‘HI

I

 

 

 

LIBRARY
h-Z’ichigen State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

I DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

JA'N 22 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/CI_RC/DateDue.indd-p. 15

 

-u , ._ ‘vv‘muz.--__nnm—E 33.2.": mm

.-.Ԥl

Plan B Paper -
BORIS, Kerry. 2002. (Forestry)

ANALYSIS OF THE MASTER PLANS OF SEVENTEEN MIDWESTERN CITIES:
Are trees part of the plan?
BY

Kerry Boris

A Plan B Paper

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Forestry
Department of Urban Studies

2002

 

-. :is checkout from your re 7 ‘.
' before date due. 3x
”ate if requested.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Background
2.1 Trees in Cities
2.2 History of Urban and Community Forestry
2.3 Benefits of Trees
2.4 Costs of the Urban and Community Forest
2.5 History of Urban Planning in the United States
2.6 The Comprehensive Master Plan
2.7 Summary

Chapter 3: Methods

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion
4.1 Overall Results
4.2 Ordinances
4.3 Trees in Public Spaces/Landscaping in Public Spaces
4.4 Transportation
4.5 Open Space/Greenspace
4.6 Development
4.7 Summary

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

Appendices
Appendix A- Variables, Unites of Analysis and Subunits of Analysis

Used to Analyze the Comprehensive Master Plans
Appendix 8- Number of References to Units/Subunits of Analysis
by City
Appendix C- Examples of References for Each Variable, Unit and
Subunit of Analysis

Literature Cited

12
27
29
36
39

42

47
50
55
58
63
65

66

7O
71

75

91

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, urban areas cover 3.5% of the land area of the lower 48 states,
are home to 75% of the population and contain 3.8 billion trees. They are defined by the US.
Census (2002) as "...consisting of a central place(s) and adjacent population with a general
population density of 1000 people per square mile of land area that together have a minimum
residential population of at least 50,000 people." The broader category of metropolitan areas
are defined by the U.S. Census (2002) as "...a county, or group of counties that contains a large
population nucleus as its core; can include adjacent counties that have a high degree of
economic and social integration with the core." Metropolitan areas cover 24.5% of the total
land area of the lower 48 states, contain 80% of the total population and 74.5 billion trees
(Dwyer, Nowak, Noble and Sissini 2000). These areas are home to the nation’s urban and
community forest resource which is made up of all the trees, both public and private, in and
around cities and suburbs (Moll 1988).

The urban and community forest is an important component of the urban environment.
It provides numerous benefits to the residents and communities that inhabit it. Trees remove
pollutants from the air, help ameliorate summer temperatures, reduce storm water runoff, and
provide social and psychological benefits. They are also one of the only components of the
urban environment that actually increases in value each year. Despite these facts, a 1986 study
found that 80-85% of U.S. cities did have a plan in place to manage their urban forest resource
(Kielbaso 1990). Another study of 20 U5. cities, found that despite an all time high in support
for urban forestry programs by citizens and businesses, city urban forestry programs to plant

and maintain trees are in decline. Budgets for maintenance had been cut in 70% of the cities

surveyed, street tree planting declined by 14% and 45% of the cities surveyed did not have a
regular maintenance program (Skiera and Moll 1992).

Why are trees being overlooked in the urban environment when they are an important
part of a city's infrastructure? The infrastructure of a city can be split into two distinct
categories, gray infrastructure and green infrastructure. Gray infrastructure is the hardscape of
the city which includes streets, sidewalks, sewers, and utilities. Green infrastructure, according
to the American Planning Association is:

"...our nation's natural life support system, an interconnected network of natural areas,

conservation lands and working landscapes that support native species, maintain natural

ecological process, sustain air and water resources, and contribute to the health and quality of

life for America's communities,” (Benedict 2000 p.1).

US. cities actively plan, manage and invest in their gray infrastructure resources
(McMahon 2000). In contrast, green infrastructure has not been managed or financially
supported by most cities. This has led to land fragmentation and planning that has been
"...reactive, site-specific, narrowly focused, and/ or not well integrated with other efforts,"
(Benedict 2000 p.2). The urban forest is a part of the green infrastructure and like other
components, it has not been planned for, it just happened (Strorn 2000). "If urban forest
resources are to be enhanced, sustained and integrated into the planning and development
process...then green infrastructure needs to be elevated to the same level of importance as
'gray lnfrastructure'," (Strom 2000, p. 78).

The end product of a city's planning and development process is the creation of a
comprehensive master plan (master plan). A master plan is a planning document that guides
future community growth, development and change. It provides a snapshot of how the
community will look in the future based on the needs and priorities identified by the city. It

also provides implementation steps necessary to meet the city's future goals and objectives

(Elmendorf 2000). The planning and maintenance of gray infrastructure is an integral
component of the master plan. It is woven throughout the master plan in sections on housing,
industry, commercial, transportation and community facilities. Are trees and the urban and
community forest, 3 component of the green infrastructure of a city, a part of the master plan?
The purpose of this paper is to identify if trees and the urban and community forest resource of

a city have been incorporated into its comprehensive master plan (master plan).

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND

This chapter discusses the historical uses of trees in cities, their benefits and costs, the
history of urban planning, benefits of planning and the components of a comprehensive plan.
It provides a framework for understanding the link between trees and urban planning and

demonstrates the integral role that trees play in the urban environment.

2.1 Trees in Cities
Ancient and European Influences

Trees have been used to enhance and beautify the urban environment since ancient
times. Early civilizations prized trees for their beauty, and planted them in formal gardens and
around temples (Lawrence 1997). The Hanging Gardens of Babylon created during the 6th
century BC is one of the best known examples of this type of planting (Koch 2000). Although
trees were found in cities during antiquity, most trees were planted on private property and
were rarely found along streets. It was not until later in history that they began to appear on
public property and line boulevards.

There are eight European urban design elements that have been identified as important
in the evolution and development of the 19th century tree lined boulevard (Lawrence 1988).
These elements varied from city to city and included the renaissance garden allée, exterior
avenues, wall promenade, waterside promenade, malls and cours, place promenade, baroque
boulevard and interior avenues.

