DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding the Structure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding the Structure Understanding the Structure rban forests are complex Whitney and Adams 1980, ecosystems created by the Sanders 1984). Morphology, interaction of anthropo- natural factors, and management genic and natural processes. One systems interact to create diverse key to better management of forest structures across urban these systems is to understand landscapes. Despite this diver- urban forest structure and its re- sity, there are some broad simi- lationship to forest functions. larities in urban vegetation pat- Through sampling and invento- terns. A number of studies have ries, urban foresters often obtain examined urban forest structure structural information (e.g., from the gross structural charac- numbers, location, size, and con- terizations of tree canopy and dition) on street- and/or park- land use to detailed investiga- tree populations to aid manage- tions of individual trees. ment. However, these public Urban forest cover. There are trees compose only a small por- significant variations in urban tion of the urban forest. forest cover both within and Management of the entire ur- among cities. Past studies indi- ban forest ecosystem requires in- cate that urban tree cover ranges formation on all vegetation and from a high of 55 percent in Ba- other attributes of the system ton Rouge, Louisiana, to a low of across the urban landscape. This 1 percent in Lancaster, Califor- type of structural information es- nia, with a US average of 26 per- tablishes a basis for comprehen- cent (Nowak et al., in review). sive management that recognizes Tree cover in the United States linkages among the multiple tends to be highest in cities de- land uses and owners of the ur- veloped in naturally forested ar- ban forest. Forest structure also eas (32%),followed by grassland provides a means to estimate the cities (18%) and desert cities actual and potential physical, bi- (10%) (Nowak et al., in review). ological, social, and economic Within a city, the highest per- functions of the urban forest. Ur- centage of canopy cover is gener- ban foresters can then develop ally found on vacant, park, and plans and programs that provide residential land (table I). Tree for these functions across the ur- cover analyses across an entire ban landscape. city reveal tree distribution and interconnections among land use Urban Forest Structure types (Rowntree 1984b). How- Urban forest structure is the ever, more detailed investigations spatial arrangement of vegetation of structure are necessary for im- in relation to other objects, such proved understanding and man- as buildings, within urban areas agement of specific areas within (Rowntree 1984a). Three broad the city to enhance particular factors determine urban forest functions. structure: urban morphology, w .omposition and structure. A num- ates the spaces available for ve - :tation; ber of udies have evaluated street-tree natural factors, which influence the populations or limited portions of non- amount and type of vegetation likely to be street-tree populations, but there have found within cities; and human manage- been few ground-based urban forest struc- ment systems, which modify vegetation tural analyses of an entire urban area. Var- configurations across land-use types (e.g., By David J. Nowak ious typologies have been developed to 42 October 1994 Reprinted from the Journal of Forestry, Vol. 92, No. 10, October 1994. classify urban vegetation across a city 1974). In the Chicago area (Cook and trees constitute 1 of every 37 trees, and 1 (Brady et al. 1979, Sukopp and Werner DuPage Counties), the exotic and highly of every 77 trees in DuPage County. Al- 1983), but land-use type is probably the invasive buckthorn is the most common though only a minor component of the ur- most common classification used. tree species, composing a significant pro- ban forest as a whole, street trees are a sig- Overall, urban trees are relatively small portion of trees on institutional, vacant, nificant component of the street-corridor in stature, with the majority of them less and residential lands. Although this spe- and human environment (Schroeder and than 6 inches dbh (Dorney et al. 1984, cies will not likely dominate the urban for- Cannon 1987). Nowak 1993a, Nowak 1994a). The distri- est overstory canopy because of its rela- Individual tree attributes. Individual bution of tree sizes usually varies depend- tively small size, its abundance and inva- tree attributes, such as leaf surface area and ing on the history and intensity of vegeta- sive characteristics pose problems for vege- transpiration, are critical to many urban tion management. Less-managed or natu- tation managers. forest functions, such as reductions in air rally managed land tends to have the Four of the eight most common spe- temperature and air pollution removal. highest proportion of small trees-due in cieslgenera in the Chicago area are native Typical leaf area indices (LAI) are 10 to 11 part to natural regeneration in these areas. pioneer species: greenlwhite ash, boxelder, for tropical rain forests, 5 to 8 for