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  lroman@fs.fed.us