The first use of trees as a landscape element was the garden allée, which originated in
Italy during the Renaissance period. Allée's were pathways within a formal garden that were

lined with trees and enclosed by a wall (Lawrence 1997, Koch 2000). In the 16th century the

French adopted the Italian allée. The French allées became independent forms in the
landscape design and were occasionally extended outside the garden walls (Lawrence 1988).
Tree use in urban areas and their role as public amenities was largely influenced by the garden
allée (Lawrence 1988).

Garden allées that were extended outside the walls of formal gardens in France became
known as exterior avenues. These tree lined streets were scattered throughout rural areas and
became entryways into larger cities (Lawrence 1988, Koch 2000). Many of the exterior avenues
eventually became a part of the city, as city walls were dismantled and the city was extended
into the country (Koch 2000).

Throughout the Middle Ages, tree planting was primarily done along walls that
surrounded the city and on sites where old walls once existed. During the 16th century, the
method used to erect city walls changed and so did the method of planting trees. The new
walls were created by placing ramparts, earthworks and ditches in between masonry walls.
This eliminated the use of single masonry walls and created a new public space for tree
planting, the wall promenade. Trees were planted in rows along the top of the redesigned
walls, creating a new use for the garden allée (Lawrence 1988).

The waterside promenade, the planting of trees along canals and waterways, was
created during the same time period as the wall promenade. It was first used in the "Plan of
the Three Canals" (Lawrence 1988), developed in Amsterdam in 1615. The Plan recommended
the construction of houses, and the planting of elm trees along the canals. This plan was one
of the first to bring trees into the central city and incorporate the elements of buildings, trees
and traffic (Koch 2000). Other cities in the Netherlands used the "Plan of the Three Canals" as
a model for incorporating trees into their cities. However, this design was not adopted by

other European cities for nearly a century (Lawrence 1995, Koch 2000).

Malls and cours, the fifth design element, were created in many European cities in the
early seventeenth century following the popularity of two recreational pastimes, pall mall and
carriage riding (Lawrence 1995). Pall mall was a game similar to croquet where a ball was hit
with a mallet along a stretch of lawn. The playing ground, malls, were large areas of lawn lined
with trees. These areas were usually created in private gardens, but in some cases malls were
laid out in public open space near cities (Lawrence 1988). Cours were created for the upscale
population to take recreational carriage rides. They were surrounded by walls and the carriage
paths were lined with tree (Lawrence 1988). Typically these areas were for private use only,
but on some occasions the cours were open to anyone who had a carriage (Koch 2000). Both
of these pastimes soon lost their appeal and the malls and cours were transformed into other
uses like walking promenades, vehicle promenades and in later years, city streets (Koch 2000,
Lawrence 1988).

Another antecedent of the boulevard was the place promenade (place) or square.
During the seventeenth century, Italians created the place, the area where several important
streets met (Koch 2000). The Italian place did not contain vegetation; however, when adopted
by the French, street trees were incorporated into the design (Koch 2000). The place was used
in many European countries; however, their use varied by region. While the British designed
their places as private parks, the French, Spanish and Germans used them in conjunction with
vehicular traffic and as public open spaces (Koch 2000). These places resembled boulevards in
their use of trees to line streets (Lawrence 1988, Koch 2000).

The urban design form that most influenced the 19th century tree lined boulevard was
the baroque boulevard (Lawrence 1988). It was created during the 16th century, when the

walls surrounding Paris were removed by order of Louis XIV. The sites where the walls once

stood became raised promenades planted with rows of trees and open to pedestrians and light
carriage traffic (Lawrence 1988).

The final European design element that influenced the creation and development of the
tree-lined street was the interior street. Interior streets or those that were in the city center
were devoid of trees through much of the sixteenth century. As cities began to expand and
new towns were created in the seventeenth century, trees began to line avenues for short
distances (Lawrence 1988). Street tree planting for long distances did not begin until Louis XIV
changed Versailles from a country chateau into the residential center and lined the radial streets
with trees. "By the middle of the eighteenth century, French urban designers were using
internal tree-lined avenues as principal features of urban expansion in other residential cities,"
(Lawrence 1988, p. 368). Although this was an important step toward the boulevard, tree
planting along interior streets was often formal and many of these areas resembled place
promenades (Lawrence 1988).

Each of these eight urban design elements helped to influence the creation of the tree
lined boulevard. The 19th century boulevard was wider and contained better pavement,
drainage, and lighting than its predecessors. The British enhanced them by adding sidewalks,
house numbers and storm drains. While the British did not include trees in their new street
designs, the French did and used sidewalks as a way to protect pedestrians and trees.
Lawrence said this about the creation of boulevards:

"The new boulevard form facilitated transportation, police access, waste disposal,

drainage and air circulation, in addition to being enormous public works projects. They

also made trees essential and prominent in the urban landscape. They combined

various prior usages as repetitive visual elements that gave dimension to vistas and

distant perspectives, as graceful ornaments complementing the often mediocre design of

structures along the boulevards, as shady promenades for pedestrians, and as purifiers
of the polluted urban air (p. 372).”
American Cities

Early colonial American cities looked to Europe for urban design ideas; however, many
of them adopted tree planting styles that differed greatly from European styles. American
colonial cities preferred planting trees in a less formal, uniform and planned manner than that
of European cities. Homeowners and businesses planted trees in their front yards for aesthetics
and to provide shade. Reflecting the individuality of the United States, they chose a variety of
tree species and spaced them irregularly in their front yards. Peter Kalm, a Swedish botanist
visiting the United States in 1748, noted the presence of a variety of trees including London
planetree and Black locust that lined New York City streets (Lawrence 1995).

While most colonial cities did not plan for trees, in 1682 William Penn created a design
for Philadelphia which included open space areas designated for tree planting (Pitt 1979, Miller
1989). Although included in his plan, trees were largely absent from Philadelphia streets and
yards. During most of the 18th century, insurance companies would not insure homes with
trees planted near them, discouraging residents and businesses from planting them (Grey and
Denke 1978). In the 1780's, these insurance regulations changed and trees began to appear
regularly along streets and in yards (Miller 1989).

During the 1800's, local and state governments passed legislation and local ordinances
that reflected the importance they placed on trees, tree planting and tree preservation. The
territory of Michigan passed the first act regarding tree planting in 1807. The act required that
trees be planted along Detroit's boulevards and in groves throughout the city. When looking for
a capital city, Mississippi stressed the importance of planting areas with native trees and

vegetation (Pitt 1979, Miller 1989). During the industrial revolution, governments created

vegetation ordinances requiring tree planting and maintenance along roads and parks (Miller
1988).

