DOCSLIB.ORG

Completed Corrected Thesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Trees in Towns: Factors Affecting the Distribution of Trees in High Density Residential Areas of Greater Manchester A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Ph.D. in the Faculty of Humanities 2010 Justine Michelle Hall School of Environment and Development Planning and Landscape Department Table of Contents Contents Page Table of Contents 2 List of Figures 7 List of Tables 10 Abstract 13 Declaration 14 Copyright Statement 14 Acknowledgements 15 Chapter 1 – Introduction 17 1.1 Aims and Objectives of the Thesis 19 Chapter 2 – Trees in the Urban Environment 22 2.1 Introduction 22 2.2 The Benefits of Trees in Urban Areas 23 2.2.1 Trees and Air Quality 23 2.2.2 Trees and Water 26 2.2.3 Trees and the Urban Heat Island Effect 27 2.2.4 Trees and Human Physical and Psychological Health 30 2.3 Factors Affecting the Distribution of Urban Trees 36 2.3.1 Socioeconomic Factors Affecting the Distribution of Urban Trees in the USA 37 2.3.2 Socioeconomic Factors Affecting the Distribution of Urban Trees in the UK 39 2.3.3 The Effects of Housing Density and Land Use on the Distribution of Urban Trees 40 2.3.4 The Effects of Housing Layout on the Distribution of Urban Trees 43 2.3.5 Attitudes and Awareness of Residents about Urban Trees 51 2.4 Potential Factors for Protecting and Increasing Urban Tree Cover 55 2.4.1 Effects of Municipal Regulations 55 2.4.2 Effects of Community Greening Schemes 58 2.4.3 Potential Effects of the Loss of Greenspace in Residential Areas 59 2 2.5 Conclusions 60 Chapter 3 – Research Methodology 62 3.1 The Research Context 62 3.1.1 A Conceptual Framework for the Research 63 3.2 Justification of the case study approach 65 3.3 Case Study Selection 66 3.4 Justification and Overview of the Methods Used in the Thesis 70 3.4.1 Objective One 70 3.4.2 Objective Two 73 3.4.3 Objective Three 74 3.4.4 Objective Four 76 3.5 Conclusion 78 Chapter 4 – An Exploration of Tree Cover and its Location in Differing Housing Types 79 4.1 Introduction 79 4.2 Methods 81 4.2.1 Determination and Delineation of Housing Morphology Types 81 4.2.2 Categorising Surface Covers and Land Uses 88 4.2.3 Position of Trees 93 4.3 Results 94 4.3.1 Housing Morphology 94 4.3.2 Surface Cover and Land Use Analysis 95 4.3.3 Comparative Data 110 4.3.4 Locations of trees 114 4.4 Discussion 115 4.4.1 Distribution and amount of housing types across the study area 115 4.4.2 Influences on tree cover in housing types 116 4.5 Summary and Conclusions 118 Chapter 5 – Increasing Tree Cover and its Effects on Maximum Surface Temperatures and Rainfall Runoff 119 5.1 Introduction 119 5.2 Methods 119 5.2.1 Determination of Potential Increases in Tree Cover 120 5.2.2 Calculating Increase in Tree Cover 122 5.2.3 The Energy Balance Model 122 5.2.4 Surface Runoff Model – Background 127 3 5.3 Results 130 5.3.1 Increases in Tree Cover 130 5.3.2 Location of Potential Trees 131 5.3.3 Energy Exchange Model for Surface Temperature Calculations 133 Temperature Projections with Current and Increased Tree Cover 134 5.3.4 Rainfall Runoff Calculations 146 5.4 Discussion 149 5.4.1 Increases in Tree Cover 149 5.4.2 Location of Potential Trees 149 5.4.3 Maximum surface temperatures 150 5.4.4 Surface Runoff 150 5.5 Summary and Conclusions 151 Chapter 6 – Residents’ Attitudes Towards Trees in Differing Types of High Density Residential Streets 152 6.1 Introduction 152 6.2 Methods 154 6.2.1 Identifying the survey objectives 154 6.2.2 Selecting the sampling frame 154 6.2.3 Determining the sampling method 156 6.2.4 Developing the questionnaire 157 6.2.5 Surveying residents 157 6.2.6 Analysis of Data 158 6.3 Results 159 6.3.1 Response Rates 159 6.3.2 Trees and Everyday Life Questions 161 6.3.3 Positive Statements About Trees 162 6.3.4 Negative Statements About Trees 164 6.3.5 Length of Stay in Current Home 166 6.3.6 Respondents’ Views About Their Street 166 6.3.7 Trees and House Prices and Future Homes 168 6.3.8 Street Specific Questions 169 6.3.9 Socioeconomic data 173 6.3.10 Crosstabulations 176 6.4 Discussion 182 6.4.1 Response Rates 182 6.4.2 The Importance of Trees to Everyday Life 182 6.4.3 Positive Statements about Trees 183 6.4.4 Negative Statements About Trees 185 6.4.5 Length of Stay in Current Home 187 6.4.6 Respondents’ Views About Their Street 