Monitoring the Urban Forest: A National Network for Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships

295 views

Published on

Monitoring the Urban Forest: A National Network for Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships

Lara Roman, UC Berkley

Published in: Education, Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
295
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Monitoring the Urban Forest: A National Network for Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships

  1. 1. Monitoring  the  Urban  Forest:   A  Na3onal  Network  for  Researcher-­‐ Prac33oner  Partnerships   7  November  2013   Lara  Roman,  USDA  Forest  Service  
  2. 2. www.urbantreegrowth.org  
  3. 3. Prac33oner-­‐driven  urban  tree  monitoring:   A  na3onal  survey  
  4. 4. 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?  
  5. 5. Reasons  for  monitoring   •  •  •  •    Track  mortality,  health  &  growth  (51%)   ProacFve  tree  care  &  management  (44%)   Public  engagement  (21%)   Monitoring  required  by  grant  or  contract  (16%)  
  6. 6. “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.”  
  7. 7. Monitoring  methods   •  Limited  external  assistance  (17%)   •  Field  crews   –  Program  staff  (62%)   –  Volunteers  (42%)   –  Arborists  (36%)   –  Researchers  (16%)   –  Interns  (16%)    
  8. 8. Field  data   •  •  •  •    Species  (96%)   CondiFon  raFng  (89%)   Mortality  status  (76%)   DBH  (71%)  
  9. 9. Recording  tree  loca3on   •  •  •  •    Street  address  (78%)   GPS  (42%)   Site  maps  (31%)   Tree  tags  (16%)  
  10. 10. Challenges   •  Resource  limitaFon  (63%)   ½  of  organizaFons  ≤  6  staff     •  •  •  •    Data  management  &  technology  (47%)   Developing  protocols  (28%)   Field  crew  training  (25%)   ImplemenFng  field  work  (25%)  
  11. 11. “Not  knowing  what  to  monitor,  no  one  to   monitor,  not  knowing  what  quesFons  to  ask  of   the  monitoring.”    
  12. 12. Urban  tree  monitoring  protocols  
  13. 13. New  monitoring  protocols   •  How  are  these  protocols  different?   –  Emphasis  on  locaFonal  accuracy   –  Longitudinal  data   –  Training  materials   –  Bojom-­‐up  process    
  14. 14. Guiding  principles   •  Keep  it  simple   •  Make  it  flexible   •  Seek  input  from  pracFFoners   •  Answer  key  research  quesFons   •  Promote  management  objecFves  
  15. 15. 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    
  16. 16. Minimum  data  set                          Field  crew   Project  d              Date   ata                                                              
  17. 17. Minimum  data  set                   Project  d       ata                                 LocaFon     ata           d                                                                        Field  crew    Date    LocaFon    Site  type    Land  use      
  18. 18. 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  
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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.
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. 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  
  23. 23.    
  24. 24. Sacramento  shade  tree  survival  study  
  25. 25. Sacramento  Shade  Tree  Program    Reduce  energy  use  through  tree  shade            5  years  annual  monitoring  data  
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. Conclusions   •  The  value  of  longitudinal  data   •  Need  for  bejer  monitoring  tools   •  CollaboraFve  process    
  29. 29.   “This  is  a  great  place  to  start.    Update  everyone   as  to  your  findings  and  get  everyone  together  to   talk  about  it.”    
  30. 30. www.urbantreegrowth.org   lroman@fs.fed.us  

×