As America grew, and developed, tree planting efforts changed. During the nineteenth
century industrialization left American cities dirty and crowded. In response to this, and
influenced by the romantic movement in England, Americans began focusing their attention on
city beautification efforts. These efforts included planting trees along streets and creation of
city parks and civic centers. The efforts of this movement were so popular that they extended
themselves past the city limits and into newly created suburban communities. This began the
civic movement of planting trees along streets; and by the end of the nineteenth century many

cities were beginning to recognize the need to formalize their street tree plantings (Lawrence

1995).

2.2 History of Urban and Community Forestry

, As long as trees have been intentionally used in urban environments there have been
people managing and taking care of them. Proof of such tree and urban vegetation managers
can be seen in the caretakers of the gardens of Babylon and Assyria in 200 B.C. A book written
in 302 B.C. on plants included a section on tree care and described how to prevent decay after

a tree had been wounded (Koch 2000).
Books and experiments on tree care continued to be written between the 16th and 19th

century. Although the importance of tree care was touted in the literature, it was not until U16
introduction of exotic insect pests, like gypsy moth, brown tail moth and elm leaf beetle, into
the New England landscape during the late 19th century that American cities began to focus on

street tree care and protection (Koch 2000).

Urban and community forestry developed rapidly in the United States during the early
20th century. Early pioneers of urban and community forestry included John Davey, who
started a tree care company that still bears his name today and W. Solotaroff who published a
defining work on urban tree care, Shade-trees in Cities and Towns (Koch 2000). In 1924, the
first national conference addressing urban tree care issues, the National Shade Tree
Conference, was held; it was the first conference to bring together tree care professionals and
average citizens (Koch 2000).

The early twentieth century also saw the development of city forestry programs in
many large and medium sized cities. These programs not only focused on the planting of trees
but also their maintenance and management (Miller 1989). Many smaller communities focused
their efforts on planting and only began managing their trees when a disease (i.e. phloem
necrosis, Dutch elm disease and chestnut blight) affected trees in their community (Miller
1989).

While the management of urban trees continued throughout American cities during the
20th century, there was no definitive term to describe the practice. The term urban forestry
was first used in 1965 at the University of Toronto (Jorgensen 1970). A graduate student was
in need of a title for a research project that had evaluated the success/failures of municipal tree
planting programs in a community outside of Toronto (Johnston 1996). The term was not
widely accepted by Canadians but readily adopted by Americans, who needed a term to
describe the management of urban trees (Johnston 1996). The term was officially recognized
by the US. government in 1968, when a report by the Citizens Advisory Committee on
Recreation and Natural Beauty recommended that the Forest Service create an urban and
community forestry program. The program was funded in 1972, with an amendment of the

1950 Cooperative Forest Management Act (Johnston 1996). The Cooperative Forest

10

Management Act of 1978, continued to provide support for urban and community forestry
programs throughout the United States.

In 1990 President George Bush created the America the Beautiful campaign and
increased the federal funding for urban and community forestry programs by ten fold
(Johnston 1996). The 1990 Farm Bill established the National Urban and Community Forestry
Advisory Council to help provide guidance and promote urban and community forestry to the
Secretary of Agriculture (Johnston 1996). Despite the increased efforts of the federal
government, the state of the nation's urban forests has been declining over the past 15 years
(Johnston 1996). A study completed by the American Forestry Association in 1987 found that
street trees in twenty American cities were in serious decline (Johnston 1996). Surveys by
Kielbaso in 1980 (Kielbaso, Haston, Pawl 1982) and 1986 (Kielbaso 1988) and a follow-up
survey completed by Davey Tree and the International Society of Arboriculture in 1994 (Davey
1994) showed declines in the amount of money allocated by cities to urban forestry programs
and an increasing dependence on outside funding. Another national study conducted by
Kielbaso and Cotrone (1989), found that 76 percent of cities surveyed did not have an urban
forester or tree manager on staff. Cities that had urban foresters on staff had urban forestry
management plans over 50% of the time. Only 17% of the cities that did not have an urban
forester on staff had an urban forestry management plan (Johnston 1996). "Despite the best
efforts of the urban forestry movement, the condition of many forests in towns and cities

throughout the United States is deteriorating," (Johnston 1996, p. 275).

11

2.3 Benefits of Trees

The deterioration of the urban forest can have a serious impact on the urban
environment and affect the quality of life of urban residents. This section describes both the
benefits that trees provide in the urban environment and the adverse affects associated with

the deterioration of this resource.

Environmental Benefits
Global Climate Change: Air Temperature, Air Quality and the Greenhouse Efi'ect

Over the last century, scientists have estimated that the earth's surface temperature has
increased by 10 F and it is estimated that the temperature will increase by 3.50 F by the year
2100 (Abdollahi, Ning & Appeaning 2000). If this estimate holds true, it will be the fastest
temperature change the planet has seen in 10,000 years (Abdollahi et. al 2000). The increase
in surface temperature over the last century and the prediction for higher temperatures in the
future has been directly attributed to humans and the increase in greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere (McPherson 2000).

Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide,
and ozone. These gases help to sustain life on earth by trapping heat from the sun which in
turn warms the surface of the planet. Although these gases are a vital component to human
life on earth, increased levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity are beginning to have
detrimental effects on the environment (McPherson 2000). From 1990-1996 carbon emissions
in the United States, increased from 5 to 5.5 billion tonnes, these emissions are largely from
fossil fuel combustion and deforestation (Nowak 2000). Adverse effects associated with the
increase in greenhouse gases include an increase in atmospheric air temperature, rise in sea

levels, melting of mountain glaciers, disruption of the water cycle (i.e. increased droughts and

12

floods, water quality problems, etc.), change in vegetation types and effects on agricultural crop

yields (Abdollahi et. al 2000).

As air temperature on the surface of the earth increases, so does the temperature in the
city center. Over the past 50 years, downtown areas have experienced a 1° F increase in air
temperature for each decade (McPherson & Rowntree 1993). Daily summer air temperatures in
urban centers can be between 2 and 8° F hotter than the surrounding rural communities
(Akbari, Davis, Huang, Liu and Taha 1992). This occurrence is commonly referred to as the
"urban heat island," and can result in an increase in electricity demand, poor air quality and
human discomfort (Souch & Souch 1993).