187 6.4.7 Trees and House Prices and Future Homes 188 6.4.8 Street Specific Questions 189 6.5 Comparisons of UK data and US data 190 4 6.6 Summary and Conclusions 195 Chapter 7 – Barriers and Opportunities to Increasing Tree Cover 197 7.1 Introduction 197 7.1.1 The Legal and Planning Context for Urban Trees 198 7.2 Practitioner Workshop 201 7.2.1 Methods 201 7.2.2 Results 205 7.2.3 Discussion 211 7.3 Increasing Tree Cover in High Density Housing – Examples 212 7.3.1 Case Study Area Selection 212 7.3.2 Methods 215 7.3.3 Results 215 7.3.4 Discussion 218 7.4 Factors Affecting Red Rose Forest Green Streets Project Uptake 221 7.4.1 Methods 221 7.4.2 Results 221 7.4.3 Summary 223 7.5 Factors Affecting Use of Trees and Greenspace in Regeneration Schemes 224 7.5.1 Methods 224 7.5.2 Chimney Pot Park 224 7.5.3 Grove Village 226 7.5.4 The Use of Greenery in Developments 228 7.5.5 Discussion 228 7.6 Summary and Conclusions 230 Chapter 8 – Discussion 232 8.1 Introduction 232 8.2 Factors Affecting the Distribution of Urban Trees 232 8.2.1 Socioeconomic Factors Affecting the Distribution of Urban Trees 232 8.2.2 The Effects of Housing Layout on the Distribution of Urban Trees 233 8.2.3 Attitudes and Awareness of Residents about Urban Trees 234 8.3 The Benefits of Trees in Urban Areas 238 8.3.1 Increasing Tree Cover and Maximum Surface Temperatures 238 8.3.2 Trees and Rainfall Runoff 239 8.4 Potential Factors for Protecting and Increasing Urban Tree Cover 239 8.4.1 Existing and Potential Tree Cover in Different Housing Types 239 8.4.2 Effects of Municipal Regulations 242 8.4.3 Effects of Municipal Practice 244 8.4.4 Raising Money for Tree Planting and Maintenance 245 5 8.4.5 Saving Money in Arboricultural Departments 247 8.4.6 Encouraging Community Involvement in Tree Based Activities 248 8.4.7 Community Greening Projects 249 8.4.8 Comparison of Differing Approaches to Increasing Tree Cover 250 8.5 Conclusions 250 Chapter 9 – Conclusions 253 9.1 Summary of Main Research Findings 253 9.1.1 Revisiting the Conceptual Framework 253 9.2 Recommendations of the Research 258 9.2.1 National Government 258 9.2.2 Local Government 259 9.2.3 Developers 262 9.2.4 Residents 263 9.2.5 Community Greening Projects 264 9.3 Limitations of the Research Methodology 264 9.4 Recommendations for Further Work 265 References 266 Appendix 1. Cover Letter and Questionnaire Exploring Residents’ Attitudes Towards Trees 280 Appendix 2. ‘Barriers and Opportunities for Increasing Tree Cover within Urban Areas’: Summary of Practitioner Workshop Held On Monday 22 nd February 2010, at the University of Manchester 289 Word count: 77,116 6 List of Figures Figure 2.1 . Two examples of ‘byelaw’ terraces in Manchester, UK, built pre-1919. (Source: 1:10,000 OS map, within a GIS). 44 Figure 2.2 . A street map of an area of Letchworth Garden City, Bedfordshire, UK. Note the much lower density and lack of straight roads and crossroad junctions compared to Figure 2.1. (Source: 1:10,000 OS map, within a GIS). 45 Figure 2.3 . A block of flats within a high density housing area in Gorton, Manchester. Note the small patch of grass to the left which is the only vegetated area around the flats. The trees are part of a separate development. 48 Figure 2.4 . An example of 1960s housing in Gorton, Manchester, which is only accessible on foot. There is no road access to the rear of the properties either. 49 Figure 3.1 . A conceptual framework outlining potential influences on tree distribution in high density housing areas. Thick arrows indicate relationship described in the literature, thin arrows indicate hypothesised relationships. 64 Figure 3.2 . The location of Greater Manchester within the north west of England, UK, and the study area (white) within Greater Manchester. 69 Figure 4.1 (1). Clockwise from top left –Pre 1919 terraced housing with a front yard; Pre 1919 terraced housing with a front and back garden; Pre 1919 semi-detached housing; 1919-1959 terraced housing; 1960s terraced housing with a driveway; 1960s terraced housing with a walkway; 1919-1959 semi-detached housing; Pre 1919 terraced housing opening directly onto the road. 85 Figure 4.1 (2). Top – Post 1960s terraced housing. Right- Post 1950s semi-detached housing. Bottom – Post 1960s Court/Square housing.
Recommended publications
  • Tree Canopy Change in Coastal Los Angeles, 2009 - 2014