decidu- Tree species composition varies by willow, and cottonwood, which account ous forests, and 9 to 11 for boreal conifer- land-use type, but overall, the urban forest for 25 percent of the population of trees ous forests (Barbour et al. 1980). The av- composition is generally dominated by a below 3 inches dbh. Canopy dominance erage LA1 (exclusive of grass) for tree-cov- few species. In Oakland, four species make in the urban forest of the Chicago area will ered areas in Chicago is 6.0, which is at the up 49 percent of the tree population likely shift more toward these native pio- low end of the normal range of LAIs ex- (Nowak 1993a); in Chicago, six species or neer species. Although silver maple, white hibited for deciduous forests. This rela- genera constitute more than half of the oak, and bur oak account for one-third of tively low LA1 is attributable to the lack of population (Nowak 1994a); and in Ath- the trees above 18 inches dbh, they ac- understory trees in some urban areas, ens, Greece, five species groups compose count for only 3 percent of small trees and where the understory is occupied only by much more than half of the tree popula- are not likely to increase in significance in grass or impervious materials. tion (Profous et al. 1988). the future. Another successful pioneer spe- Other individual tree attributes, such Exotic species can also play an impor- cies regenerating in many urban areas as in-leaf and out-of-leaf shading densities tant role in the urban forest ecosystem. In across the United States is the exotic ailan- (McPherson 1984) and growth rates Oakland, 69 percent of the existing trees thus. (Fleming 1988), are important for esti- are not native, and these exotic species Street trees. Street trees account for 1 of mating current and potential urban forest contribute to high species diversity. Ur- every 10 trees in Chicago, and 1 of every 4 functions such as energy conservation and banization has increased Oakland's tree trees in Chicago's 1- to 3-family residential carbon dioxide sequestration. species diversity index from 1.9 (Shannon- areas. Due to their relatively large size, Weiner diversity index) to 5.1 (Nowak Chicago's street trees contribute 24 per- Urban Forest Functions and 1993b). Although citywide diversity can cent of the total city leaf-surface area, and Management be increased by the introduction of exot- 44 percent of total leaf area on 1- to 3-fam- Urban forest structure is a key determi- ics, diversity in natural forest stands in ur- ily residential land. Street trees play an im- nant of function. To enhance forest func- ban areas can decrease as a result of human portant role in heavily urbanized areas tions across the urban landscape, managers activity. For example, air pollution has in- where artificial surfaces and land-use activ- and planners strive for appropriate forest creased tree mortality (Iizumi 1983). ities limit their space, but are a less signifi- designs and linkages, healthy trees, and Data from Chicago and Oakland reveal cant component of the forest in suburban long-term tree survival. By understanding that most urban trees are located on insti- areas. In suburban Cook County, street urban forest structure, how it relates to tutional and vacant land. Such land is often the most natural and exhibits Opposite: Urban ecosys- typical forest stand struc- tems are a combination tures. But in some in- of interactive anthropo- stances, human activities genic and natural sys- that lead to changes such tems. Understanding the as reduction in fire fre- structure of these systems quency and introduction can lead to better plan- of exotic species have al- ning andmanagement of tered stand structure. urban vegetation. In Oakland, Califor- Left: Benefits of urban nia, bay is dominating re- forests such as New York production in many City2 Central Park in- stand types. In the ab- clude not only beauty sence of fire, bay wood- and recreational oppor- lands will likely replace tunities but improved air oak/bay woodlands in the quality and reduced en- Oakland area (McBride ergconsumption. Journal of Forestry 43 maximum potential an- However, increased tree cover is not appro- nual effect of trees on re- priate in all urban areas. Some manage- ducing conventional ment objectives, such as prairie restoration house energy use is or active recreation fields, call for minimiz- about 20 to 25 percent, ing trees. Other areas, such as low-income but energy costs can in- multifamily residential areas, commercial- crease with improper industrial areas, freeways, schools, and tree configurations (He- passive recreational parks, could be greatly isler 1986). Esthetic im- enhanced with more trees. provement plans need to consider people's prefer- Conclusion 0-3 3-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30+ ences for tree density Urban vegetation has many different Inches and arrangement functions that provide a wide range of ser- Figure I.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sustaining America's Urban Trees and Forests