The structure of the city contributes to the urban heat island by affecting the air
temperature of the surrounding environment. Areas with tall buildings and impervious surfaces
(i.e. sidewalks, roofs, roads) absorb and reflect heat thereby increasing the air temperature of
the surrounding environment. In contrast, areas with vegetation and grass, less impervious
surfaces and shorter buildings, such as a subdivision have lower air temperatures because they
reflect and absorb less heat. Air temperature differences of up to 9° F have been documented
between a downtown area and a vegetated subdivision (McPherson & Rowntree 1993).

Trees can help ameliorate many of the negative effects associated with the increase in
air temperature and greenhouse gases in urban areas. Tree canopies absorb or reflect
incoming solar radiation, reducing the amount of radiation that can be radiated by buildings and
other impervious surfaces (Souch & Souch 1993). A tree can reduce the amount of incoming
solar energy in their shade by more than 90% (Heisler, Grant, Grimmond and Souch 1995). Air
temperatures below mature canopies in Sacramento, California were found to be 3- 6° F cooler

than areas with no trees; and Miami reported an average reduction of 64° (Souch & Souch

1993).

13

In addition to cooling the surrounding environment through shading, trees also cool the
air through evapotranspiration. Solar radiation that is not reflected by the tree canopy is
absorbed by the leaves and leads to the evaporation and transpiration of water, which aids in
cooling the leaf surface (Nowak & Dwyer 2000). Evapotranspiration requires a large amount of
energy, about 580 calories (Heisler et.al 1995), when enough energy is not available from the
sun in the afternoon and evening, the tree takes energy (heat) from the surrounding
atmosphere which leads to atmospheric cooling around the tree (Souch & Souch 1993).

They also serve an important function in removing atmospheric chemicals and
pollutants, such as ozone and sulfur dioxide, from the environment. They do this by either
intercepting airborne particulates or absorbing gases into the plant tissues through the leaf
stomata (Lawson 1996). A study found that streets lined with trees could intercept as much as
7000 air borne dust particles per liter of air (Huang, Ritschard, Sampson, Taha 1993). Unlike
gases, intercepted particulates are not absorbed into the plant and removed from the
atmosphere. Rather trees serve as a temporary holding area for these particulates because
they are kept on the surface of the plant and are easily washed off or redeposited into the
atmosphere (Nowak and Dwyer 2000). Computer simulations have shown that the average
amount of pollution removed by New York City trees in 1994 was 13.7 grams per square meter
of tree canopy (Nowak and Dwyer 2000).

Trees also reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Urban forests
accomplish this in two ways: (1) through the direct sequestering of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere while a tree is actively growing and (2) by planting trees around buildings and
other structures. Carbon sequestering is the direct absorption of carbon dioxide into the plant
tissue of the tree. The amount of carbon dioxide a tree can sequester is dependent upon its

age and health. A young, healthy tree sequesters more carbon than an old growth forest that

14

releases as much carbon dioxide as it absorbs (McPherson 2000). Forests in rural areas
sequester twice as much carbon dioxide as urban areas because of the higher tree density per
area. However, individual urban trees sequester more carbon dioxide than rural trees because
they grow faster (McPherson 2000). Planting trees in and around buildings also reduces the
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When trees are properly placed around a building
the demand for heating and cooling is reduced, decreasing the carbon dioxide emissions
produced by local power plants (McPherson 2000). Huang et. al found that "...the annual
amount of carbon saved per tree in cooling energy savings (88 pounds saved per tree per year)
is five to ten times greater than the amount of carbon sequestered on a per tree basis," (1992,
p. 36).

Although trees absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide they also release it during respiration,
fall leaf drop, senescence and decomposition. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed plus the
carbon dioxide emissions avoided minus the amount of carbon dioxide released equals the net
carbon dioxide benefit (McPherson 2000). Statistics regarding the net carbon dioxide benefit
urban trees produce may seem low. However, in order to understand their true impact they
must be seen in context to the amount of urban tree cover in the city. For example, the 5.5%
(Dwyer et al. 2001) of urban tree cover in Sacramento, California sequesters 1.8 % of the
carbon dioxide that residents produce (McPherson 2000). The net carbon dioxide benefit trees

produce will only increase as urban tree cover increases.

Trees and Energy Conservation
In 1990, Americans spent $98.1 billion and consumed 7% of the total energy produced,
heating and cooling their homes (McPherson & Rowntree 1993). The burning of fossil fuels to

produce electricity releases about one half pound of carbon dioxide for every kilowatt hour of

15

electricity produced. An average city of 100,000 consumes approximately 100 billion kilowatt
hours of electricity per year (Akbari 1992).

Trees can play a vital role in energy conservation and the reduction of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. One tall urban tree has been shown to provide as much cooling as five window
air conditioners powered for 20 hours per day (Mao, Gao and Sun 1993). In northern climates,
placing trees on the north and west side of a building can reduce winter winds and heating
costs. While planting deciduous trees on the south side of a building provides shade in the
summer and sunlight in the winter. When trees are properly planted they can reduce energy
consumption in a home by 20-25% when compared with a home in the open with no trees
(Nowak & Dwyer).

A study of 113 homes in College Station, Texas found that shade was the most
significant variable in reducing the amount of energy used (Rudie and Dewers 1984). In
Florida trees planted next to residential buildings reduced summer energy demands by 3
kilowatts in the morning and 5 kilowatts during the afternoon (Huang et. al 1992). A study in
Ann Arbor of neighborhoods with high, medium and low densities of vegetation found that
proper placement of vegetation could yield substantial energy savings (Laverne and Lewis
1996).

While trees can provide many energy conservation benefits, they can also increase
energy consumption if they are not properly placed and planted. This includes trees that block
winter sunlight, do not shield buildings from winter winds or do not shade buildings in the
summer. Three homes in Madison, Wisconsin were compared for energy consumption and use,
a home with an energy efficient planting design, a home without trees and a home with trees

that blocked winter sunlight and provided little shade in the summer. The home with trees that

blocked winter sunlight and provided little summer shade had higher energy bills than the home

16

without trees (Dwyer et. al 1992). Proper placement of trees for energy conservation not only
saves homeowners and businesses money but it also reduces the amount of atmospheric

carbon dioxide released by power plants.