    Tree Canopy Change in Coastal Los Angeles, 2009 - 2014

    Cities and the Environment (CATE) Volume 10 Issue 2 Climate Change Adaptation in Article 3 Mediterranean Cities 2017 Tree Canopy Change in Coastal Los Angeles, 2009 - 2014 Dexter H. Locke National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC), [email protected] Michele Romolini Loyola Marymount University, [email protected] Michael Galvin SavATree, [email protected] Jarlath P.M. O'Neil-Dunne University of Vermont, [email protected] Eric G. Strauss Loyola Marymount University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate Recommended Citation Locke, Dexter H.; Romolini, Michele; Galvin, Michael; O'Neil-Dunne, Jarlath P.M.; and Strauss, Eric G. (2017) "Tree Canopy Change in Coastal Los Angeles, 2009 - 2014," Cities and the Environment (CATE): Vol. 10: Iss. 2, Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol10/iss2/3 This Special Topic Article: Climate Change in Mediterranean Cities is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Urban Resilience at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cities and the Environment (CATE) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tree Canopy Change in Coastal Los Angeles, 2009 - 2014 Los Angeles, California is prone to extreme climate events—e.g. drought, wildfires, and floods—that are only expected to increase with climate change. The establishment of green infrastructure, including a stable urban forest, is a strategy to improve resilience not only to these events, but also to contribute to other environmental, social, and economic goals.
  • I-Tree Eco As a Tool to Inform Urban Forestry in GB: a Literature Review of Its Current Application Within Urban Forestry Policy and Management Context

