Monitoring the Urban Forest: A National Network for Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships Lara Roman, UC Berkley

1. Monitoring
the
Urban
Forest:
A
Na3onal
Network
for
Researcher-­‐
Prac33oner
Partnerships
7
November
2013
Lara
Roman,
USDA
Forest
Service

4. www.urbantreegrowth.org

5. Prac33oner-­‐driven
urban
tree
monitoring:
A
na3onal
survey

6. 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?

7. Reasons
for
monitoring
•
•
•
•
Track
mortality,
health
&
growth
(51%)
ProacFve
tree
care
&
management
(44%)
Public
engagement
(21%)
Monitoring
required
by
grant
or
contract
(16%)

8. “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.”

9. Monitoring
methods
• Limited
external
assistance
(17%)
• Field
crews
– Program
staff
(62%)
– Volunteers
(42%)
– Arborists
(36%)
– Researchers
(16%)
– Interns
(16%)

10. Field
data
•
•
•
•
Species
(96%)
CondiFon
raFng
(89%)
Mortality
status
(76%)
DBH
(71%)

11. Recording
tree
loca3on
•
•
•
•
Street
address
(78%)
GPS
(42%)
Site
maps
(31%)
Tree
tags
(16%)

12. Challenges
• Resource
limitaFon
(63%)
½
of
organizaFons
≤
6
staff
•
•
•
•
Data
management
&
technology
(47%)
Developing
protocols
(28%)
Field
crew
training
(25%)
ImplemenFng
field
work
(25%)

13. “Not
knowing
what
to
monitor,
no
one
to
monitor,
not
knowing
what
quesFons
to
ask
of
the
monitoring.”

14. Urban
tree
monitoring
protocols

15. New
monitoring
protocols
• How
are
these
protocols
different?
– Emphasis
on
locaFonal
accuracy
– Longitudinal
data
– Training
materials
– Bojom-­‐up
process

16. Guiding
principles
• Keep
it
simple
• Make
it
flexible
• Seek
input
from
pracFFoners
• Answer
key
research
quesFons
• Promote
management
objecFves

17. MANAGEMENT
Data
Set
stewardship,
program
staff
and
funding
resources
TREE
Data
Set
tree
size,
health,
pests
&
diseases
MINIMUM
Data
Set
date,
locaFon,
species,
DBH
COMMUNITY
Data
Set
income,
housing,
educaFon,
crime
SITE
Data
Set
sidewalks,
roads,
buildings,
soils

18. Minimum
data
set
Field
crew
Project
d
Date
ata

19. Minimum
data
set
Project
d
ata
LocaFon
ata
d
Field
crew
Date
LocaFon
Site
type
Land
use

20. Minimum
data
set
Project
d
ata
LocaFon
ata
d
Tree
data
Field
crew
Date
LocaFon
Site
type
Land
use
Species
DBH
Mortality
status
CondiFon
raFng

21. Loca3on:
NYC
example
1 AS 108 1st ST
108
2 AS 108 1st ST
1A
2A
1F
102
1 SA
2F
1st STREET
1 SX
1X
1st AV
100
101
102
2nd AV
102
103
1F
X
X
X
104
106
1S
108
1S
2S
1F
2F
2S

22. Land Use
Single-family Residential
Multi-family Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Maintained Park
Natural Area/Vacant
Description
Detached residential structures serving one to four families each (includes twins and duplexes).
Structures 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).
Downtown 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).
Factories, warehouses, and trucking businesses. Includes all trees associated with this land
use type (e.g., street trees, park-like lawns, hardscape patios, parking lots).
Schools, colleges, hospital complexes, religious buildings, and government buildings.
Includes all trees associated with this land use type (e.g., street trees, park-like lawns, hardscape patios, parking lots).
Maintained or landscaped public parks. Includes all trees in or adjacent to a park (i.e., located in hardscape, lawn, or adjacent sidewalks).
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*
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.

23. 1.3
Land Use & Site Type
Examples
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
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
+
Example 1.3A
Sidewalk Cut-out; Commercial
Urban Tree Growth and Longevity
Site Type Values
• Sidewalk Cut-out
• Sidewalk Planting Strip
• Median
• Other Hardscape
• Frontyard
• Backyard
• Maintained Park-like
• Natural Area/Vacant
Example 1.3B
Sidewalk Cut-out; Multi-family Residential
http://www.urbantreegrowth.org

24. Final
products
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

27. Sacramento
shade
tree
survival
study

28. Sacramento
Shade
Tree
Program
Reduce
energy
use
through
tree
shade
5
years
annual
monitoring
data

29. 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
survivorship
survivorship
survivorship
71%
survivorship
(5
yrs)
6.6%
annual
mortality
0
1
500
2
10003
1500
4
time
time (years since planting)
Fme
(years
since
planFng)
5
2000

30. 1.0
0.6
0.2
0.4
unstable
homeowners:
9.3%
annual
mortality
stable homeownership
PropertyStable2007Last=stable
unstable homeownership
PropertyStable2007Last=unstable
0.0
survivorship
survivorship
survivorship
0.8
stable
homeowners:
5.2%
annual
mortality
0
1 500
2
10003
1500
4
time (years time
Fme
(years
ssince planting)
ince
planFng)
5
2000

31. Conclusions
• The
value
of
longitudinal
data
• Need
for
bejer
monitoring
tools
• CollaboraFve
process

32.
“This
is
a
great
place
to
start.
Update
everyone
as
to
your
findings
and
get
everyone
together
to
talk
about
it.”

33. www.urbantreegrowth.org
lroman@fs.fed.us