Urban Forestry and Urban Hydrology

As cities and communities have grown, the amount of impervious and impenetrable
surfaces, like roads, parking lots, roof tops, patios and compacted soils have increased (Arnold
& Gibbons 1996). As areas are paved over, the natural hydrologic processes that used to occur
change and instead of water slowly percolating into the soil, the water rushes off streets,
driveways, parking lots and rooftops into storm sewers and detention basins. Many of these
sewers were not created to handle large volumes of fast moving water, which has led to
increases in flooding and a decrease in water quality due to non-point source pollution (Arnold
& Gibbons 1996, Beattie, Kollin & Moll 2000). Today, urban forests are being used to help
intercept, retain and slow precipitation reaching the ground. Helping to reduce flooding,
decrease costs of storm water treatment and increase water quality by reducing the amount of
water that runs across impervious surfaces, gathers pollutants and flows into water bodies
(Beattie, Kollin & Moll 2000).

In Dayton, Ohio their tree cover reduced runoff by 7% and a small increase in tree
cover could reduce the runoff by nearly 12% (Dwyer et. al 1992). As an increase in tree cover
can reduce runoff, a decrease can cause water to be warmer in the summer and cooler in the
winter which has negative effects on water quality (Arnold & Gibbons 1996). By expanding
urban tree cover and reducing impervious surfaces natural hydrologic processes can be brought
back to the urban environment. Studies have shown that sinking planter beds in parking lots

instead of raising them provides an on-site storm water runoff and treatment area (Arnold &

17

Gibbons 1996). Designs that use trees to minimize storm water runoff not only reduce storm
water flows and non-point source pollution but they also save communities money. If all of the
trees were removed in Garland, Texas it is estimated that the city would have an additional 19
million cubic feet of storm water and it would cost them $38 million to manage it (Bettie, Kollin

& Moll 2000).

Urban Forests as an Ecosystem

An often forgotten benefit of the urban forest is its role as an ecosystem. Trees provide
a necessary habitat for urban animals like squirrels and birds. These animals use urban trees
for food, shelter and cover which are vital for their survival. Many urbanites appreciate the
urban wildlife that they encounter during their daily lives (Dwyer et. al 1992). \Mthout trees,
wildlife could not survive in a city environment and urban dwellers could lose their only contact

with wildlife in their daily lives.

Summary of Environmental Benefits of Trees

At the present stocking levels of trees in cities, urban forests have demonstrated the
positive impact they have on air quality, air temperature, greenhouse gases, energy
conservation, urban hydrology and wildlife enhancement. Many of these benefits would have a
far greater impact if the urban forest resource in cities was larger. Planting 100 million trees
would increase carbon dioxide emissions avoided by 22 million tonnes annually after 10 years
(McPherson 2000). There have been many estimates on the number of tree planting
opportunities in urban areas in the United States. They range from 160 million (Lawson 1996)

to 225 million (McPherson 2000). Whatever the correct estimate, it is clear that the urban

18

forests in the United States are far from being fully stocked with trees and their benefits will

only increase as the urban and community forest increases.

Psychological and Social Benefits

Psydrological Benefits of Trees

Trees not only provide environmental benefits but they also provide psychological
benefits to urban dwellers. People living and working in urban environments are constantly
overstimulated and forced to pay attention to many aspects of their environment, which can
lead to stress. Trees are an element of the landscape that are easy to pay attention to and
allow the brain to rest and refresh itself (Shroeder & Lewis 1991). Dwyer, Schroeder and
Gobster believe that, "The psychological ties between people and trees defy easy quantification,
yet few would deny their existence or their profound implications for urban forest
management," (1991, p. 276). To better understand these benefits, many researchers have
studied the psychological benefits that humans gain from trees.

Studies by Kaplan and Kaplan (Schroeder and Lewis 1991) and Orchard (Starkey 1979)
identified trees as a necessary component of the urban landscape because of the positive effect
they have on mental health. Orchard, wrote that to maintain a healthy mental state, humans
require trees in their everyday environment. He argued that people have lived with trees in
their daily lives for thousands of years and that this long history has created a background
frame of reference (Starkey 1979). They have become a necessary psychological and physical
factor in people's lives (Starkey 1979).

In 1992, Hull conducted a study of visitors to an urban park to assess the relationship
between visits to urban parks and changes in mood. Park visitors were asked their mood upon

arrival, thirty minutes after arrival and at departure. He found that visitor's moods changed

19

positively after being in the park for thirty minutes, this was especially true for people engaged
in active recreation. The results suggest that even a short period of time in an urban park
appeared to produce positive moods among visitors.

The psychological attraction that people have to trees is another element that has been
explored by researchers. Experiments at Morton Arboretum, in 1991, explored the strong
attraction between people and trees (Dwyer et. al 1991). The researchers asked individuals to
describe experiences they had when they felt a strong connection to the environment and to
explain their feelings. They discovered that people had very strong emotional ties to the forest
and that these connections helped them deal with difficult times in their lives. Several "themes"
were identified that helped to provide insight into this attraction: sensory, symbolic, and
human roots in the forest (Dwyer et. al 1991).

Sensory benefits are those that are associated with the five senses, sight, smell, taste,
hearing and touch. Sensory benefits of trees have been shown to promote relaxation and
serenity in people. A study by Ulrich measured the health effects of people who viewed scenes
of urban areas with vegetation and urban areas without vegetation. Participants who looked at
scenes with urban vegetation had better health signs including lower blood pressure, lower
heart rate and more relaxed brain wave patterns when compared with those who viewed
scenes without vegetation (Dwyer et. al 1991).

People have also attached many symbolic meanings to trees in their everyday lives and
in religion. People describe their family in terms of their family tree; they plant trees as living
memories of a loved one; and they attach symbolic meaning to trees growing in special
locations (a tree growing next to their grandfathers house is "grandpa's tree") (Dwyer et. al
1991). Trees as symbols are also evident in religion, as in the Tree of Life and Tree of

Knowledge in the Bible.

20

The third theme used to provide insight into humans' attachment to trees is the idea
that humans have roots in the forest. Some researchers have described humans' psychological
attraction to trees as a primal instinct that reminds them of their "home" on the African
savannah, the place where they evolved. These researchers also contend that humans have
evolved to prefer a particular forest type, preferring forested areas with an open understory
and an overhead canopy which resembles the African savannah (Dwyer et. al 1991). Other
researchers believe that trees in the urban environment provide residents with a connection to
the past and allow them to escape the everyday stresses of the urban environment (Dwyer et.
al 1991).