    I-Tree Eco As a Tool to Inform Urban Forestry in GB: a Literature Review of Its Current Application Within Urban Forestry Policy and Management Context

    i-Tree Eco as a tool to inform urban forestry in GB: a literature review of its current application within urban forestry policy and management context Kathryn Hand and Kieron Doick, 2018 i-Tree Eco Evaluation Part 1: Literature Review Forest Research is the Research Agency of the Forestry Commission and is the leading UK organisation engaged in forestry and tree related research. The Agency aims to support and enhance forestry and its role in sustainable development by providing innovative, high quality scientific research, technical support and consultancy services. 2 | i-Tree Eco evaluation: Lit. review_Final | Hand, K.L & Doick, K.J. | March 2018 i-Tree Eco Evaluation Part 1: Literature Review Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 4 1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 6 1.1. Aims and context of this report ..................................................................... 6 2. Introduction to i-Tree Eco .............................................................................. 6 2.1. Development and uptake ............................................................................. 6 2.2. Impacts of previous i-Tree Eco projects .......................................................... 9 3. Urban Forest Policy ...................................................................................... 12 3.1. International ............................................................................................
  • Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: Livelihoods, Landscapes and Governance

    Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: Livelihoods, Landscapes and Governance

    CGIAR Research Program 6 Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: Livelihoods, Landscapes and Governance Proposal February 2011 CGIAR Research Program 6 Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: Livelihoods, Landscapes and Governance Proposal February 2011 Table of Contents Abbreviations vi Acknowledgements xvi Executive Summary xvii 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Setting the scene 1 1.2 Conceptual framework 7 1.3 The challenges 10 1.4 Vision of success 15 1.5 Strategy for impact 17 1.6 Innovation 20 1.7 Comparative advantage of CGIAR centers in leading this effort 22 1.8 Proposal road map 23 2. Research Portfolio 25 2.1 Component 1: Smallholder production systems and markets 28 2.2 Component 2: Management and conservation of forest and tree resources 60 2.3 Component 3: Landscape management for environmental services, biodiversity conservation and livelihoods 91 2.4 Component 4: Climate change adaptation and mitigation 120 2.5 Component 5: Impacts of trade and investment on forests and people 160 3. Cross-cutting Themes 189 3.1 Gender 189 3.2 Partnerships 200 3.3 Capacity strengthening 208 4. Program Support 215 4.1 Communications and knowledge sharing in CRP6 215 4.2 Monitoring and evaluation for impact 224 4.3 Program management 230 5. Budget 241 5.1 Overview 241 5.2 Assumptions and basis of projections 243 5.3 Composition 247 5.4 Resource allocation 248 Annexes 251 Annex 1. Descriptions of CGIAR centers 251 Annex 2. Consultation process 253 Annex 3. Linkages with other CRPs 255 Annex 4. Sentinel landscapes 262 Annex 5. Assumptions and evidence used to develop 10-year impact projections 274 Annex 6 Statements of Support 279 Annex 7.
  • John Bowne Manual for “Grow-Out” School Tree Nursery ______

    John Bowne Manual for “Grow-Out” School Tree Nursery ______

    Brown Bag Lunch Series Urban Forestry Partnerships in Education John Bowne Manual for “Grow-Out” School Tree Nursery ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ BASED ON THE JOHN BOWNE HIGH SCHOOL MODEL Flushing, Queens New York City MARCH, 2008 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Why and How the John Bowne High School Project Came About As part of the reauthorization of the 1990 Farm Act, Congress provided $20 million to begin a national tree-planting initiative. The National Tree Trust (NTT) was created to invest and use these funds; as its program was developed, a partnership was established with a number of large forest products companies, such as Georgia Pacific and International Paper. Through this partnership, millions of small tree seedlings were distributed to thousands of locations across the country. Volunteers in rural and exurban areas were able to use the seedlings and successfully execute planting projects; however, in urban areas, this system did not work well because the seedlings were too small to be successfully out-planted in most cities. The grow-out station tree nursery system was established by NTT in the late 1990’s to provide an opportunity for volunteers to create planting projects in urban communities. A three-way partnership was put in place for each chosen project: • NTT provided professional guidance and funding, through a contract with a local not-for- profit organization. • A group with a site where the nursery could be successfully established agreed to provide planning and volunteer labor in caring for the seedlings planted at the site, until they were large enough to be successfully out-planted. All trees were required to be distributed for free and planted on publicly owned land.
  • Growing Greener: Eco-Structure for Climate Resilience Chapters 6-7: Regional & General Resources for Improving Forest Health