    United States Department of SSustainingustaining AAmerica’smerica’s Agriculture Forest Service UUrbanrban TTreesrees andand ForestsForests Northern Research Station State and Private Forestry General Technical DDavidavid J.J. NNowak,owak, SusanSusan M.M. Stein,Stein, PaulaPaula B.B. Randler,Randler, EricEric J.J. GreenGreenfi eeld,ld, Report NRS-62 SSaraara JJ.. CComas,omas, MMaryary AA.. CCarr,arr, aandnd RRalphalph J.J. AligAlig June 2010 A Forests on the Edge Report ABSTRACT Nowak, David J.; Stein, Susan M.; Randler, Paula B.; Greenfi eld, Eric J.; Comas, Sara J.; Carr, Mary A.; Alig, Ralph J. 2010. Sustaining America’s urban trees and forests: a Forests on the Edge report. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-62. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 27 p. Close to 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in urban areas and depends on the essential ecological, economic, and social benefi ts provided by urban trees and forests. However, the distribution of urban tree cover and the benefi ts of urban forests vary across the United States, as do the challenges of sustaining this important resource. As urban areas expand across the country, the importance of the benefi ts that urban forests provide, as well as the challenges to their conservation and maintenance, will increase. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the current status and benefi ts of America’s urban forests, compare differences in urban forest canopy cover among regions, and discuss challenges facing urban forests and their implications for urban forest management. Key Words: Urban forest, urbanization, land Lisa DeJong The Plain Dealer, Photo: AP management, ecosystem services Urban forests offer aesthetic values and critical services.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Tree Risk Management: a Community Guide to Program Design and Implementation
    Urban Tree Risk Management: A Community Guide to Program Design and Implementation USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area 1992 Folwell Ave. State and Private Forestry St. Paul, MN 55108 NA-TP-03-03 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Urban Tree Risk Management: A Community Guide to Program Design and Implementation Coordinating Author Jill D. Pokorny Plant Pathologist USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry 1992 Folwell Ave. St. Paul, MN 55108 NA-TP-03-03 i Acknowledgments Illustrator Kathy Widin Tom T. Dunlap Beth Petroske Julie Martinez President President Graphic Designer (former) Minneapolis, MN Plant Health Associates Canopy Tree Care Minnesota Department of Stillwater, MN Minneapolis, MN Natural Resources Production Editor Barbara McGuinness John Schwandt Tom Eiber Olin Phillips USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service Information Specialist Fire Section Manager Northeastern Research Coer d’Alene, ID Minnesota Department of Minnesota Department of Station Natural Resources Natural Resources Drew Todd State Urban Forestry Ed Hayes Mark Platta Reviewers: Coordinator Plant Health Specialist Plant Health Specialist The following people Ohio Department of Minnesota Department of Minnesota Department of generously provided Natural Resources Natural Resources Natural Resources suggestions and reviewed drafts of the manuscript.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Program FIVE YEAR PLAN
    URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM FIVE YEAR PLAN DRAFT 2016 URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM ACKNOWLEDGMENTS • Mayor Kevin L. Falconer • State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) • Community Forestry Advisory Board • Inland Urban Forestry Group • David Graham, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Mayor’s Office • Mike Hansen, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief of Policy, Mayor’s Office • Jeff Murphy, Director, Planning Department • Nancy Bragado, Deputy Director, Planning Department • Alyssa Muto, Deputy Director, Planning Department • Anne Fege, Chair, Community Forestry Advisory Board • Melissa Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Jeremy Barrick, Urban Forestry Program Manager, Planning Department • Sergio Arias, Horticulturist, Transportation and Storm Water Department • Lara Gates, Community Development Specialist IV, Planning Department • Nancy Graham, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Kyle J. Stevens, Intern, Planning Department 4 FIVE YEAR PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...............................................................................................................7 Definition and Scope of Urban Forestry.............................................................................9 Current Structure of San Diego Urban Forest Management.......................................11 Background.........................................................................................................................12 Climate Action Plan Implementation................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • A Literature Review of Resilience in Urban Forestry
    Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 46(3): May 2020 185 Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2020. 46(3):185–196 ARBORICULTURE URBAN FORESTRY Scientific Journal of the International& Society of Arboriculture A Literature Review of Resilience in Urban Forestry By Emily S. Huff, Michelle L. Johnson, Lara A. Roman, Nancy F. Sonti, Clara C. Pregitzer, Lindsay K. Campbell, and Heather McMillen Abstract. Urban forests provide many benefits to residents and may also improve cities’ resilience, the overall capacity to recover from anthro- pogenic and natural disturbances. Resilience is often considered from an ecological, social, or social-ecological perspective. In this literature review, we synthesize past studies (n = 31) to explore resilience in urban forests and green spaces and to understand how social or ecological perspectives have been considered. We found studies that combine resilience and urban forests have been increasing over time. Definitions of both resilience and urban forests are highly variable, but generally the studies increasingly focus on a social-ecological systems approach. The most common theoretical framework applied to understanding urban forests and resilience is a risk and vulnerability assessment approach. Studies were spread across geographies, with some concentration near major research stations and universities with scientists who specialize in resilience and urban green spaces. As more attention is focused on the role of green infrastructure in contributing to urban resilience, we encourage the adoption of consistent definitions, theories, and indicators. Keywords. Adaptive Capacity; Resilience; Social-Ecological Systems; Urban Forestry; Vulnerability. INTRODUCTION negative effects, like compacted soils that could reduce Resilience is an emerging policy goal for cities world- the sustainability of the forest and reduce the potential wide, as cities struggle to recover from both chronic opportunities for forests and trees to provide benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Management Plan
    [URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN] A plan to sustainably, holistically and efficiently manage Bozeman’s urban forest to realize the full expanse of benefits urban trees can provide 1 Acknowledgements: Mitch Overton: Director of Parks and Recreation Bozeman Bozeman Tree Advisory Board The Bozeman Citizenry Jamie Kirby: Montana DNRC This document was funded by an urban forestry program development grant from the State of Montana - Department of Natural Resources & Conservation – Urban & Community Forestry Program Gallatin Tree Care, February 2016 Bozeman Urban Forestry Management Plan 2 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4 History and People .................................................................................................................................... 6 Process and Plan Development ................................................................................................................. 7 Climate and Environment ......................................................................................................................... 7 Population Dynamics ................................................................................................................................ 8 Value of Urban Forest ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Agroforestry
    Second Wednesdays | 1:00 – 2:15 pm ET www.fs.fed.us/research/urban-webinars USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. COMMUNITY FOOD FORESTS: FRUITFUL AND FIRE-SMART Catherine Bukowski Ann Audrey Researcher & Consultant Chair Virginia Tech & Linking Edible Arizona Forests (LEAF) communityfoodforests.com Network [email protected] [email protected] Community Food Forests Catherine Bukowski, PhD Candidate, Virginia Tech [email protected] Committee: John Munsell- Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation & Forest Management Extension Specialist Paul Kelsch- Department of Landscape Architecture Kim Niewolny- Department of Agricultural, Leadership, and Community Education in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Jim Chamberlain- Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service Community Food Forest Research Sites Visited During 2014-2015 Sites are mapped over EPA Level II Ecoregions of North America. Ecoregions are areas where ecosystems are typically similar- they are useful for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across organizations. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregions 2013 As of 2018, over 75 urban food forestry projects have been found through online searches or word of mouth. What is a community food forest? A place where people come together to collaboratively grow food using an ecologically designed system based on structural and functional patterns found in forest ecosystems. Community Food Forest Public food commons Multifunctional green infrastructure Beacon Food Forest, Seattle, WA (2009) AGROFORESTRY- A land use management system that intentionally integrates trees with agricultural crops and/or livestock to create economically viable and environmentally sustainable food production. PERMACULTURE- Philosophy + and Design Approach based on whole-systems thinking and ecological patterns and observations.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Program, Five-Year Plan
    URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM FIVE YEAR PLAN ADOPTED JANUARY 2017 URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MAYOR KEVIN L. FAULCONER CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY COUNCIL Funding for this project has • District 1: Barbara Bry been provided by the California • District 2: Lori Zapf Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund • District 3: Chris Ward through the California Department • District 4: Myrtle Cole of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Urban and Community Forestry • District 5: Mark Kersey Program. • District 6: Chris Cate • District 7: Scott Sherman • District 8: David Alvarez • District 9: Georgette Gómez COMMUNITY FORESTRY ADVISORY BOARD • Anne Fege – Chair • Chris Drayer – District 3 • Stephen Lamprides – District 4 • Rachele Melious – District 5 • Vince Mikulanis – District 7 • Troy Murphee – District 9 • Devon Boutte – Landscape Architect • Robin Rivet – Certified Arborist • Jake Sibley – Non-Profit Organization INLAND URBAN FORESTRY GROUP CITY OF SAN DIEGO STAFF • David Graham, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Mayor’s Office • Mike Hansen, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief of Policy, Mayor’s Office • Jeff Murphy, Director, Planning Department • Tom Tomlinson, Assistant Director, Planning Department • Alyssa Muto, Deputy Director, Planning Department • Jeremy Barrick, Urban Forestry Program Manager, Planning Department • Melissa Garcia, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Lara Gates, Community Development Specialist IV, Planning Department • Nancy Graham, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Lesley Henegar, Senior Planner, Planning Department • Sergio
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forests & Urban Tree
    URBAN FORESTS & URBAN TREE USE OPPORTUNITIES ON LOCAL, STATE, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SCALES DR. STEVE BRATKOVICH KATHRYN FERNHOLZ DR. JEFF HOWE MATT FRANK DR. ED PEPKE DR. JIM BOWYER 12 NOVEMBER 2014 Dovetail Partners Page 2 11/11/2014 Urban Forests and Urban Tree Use Opportunities on Local, State, National, and International Scales Introduction Traditionally, the core responsibilities of an urban and Urban Forestry and Community community forester revolved around tree planting, tree Forestry removal, and tree maintenance. These responsibilities have expanded over the last few decades to include This report focuses on urban forestry management considerations such as water flow and water (urban forest management) as it is quality, air pollution mitigation, air temperature practiced in urban areas as defined by the Bureau of the Census. These modification, carbon sequestration, human health, invasive areas include (1) urbanized areas plants, wildlife management, and tree (wood) utilization. with populations of 50,000 or more, (2) places that contain some In October 2010, Dovetail Partners published a report on urbanized areas within their the evolving nature of urban forestry as a “discipline that boundaries, or (3) places with at least 2,500 people and located outside of mirrors many of the considerations and complexities of urbanized areas. 1 traditional forest management”. This current report (2014) focuses on urban tree use (wood utilization) as one Community forestry is a phrase that of the many opportunities being explored in innovative can mean one thing in Mexico or ways by urban and community (municipal) foresters and Nepal, and different things in the United States. For example, in the arborists.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry
    Urban forestry Lecture notes Editors: Ludek Praus Barbora Vojáčková FOREWORD Dear reader, the version of Urban Forestry lecture notes you are going to read is the first try of our team to offer the students some information about topic that is new and unexplored in Czech Republic. Due to the support of project INOBIO we were able to collect some information and put it together. But, of course, nothing is bright and easy. This first version is based on just few sources now available at our University and on our experiences mainly from area of arbori- culture (which is only part of urban forestry). Take this text as a first step that will be polished and improved during the time as the information will come to us. If you are interested in progress we will made, please visit the web page of INOBIO project (http://inobio.ldf.mendelu.cz/cz) for the last version of the text. On behalf of authors Ludek Praus 2 3 CONCEPT OF URBAN FORESTRY Urban forestry1 is very fast developing area of interest. As the interaction between “urban” and surrounding forests growths, the need to manage these interactions (and collisions) led to the creation of this discipline. Origins of urban forestry are in North America during the 1960s. Accord- ing to Konijnendijk (2012) the concept has been introduced by Jorgensen at the University of Toronto, Canada, in 1965. Urban forestry covered manage- ment of city trees, single tree care and management, but also tree manage- ment in the entire area affected by the urban population.