Trees restorative effects not only help to mend the human psyche but have also been
proven to have a positive impact on human health. Ulrich investigated the recovery rates of
surgery patients in a hospital in relation to the view they had from their window. The patients
had undergone similar surgeries and were receiving similar post surgery care. Ulrich found that
patients who had views from their windows of trees, required fewer painkillers, had fewer
complications and left the hospital sooner (10% shorter stays) than patients who looked out at
a brick wall (Hull & Ulrich 1997) A study of dental patients who feared dental treatment found
that their heart rate and stress levels were lower when a mural depicting trees was hung in the
waiting room (Hull & Ulrich 1997). Pre-surgery patients shown pictures of serene
environments, such as trees, water and other natural features, had blood pressure levels 10-15
points lower than patients in a control group that viewed no pictures (Hull & Ulrich 1997). A
study by Moore found that prison inmates who had a view of farmland visited the prison doctor
less often than those prisoners who had a view of the interior of the prison (Harris 1992, p.12).

In addition to the positive effects on the human psyche and human health, the urban

forest also provides aesthetic benefits to city residents. "Research on the aesthetic quality of

21

residential streets in the Midwest has shown that street trees are the single strongest positive
influence on the perceived quality of the view along the street," (Shroeder, and Ruffolo 1996).
In recent years many researchers have worked to uncover the mystery of human's
psychological and emotional attachment to trees. The research highlighted above provides
some insight into to why people have developed such strong ties to trees and why trees are an
important component in the urban ecosystem. Trees provide restorative effects to the human

psyche which not only reduces stress levels but also provides positive health effects on the

body.

Soda! Benefits of Trees
Closely tied to the psychological benefits are the social benefits that urban residents

gain from trees. In 7776 Power of Place, Gallagher explained that people take cues from their
surroundings and modify their behavior accordingly (Maguire, Foote & Vespe 1997). She
described how teenagers in New York City would walk down Amsterdam Street with the volume
on their radios on the loudest setting but when they crossed Broadway and entered a well-
maintained neighborhood they would turn down their radios. This observation helps to build
credence to the argument that a person's behavior toward a place is influenced by its
appearance (Maguire et. al 1997). Maguire et. al (1997) argued that pleasant surroundings
make people feel more secure and content, which is why people go to such great lengths to
beautify their homes and landscapes. The opposite is true for unpleasant and ugly places
where people feel a lack of connection and do not feel a responsibility to the area.

An example that helps to illustrate this idea are the US. urban riots of the late 1960's.
Residents of the cities involved in the riots did not feel a connection to their environment

because they felt the areas were ugly and unpleasant. In 1968, following the urban riots, the

22

U.S. Riot Commission released a study that showed that "...the demand for more parks
accompanied almost every outbreak of racial violence in metropolitan areas in the late 1960's,"
(Driver and Rosenthal 1978, p.99).

In another study, Sullivan and Kuo (1996) found that residents living in public housing in
Chicago had stronger ties to their neighbors if they lived in buildings with trees than those
residents who did not have trees near their buildings. The study also found that less domestic
violence and more constructive ways of solving conflict were present in buildings that had trees
versus buildings without trees. They explained this difference may have been present because
residents in buildings with trees have stronger ties to their neighbors and can call on them for
support in times of need. People with strong neighborhood ties have been shown to be
healthier, less likely to abuse or neglect their children and less likely to use social services in
times of need (Sullivan & Kuo 1996). This study does not definitively prove that trees help to
increase neighborhood ties in public housing; however, it does provide evidence that there is
some connection between trees and neighborhood behavior.

Trees have also been shown to have an affect on the social interaction of children. The
presence of trees increased play time among children living in public housing in Chicago
(Taylor, Wiley, Kuo & Sullivan 2001). Play is an important developmental activity for children, it
provides them an arena to "...leam and practice skills for survival and success in life," (Taylor
et, al 2001, p.1). The researchers observed children playing in two areas of a Chicago public
housing complex, an area with few to no trees and vegetation and an area with a high level of
trees and vegetation. They found that nearly twice as many children played in the areas with
trees and vegetation compared the area with few or no trees. The presence of trees in the
landscape appeared to help promote healthy development of children in the public housing

complex.

23

Along with passive benefits that people gain from trees, there are also "active" benefits
people receive. These active benefits are associated with city residents actively engaged in
planting street trees. McBride and Beatty wrote that by involving neighborhood residents in
tree planting efforts, a sense of ownership is promoted, residents take pride in the street trees
they planted which reduces tree mortality (Sommer, Learey, Summit and Trrrell 1994). Sommer
et. al (1994) found that residents were more satisfied with the street trees planted if they were
involved in the tree planting effort than those residents who were not involved.

Although much more research needs to be completed in the area of the social benefits
of trees, the research of Sullivan and Kuo (1996) and other researchers provides important
preliminary information on the important social and psychological role trees play in the city.
"...urban forests are not mere amenities- they are a basic part of the infrastructure of any city,

as necessary as streets, sewers and electricity (Sullivan & Kuo 1996, p. 2).

Economic Benefits of the Urban Forest

While trees provide environmental, social and psychological benefits, the economic
benefits they produce are the most tangible. These benefits can be seen in obvious ways such
as in the reduction of heating and cooling costs due to proper placement of trees around a
home or building. There are also less obvious ways that the urban forest influences economics
including increasing real estate/property values, influencing local economic development,
recreation and physical/mental health.

Wooded home lots have been shown to sell for an average of seven percent more than
an equivalent non-wooded lot (Dwyer 1991). Studies completed during the 1970's found that
trees increased the market value of both developed residential lots and undeveloped land. It

increased the market value of the residential lots by 12% and the undeveloped land by up to

24

27% (Driver and Rosenthal 1978). In a 1994 Bank of America study, 84% of real estate agents
surveyed believed that homes with trees could be 20% more salable in terms of property value
and curb appeal than comparable home with no trees (Petit, Bassert and Kolin 1995).