    Growing Greener: Eco-Structure for Climate Resilience Chapters 6-7: Regional & General Resources for Improving Forest Health

    Growing Greener: Eco-Structure For Climate Resilience Chapters 6-7: Regional & General Resources For Improving Forest Health April 2013 Credit: Flickr user Yinghai May 2013 The Urban and Community Forestry Climate Preparedness and Response program is funded in partnership between King County, the National Wildlife Federation, and the USDA Forest Service, Urban & Community Forestry Program. The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. A special thank you is extended to our project partners, the staff from King County, WA, including Richard Gelb, Matt Kuharic, and Michael Jenkins This guide was developed by Kara E. Reeve, Manager of National Wildlife Federation’s Climate-Smart Communities Program, with support from additional NWF staff including Ian Evans, Patty Glick, Laura Hickey, Ryan Kingston, and Jennifer Murk. Information about NWF’s Climate-Smart Communities Program can be found here: www.nwf.org/climate-smart-communities. 2 Introduction Whether you live in the city overlooking a park, grew up with a backyard tree house, or have hiked in a national forest, you undoubtedly know exactly what poet Joyce Kilmer was feeling when he wrote, "I think that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a tree." Trees are a vital part of our natural world, health, economy, and culture. The ecological benefits of healthy trees, including the habitat, shelter, and food they provide for many birds and small wildlife, are widely known. However, people living in urban areas may not immediately consider the ways in which healthy urban forests are critical Credit: Charlie Archambault infrastructure for human communities, too. For starters, trees are central components of green infrastructure, which is a natural and cost-effective approach that many communities are using to reduce flooding, manage stormwater, improve water quality, and even reduce urban heat.
  • The State of Mediterranean Forests

    The State of Mediterranean Forests

    State of Mediterranean Forests 2018 State of Mediterranean Forests 2018 Published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Plan Bleu, Regional Activity Center of UN Environment/Mediterranean Action Plan Rome, 2018 FAO and Plan Bleu. 2018. State of Mediterranean Forests 2018. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome and Plan Bleu, Marseille. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or Plan Bleu pour l’Environnement et le Développement en Méditerranée (Plan Bleu) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO or Plan Bleu in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO or Plan Bleu. ISBN FAO: 978-92-5-131047-2 ISBN Plan Bleu: 978-2-912081-52-0 © FAO and Plan Bleu, 2018 FAO and Plan Bleu encourage the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO and Plan Bleu as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s and Plan Bleu’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.
  • Monitoring Million Trees LA: Tree Performance During the Early Years and Future Benefits

    Monitoring Million Trees LA: Tree Performance During the Early Years and Future Benefits

    Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(5): September 2014 285 Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2014. 40(5): 285–300 Monitoring Million Trees LA: Tree Performance During the Early Years and Future Benefits By E. Gregory McPherson Abstract. Million Trees LA (MTLA) is one of several large-scale mayoral tree planting initiatives in the United States, striving to create more livable cities through urban forestry. This study combined field sampling of tree survival and growth with numerical modeling of future benefits to assess performance of MTLA plantings. From 2006 to 2010 MTLA planted a diverse mix of 91,786 trees. Survivorship rates of 79.8%, 90.7%, and 77.1% for street, park and yard trees were relatively high compared to other studies. Growth rates averaged 0.99 and 1.1 cm DBH per year for street and yard trees. They were similar to rates for the same species in Claremont, California, U.S., and trees in other subtropical urban forests. Projected over 40 years, the amounts of CO2 stored per tree planted per year (20.1 kg), avoided emissions (27.7 kg), rainfall interception (1.5 m3), and air conditioning savings (47.4 kWh) exceeded estimates from a previous assess- ment. One reason is that MTLA has planted more larger-stature trees than anticipated. Avoided CO2 emissions from energy savings were relatively large because trees were judiciously located for building shade. Park tree plantings were projected to store the most CO2 (42.0 kg per tree per year) because of their large-stature and high survival rate. Although MTLA has not reached its goal of planting 1 million trees, early results suggest that it is achieving success in terms of tree survival, growth and performance.
  • What Does It Take to Achieve Equitable Urban Tree Canopy Distribution? a Boston Case Study