    [Show full text]
  • District of Columbia Urban Tree Canopy Plan
    District of Columbia Urban Tree Canopy Plan Draft Urban Tree Canopy Plan January 2013 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6 I. Historical Background of Trees in the District of Columbia .................................................. 6 II. The Benefits of Urban Tree Canopy ....................................................................................... 8 Trees Improve Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 8 Trees Improve Water Quality ................................................................................................. 9 Trees Save Energy ................................................................................................................ 10 Trees are Good for Roads ..................................................................................................... 10 Trees are Good for the Economy .......................................................................................... 10 Trees Create Jobs .................................................................................................................. 11 Trees are Good for Our Health and Communities ................................................................ 11 III. Present State of the District’s
    [Show full text]
  • Statewide Forest Strategy Stakeholder Comments April-May 2010
    Statewide Forest Strategy Stakeholder Comments April-May 2010 The following stakeholder comments were considered and incorporated with other stakeholder input as detailed on http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/5438.htm Written comments from Statewide Forest Strategy Input & Survey These comments have not been edited. Trudy Dunaway Brown private landowner Acquire more land to connect forest corridors. Ban clear cutting. Jon Seymour Conservation group Concentrate zoning to limit expansion and reward reuse of already developed land. New development should retain ALL timber located on the property that is NOT directly affected by the development itself. Less green lawn -- much more woods and prairie Need to prioritize the war on invasives which will have different priority lists in different parts of the State. Barbara Cummings Government Connect regionally state held multi-agency properties with forested hike/bike trails. Include riparian corridors in plan to connect state-owned properties w/hike/bike trails. Develop a state-wide gathering of ash seeds, with appropriate storage provided someplace. Increase federally funded incentives for forest management like Lindsey Purcell University Conservation of woodlands or woodlots designated as urban natural resource areas. Improve forest areas in urban watershed areas as they relate to CSO's. Enhance and expand awareness of the benefits of trees and woodlots in urban areas. Dex Conaway Other Continuity and contiguity in forest ecosystems is essential for species migration of all types. Climate change poses a huge threat to these species in due time will most likely require them to migrate northward to a cooler climate they are most acclimated to. Therefore, it be imperative we allow freedom of movement for these species.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Forestry Outline
    th 9605 NE 24 Street • Clyde Hill, Washington 98004 425-453-7800 • Fax: 425-462-1936 • www.clydehill.org THE CITY OF CLYDE HILL’S URBAN FORESTRY PROGRAM Clyde Hill is a community with two very distinctive characteristics: landscapes and views. Many people in the community enjoy picturesque vistas. Because the City is located in a region well suited for plant growth, residents cherish their landscaping and have the opportunity to see plants develop rapidly. Landscape related issues have become community problems as Clyde Hill matures and the effects of continued urbanization increase. A goal of the City is to find a balance between urban demands, such as views, and urban forest benefits, such as a beautifully landscaped neighborhood, by providing an Urban Forestry Program that will promote an accurate knowledge of appropriate plant materials and proper plant care. This on-going source of good information will reduce long-term conflicts of views and trees that in turn, will enhance the character and land values of the entire community. To help strike an appropriate balance between urban growth issues and the maintenance of urban landscapes, the City adopted a unique View Ordinance in 1991 (revised in 2015), as one of three steps taken to develop an urban forestry program. To achieve stability between urban demands, such as views, and urban forest benefits, such as a beautifully landscaped neighborhood, knowledge of appropriate plant materials and proper plant care are necessary. The City, the State Department of Natural Resources and the University of Washington have worked together to develop an Urban Forestry Educational Program as a second step to address these types of issues in Clyde Hill.
    [Show full text]