Homebuyers are not only willing to pay more for a wooded lot but also for homes that
are landscaped with trees and near parks, open space and greenways. An Atlanta study found
a home with trees increased the sales price by 3.4 - 4.5% (Nowak & Dwyer 2000). Locating
near an open space park with low recreation usage also increased the selling price of homes by
$1130 in an Ohio community (Dwyer 1991). Research in Boulder, Colorado found that distance
from a greenbelt affected the selling price of a home. For every foot away from the greenbelt,
the price of the home dropped by $4.20 (Driver and Rosenthal 1978). A survey of homeowners
on how builders can help the environment, 89% said builders should leave as many trees as
possible, and 77% said builders should add more trees to developments (Petit et. al 1995).

In Mandeville, Louisiana, 72.1% of woman and 66.3% of men were willing to pay additional
fees to preserve and protect trees during development in their community (Lorenzo, Catalino,
Qi and Guidry 2000).

Although studies have proven that trees add value to residential real estate, many
subdivisions built in the last decade have been barren landscapes with 4000 square foot homes,
but no trees. The owners of these new homes are willing to spend a considerable amount of
money to have large trees put into their landscapes (Hair 1999). They want large trees
because they give an instant effect to the landscape and are consistent with the scale of the
home. The demand for large trees by homeowners has been so great that many nurseries are
in short supply (Hair 1999). The willingness of residents to pay for the protection/preservation

of trees during development and to put large trees into their landscapes gives credence to the

25

argument that when developing land for residential communities, developers and planners
should work to preserve existing trees and avoid leveling the entire site.

Increasing real estate and property values also provides economic returns for a
community in terms of increased property taxes. If a homeowner was paying $500 per year in
property taxes, an increase in property value of 5% due to trees would add $25 to their
property taxes for the year. If this estimate is extrapolated to all 62 million single family homes
in the United States it would equal $1.5 billion (Dwyer 1991).

The influence of trees on local economic development is less easy to quantify, but can
be seen by driving through a community. Many communities in the United States have been
designated a Tree City USA (TC USA), a program sponsored by the National Arbor Day
Foundation that rewards communities that practice good stewardship towards their urban forest
resource. TC USA communities proudly display their TC USA status by placing plaques at the
entrances to their communities and flying the TC USA flag at city hall. Trees have also
influenced the naming of subdivisions (i.e. Whispering Pines) and streets in neighborhoods
(Dwyer, McPherson, Schroeder and Rowntree 1992). In the last 10 years tree planting has
become a major downtown improvement project in Atlanta which has helped to increase its
appeal to outside organizations looking for convention sites (Dwyer et. al 1992). In Stittsville,
Ontario, redevelopment of its main street which included extensive tree planting, attracted over
20 new businesses to relocate there (Haller 1996).

Outdoor recreation activities such as hiking, biking and running have become popular
pastimes in the United States over the past decade. Outdoor enthusiasts continually look to
their local urban parks to recreate. Bike trails along river corridors in metropolitan Chicago
support up to 5000 bicycles per day (Dwyer et. al 1992). Dwyer (1991) found that urban park

users preferred wooded parks with some mowed grass over open parks with mowed grass and

26

few trees and they would be willing to pay an average of $1.61 more per visit for them. By
placing these parks in urban areas, residents would not have to travel far to use a park which
would save money on travel, fuel and reduce pollution (Dwyer et. al 1992).

As mentioned in the Psychological Benefits section, trees provide many psychological
and health benefits. The Ulrich study of surgery patients that found that those who had views
of trees recovered faster, had less complications and needed fewer pain killers (Hull & Ulrich
1991), has definite economic impacts on the health care system. In an era when health care
costs are constantly rising, finding ways to minimize these costs will not only benefit individuals
but also society as a whole. The psychological benefits that trees provide may also be able to

help reduce work place stress and absenteeism (Dwyer 1991).

2.4 Costs of the Urban and Community Forest

As important as the benefits of the urban and community forest are, it is also necessary
to recognize the costs associated with it. As with the benefits, the costs can be environmental,
economic, physical and psychological. Environmental costs can occur when trees are
improperly placed around buildings causing an increase in demand for energy. Improperly
placed trees block sunlight from buildings in the winter and do not provide shade in the
summer. This increases the demand for heating and cooling, which leads to an increase the
carbon dioxide emissions produced by local power plants.

There are several economic costs associated with managing the urban and community
forest. The largest cost is associated with the planting and initial maintenance of trees
(McPherson 1994). A study in Chicago found that the costs associated with tree planting
ranged from $109 per tree to $341 per tree. This difference was based on who planted the

tree and follow-up maintenance. The trees that cost $109 were planted at a public housing

27

facility and were planted and maintained by volunteers, which reduced the cost of planting.

The trees that cost $341 to plant, were planted in a park by city workers, and included irrigation
after planting (McPherson 1994). Other costs associated with the managing of the urban and
community forest include pruning and removal. McPherson (1994) found that the cost to prune
street trees was $12 per tree and the cost of removal was $16-22 per tree.

Damage to the urban infrastructure is another cost associated with trees. Tree roots
can damage sidewalks, driveways, curbs, gutters, foundations and utility lines. In addition to
the costs of repairing the infrastructure, there are costs associated with litigation, if people are
injured due to the damage. Each year, California spends $70.7 million dollars to repair
damaged infrastructure and to settle legal cases; this equals $2.19 per capita and $11.22 per
tree. Sixty-one percent of the cost goes to the direct repair of the urban infrastructure, while
14% is paid out in legal claims (McPherson and Peper 2000). Trees caused damage to the
urban infrastructure for several reasons: size of planting area, tree species selection, shallow
soil, tree size and the restricted macropores in the soil (McPherson and Peper 2000).

While environmental and economic costs have been well documented, the physical and
psychological costs of trees have not. Physical costs are associated with human health and
include increased allergies due to pollen in the air (Hull and Ulrich 1991). Many communities
have selected male tree species that do not produce fruit in order to reduce the "mess" caused
by flowers that female trees produce. However, selecting male tree species increases the
amount of pollen inthe air, which can lead to allergic reactions and increased respiratory
illnesses (Hull and Ulrich 1991).

Psychological costs are much more difficult to quantify than the other costs. Trees in
the urban environment create shade that can disrupt many activities like gardening or they can

be obstacles to active sports like soccer or baseball. Trees and other vegetation can also create

28

feelings of fear and anxiety in city residents, because they provide a place for attackers and
criminals to hide (Schroeder and Lewis 1991). Other psychological costs include stress caused
by the thought that a tree may damage personal property, the annoyance of having to "clean
up" twigs, leaves and flowers a tree produces and emotional distress caused by having to
remove a tree that has personal meaning (Schroeder and Lewis 1991).