    What Does It Take to Achieve Equitable Urban Tree Canopy Distribution? a Boston Case Study

    Cities and the Environment (CATE) Volume 7 Issue 1 Urban Long-Term Research Area Article 2 Exploratory Awards (ULTRA-Ex) 2014 What Does It Take to Achieve Equitable Urban Tree Canopy Distribution? A Boston Case Study. Rachel S. Danford University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected] Chingwen Cheng University of Michigan, [email protected] Michael W. Strohbach University of Massachusetts - Amherst and Thünen-Institute of Biodiversity, [email protected] Robert Ryan University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected] Craig Nicolson University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate Recommended Citation Danford, Rachel S.; Cheng, Chingwen; Strohbach, Michael W.; Ryan, Robert; Nicolson, Craig; and Warren, Paige S. (2014) "What Does It Take to Achieve Equitable Urban Tree Canopy Distribution? A Boston Case Study.," Cities and the Environment (CATE): Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7/iss1/2 This Special Topic Article: Urban Long-Term Research Area Exploratory Awards (ULTRA-Ex) is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Urban Resilience at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cities and the Environment (CATE) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. What Does It Take to Achieve Equitable Urban Tree Canopy Distribution? A Boston Case Study. Considerable attention has been paid to the benefits that urban trees provide and recent research has focused on how the distribution of trees in the urban landscape is affected by socioeconomic processes like social stratification, as indicated yb associations with income, race, ethnicity, and education.
  • Tree by Tree the Mile High Million

    Tree by Tree the Mile High Million

    Tree by Tree The Mile High Million Sara Davis City and County of Denver, Colorado Parks and Recreation Million Tree Initiative Program Coordinator History July, 2006 - Mayor John Hickenlooper launches Greenprint Denver Action agenda for sustainable development for the City and County of Denver Greenprint Council action agenda items: •Reduce Greenhouse Emissions •Increase City Forest Coverage •Reduce Waste •Utilize Renewable Energies •Increase Green Built Affordable Housing •Implement City Green Building Policy •Expand City's Green Motor Fleet •Promote and Leverage Mass Transit •Improve, Protect and Conserve Water •Promote Green Industry Economic Development Denver’s million tree initiative •Goal: To plant one million trees in the Denver Metro area by 2025 •Highly participatory component of Greenprint Denver •Engages individuals, neighborhood associations, schools, nonprofits and businesses Tree by Tree – The Mile High Million The Mile High Million includes over 30 municipalities across 9 counties How are we going to do this? • Parks and Recreation volunteers to administer the initiative • Build relationships with business • Partner! Partner! Partner! Parks and Recreation volunteers to administer the initiative • One full time program coordinator • Department resources at the initiative’s disposal – Forestry staff – Forestry operations staff – Volunteer office – Marketing – Parks • Relationships with other City departments – Greenprint – web support – Office of Economic Development Build relationships with business Title sponsor: ( ( Partner!
  • Ministry Rolls out Plan to Plant 500 Million Trees by 2021 S Climate Change Devastates Several Parts Stakeholders to Ensure the Programme Succeeds

    Ministry Rolls out Plan to Plant 500 Million Trees by 2021 S Climate Change Devastates Several Parts Stakeholders to Ensure the Programme Succeeds

