Geography and Spatial Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia;2. Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne, c/o School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia;1. New Zealand School of Forestry, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand;2. Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Mississauga, Canada;1. US Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Field Station, 100 N. 20th St. Suite 205, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, United States;2. Geography and Urban Studies Department, Temple University, 308 Gladfelter Hall, 1115 W. Berks St. Philadelphia, PA, 19122, United States;3. Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 333 Design Building, 551 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA, 01003, United States;4. Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Rd., Mississauga, ON, Canada;5. Department of Natural Resources and the Environment & Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of Connecticut, Unit 4087, 1376 Storrs Rd. Storrs, CT, 06269, United States;6. School of Geosciences & USF Water Institute, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Ave., NES107, Tampa, FL, United States;7. Environmental Science and Studies Department, DePaul University, 1 E. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL, 60601, United States;8. US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 800 Buchanan St., Albany, CA, 94710, United States;9. US Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Baltimore Field Station, 5523 Research Park Drive, Suite 350, Baltimore, MD, 21228, United States;10. National Socio-environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC), 1 Park Place, Suite 300, Annapolis, MD, 21401, United States;11. Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, 2045-2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada;12. Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, 130 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, United States;13. Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA, 95616, United States;14. Department of Earth and Planetary Science, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD, 21218, United States;15. Department of Geography, Ball State University, 2000 W. University Ave, Muncie, IN 47306, United States;p. Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, United States;q. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, 1315 E 10th St, Bloomington, IN, 47405, United States;r. Department of Biology, University of Utah, 257 S 1400 E, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, United States;s. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama, PO Box 870344, Tuscaloosa, AL, United States;1. Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture, University of Texas at Arlington, USA;2. Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Texas at Arlington, USA;3. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Center for Urban Forest Research, USA;4. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Field Station, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Residential lands constitute a major component of existing and possible tree canopy in many cities in the United States. To expand the urban forest on these lands, some municipalities and nonprofit organizations have launched residential yard tree distribution programs, also known as tree giveaway programs. This paper describes the operations of five tree distribution programs affiliated with the Urban Ecology Collaborative, a regional network for urban forestry professionals. We analyzed the programs’ missions, strategies, and challenges as reported through surveys and interviews conducted with program staff. The programs were led by nonprofit organizations and municipal departments in New York City, NY; Baltimore, MD; Philadelphia, PA; Providence, RI; and Worcester, MA. These organizations focused their tree distribution efforts on private residential lands in response to ambitious tree canopy or planting campaign goals. We assessed these programs through the framework of urban forests as social-ecological systems and discuss the programs’ biophysical, social and institutional contexts. Programs face principle-agent problems related to reliance on individual tree recipients to meet goals; their institutional strategies meant to ameliorate these problems varied. Differing organizational and partner resources influenced the programs’ abilities to perform outreach and follow-up on tree performance. Programs attempted to connect with diverse neighborhoods through free trees, targeting areas with low existing canopy, and forging partnerships with local community groups. Given tree recipients’ demand for smaller flowering or fruiting trees, as well as lack of resources for tree survival monitoring on private lands, program leaders appeared to have turned to social measures of success − spreading a positive message about trees and urban greening − as opposed to biophysical performance metrics. We conclude with suggestions for outcomes monitoring, whether those outcomes are social or biophysical, because monitoring is critical to the sustainability and adaptive management of residential tree programs. |
| |
| Keywords: | Principle-agent relationship Residential landscape Social-ecological systems Urban ecology Urban forest Urban tree canopy |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