    Ministry rolls out plan to plant 500 Million trees by 2021 s climate change devastates several parts stakeholders to ensure the programme succeeds. of the country, the Ministry of Water and “Government also visualizes not only re-afforestation Environment will soon launch the plan to but also ensuring institutions are kept under forest Aplant 500 million tree initiative, in schools cover,” she said at the commemoration of the Global across the country. Hand Washing Day, held at Matany Primary School The ambitious scheme aims at fighting climate play-ground, Matany sub county in Napak district. change in the next five years. Announcing the plan, Hon. Kitutu was particularly alarmed with the the State Minister for Water and Environment, Hon. alarming environmental degradation, making it one Maria Gorreti Kitutu, said tree planting will target of the most deforested country in Africa. schools, universities and colleges. “I am optimistic that the 500 million trees, “We need students and pupils to act as change when planted, will contribute to a reduction in agents, in the fight against climate change,” she deforestation as a result of uncontrolled cutting of noted, adding that, tree planting is a significant tool trees,” she expressed hope. in the fight against climate change. Hon. Kitutu said, “the government has decided to Kitutu said the planting of trees marks government engage schools, colleges and universities saying it commitment to fight climate change, asking the will change the mindset,” Hon. Kitutu plants a tree to mark the Global-hand-washing day in Napak district.MWE Ministers Byabagambi, Kitutu after planting trees in Napak district.
  • Urban Forestry Tree Procurement Issue Paper January 2016 Acknowledgments

    Urban Forestry Tree Procurement Issue Paper January 2016 Acknowledgments

    Cascadia Regional Network Urban Forestry Tree Procurement Issue Paper January 2016 Acknowledgments Matt McRae, City of Eugene (OR) NORTHErik AMERICAN Burke, FOOD Friends SECTOR, of PARTTrees TWO Eugene: A ROADMAP FOR CITY FOOD SECTOR INNOVATION & INVESTMENT Special Thanks This summary report was made possible through grant support from the Urban Sustainability Directors Network. The Urban Sustainability Directors Network is member led and member driven, meaning that members collectively determine what priorities they have each year and lead the work to carry them out. USDN’s ultimate goal is to build and strengthen the connections between members in order to quickly access each other’s knowledge and expertise to achieve better, more effective outcomes at scale. Since its founding in 2008, the network has evolved and added new collaborative activities, while continuing to focus first and foremost on peer-to-peer exchange. USDN’s programs mobilize members to pursue collaborative projects that address urgent challenges and timely opportunities facing multiple cities. The project’s members work together to allow us to assess which innovation areas are the most strategically important and yield the most effective outcomes. Prepared by: Stephen Duh, CPRP, Principal Jean Akers, AICP, PLA, Senior Associate Urban/Community Forestry Street Tree Planning Project Overview & Issue Statement The purpose of this study is to research and explore barriers affecting the identification of climate‐ appropriate trees, specifications for tree procurement and potential restrictions in contracting for local and state government agencies in the Cascadia region. The aim of the project is to find ways for local governments to secure different species of trees than those that may be typically available from regional and large‐scale nurseries.
  • Healthy Watersheds Forest Retention Project

    Healthy Watersheds Forest Retention Project

    HEALTHY WATERSHEDS FOREST RETENTION PROJECT PHASES 1 & 2 FINAL REPORT A Virginia and Pennsylvania partnership focused on expanding the use of forestland to meet Chesapeake Bay Watershed goals from the perspective of the local leaders who are responsible for making it happen. Prepared for: The Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership Healthy Watersheds Goal Implementation Team, Land Use Workgroup and Forestry Workgroup The Local Government Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council The US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office The Commonwealths of Virginia and Pennsylvania The Rappahannock River Basin Commission The George Washington Regional Commission The Chesapeake Bay Commission The Nature Conservancy The Chesapeake Bay Trust The US Endowment for Forests and Communities The Virginia Environmental Endowment June 30, 2017 HEALTHY WATERS/FOREST RETENTION STUDY FINAL REPORT: JUNE 30, 2017 1 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 8 BACKGROUND LEADING TO PROJECT ........................................................................................................10 CORRELATION WITH 2014 CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED AGREEMENT