It is important to consider both the costs and benefits when creating and managing a
city's urban forest resource. McPherson (1994) found the benefit-cost ratio of managing the
urban and community forest in Chicago was 2.83; meaning that the projected benefits gained
were nearly three times the value of the projected costs. To effectively plan, urban foresters
and planners need to properly value the urban forest benefit and understand the planning and
management needed to achieve this benefit (Dwyer et. al 1992). The urban forest resource
provides much promise as urban areas continue to look for cost effective ways to enhance and

improve urban design.

2.5 History of Urban Planning in the United States

Urban Planning 1800-1910

The 19'" and 20'" centuries in the United States were times of prosperity, ingenuity,
development and rapid population growth. Cities were laid out in a grid iron pattern by real
estate developers, engineers, surveyors and government officials (Krueckeberg 1983). The grid
iron pattern created functional blocks and lots that could easily be sold, which is why this
method of urban design was so readily used in 19th and 20'" century America.

As technology improved, the health and safety of cities began to improve and planning
began to take hold. Two events helped to bring planning into the city, the sewage system and

the first sanitary survey (Krueckeberg 1983). The invention of the sewage system in the mid

29

1800’s provided a sanitary and safe way to dispose of human waste. The new sewage system
was connected to die water delivery system to create an interdependent city service. The
sanitary survey was done in response to a yellow fever epidemic that was sweeping cities. This
survey was considered one of the first planning efforts because it mapped and recorded
sanitary conditions throughout the city in order to help develop a plan to combat the disease
(Krueckeberg 1983). Sanitarians were interested in providing clean, healthy environments and
believed that the crowded cities of the late 1800’s were contributing to the poor health of their
residents. They advocated open, dry areas with many trees and parks for residents to get fresh
air and to exercise (Peterson 1983).

These antecedents of urban planning helped to develop a view that cities were not just
made up of independent elements; rather they were interdependent elements working
together. This view was not shared by many urban decision makers. However, one person
who believed in the interdependence of the city was Frederick Law Olmsted. Olmsted, who is
most famous for his designs of Central Park in New York City and Riverside, Illinois, is widely
believed to be the most influential person in early American planning (f-"rshman 2000). Olmsted
believed that cities should be open to nature for the mental and physical betterment of city
residents (Peterson 1983). He advocated parks where people of all socioeconomic backgrounds
could relax and designed tree lined boulevards into neighborhoods to help create a healthy
environment.

Olmsted's work of bringing nature into the city strongly influenced the Crty Beautiful
movement. City Beautiful was a middle and upper class national movement started in the late
1890’s that attempted to bring both beauty and function into the city. Advocates of City

Beautiful believed that by changing ugly cities into beautiful ones they could control and

30

enhance the economic and physical growth of the urban environment. They thought that all ills
of the city could be solved through beautification.

The City Beautiful movement focused on four main areas: (1) municipal art, (2) civic
improvement, (3) outdoor art (beautifying the landscape), and (4) reviving classical
architecture. Projects ranged from physical restoration of city buildings to the careful selection
and maintenance of street trees (Wilson 1989). The expertise of professionals was valued in
the movement and often brought together an, interdisciplinary team to work on a project.
Professions involved in the movement included landscape architects, planners, engineers, parks
superintendents, public works directors, artists, and reformers. Efficiency was an important
component of the City Beautiful movement and advocates valued professionals because they
were knowledgeable and efficient (Wilson 1989).

In the early years of the movement, much of the focus was on beautifying the city
through municipal art. This included promoting the use of art for public display, planting trees,
advocating color in urban design and protesting against billboards and air pollution
(Krueckeberg 1983). In the early 1900's, City Beautiful began to switch its focus from
piecemeal urban projects to creating comprehensive master plans for cities. Supporters of the
movement began advocating the use of long range goals to help guide civic improvement, and
promote efficiency by avoiding duplication and waste (Peterson 1983). The idea of creating a
comprehensive document that would guide city improvements was new to the field of planning
and helped secure the City Beautiful movements place in its history.

In 1902, the first, complete comprehensive master plan was unveiled in Washington DC.
The McMillan Plan (named after Senator James McMillan who chaired the committee) was the

first to unite buildings, parks and boulevards and to set out a comprehensive plan for the future

31

design and development of the city. The McMillan Plan, like many plans created during the th
Beautiful movement, included nature in the design of the city.

Since the early 1900's the City Beautiful movement had been criticized for many of its
ideas and projects. Many critics found faults in the projects undertaken during the movement,
criticizing their exorbitant costs, superficial focus on urban decoration, piecemeal projects
scattered throughout the city and for not helping to control growth (erson 1989). By 1910,
the faults with the movement caused its popularity to wane and new, young planners to
abandon the City Beautiful ideology for a more practical and realistic approach to planning.

Despite these criticisms the City Beautiful movement has influenced modern American
urban planning. Their most noticeable legacy is the comprehensive master plan. However,
other aspects of modern urban planning also reflect their influence, including subdivision

regulation, zoning codes, sidewalks and buried utilities (Peterson 1983).

Urban Planning 1910-Present

Following the City Beautiful movement, planning took on a more practical and realistic
approach. Planners were less concerned with the ornate beautification of the city environment
and more concerned with creating an urban infrastructure that could support me millions of
peOple living in cities. In the late 19th and early 20th century, industrialization led to an
increase in urban populations and a shortage in housing. Since the City Beautiful Movement
had not addressed issues of urban housing, it was the primary focus of planning from 1910-
1930.

Planners wanted to address the issues of overcrowding and appalling housing conditions
:aused by industrialization. One of the ways that they attempted to do this was through zoning

-egulations that kept industrial buildings out of residential areas. In 1913, planners successfully

32

petitioned the state legislatures of New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois to create
enabling legislation that banned industry from residential areas.

Planners from 1910-1930, developed comprehensive master plans for cities that
covered both publicly and privately owned land within the city. These plans were different from
those created during the City Beautiful movement in that they not only addressed the design
and development of the city but also its growth. The plans also incorporated the new zoning
regulations that had been passed.

In 1928 the Federal government passed the first planning legislation, the Standard City
Planning Enabling Act. The legislation helped to shape state planning legislation. However, it
also led to confusion among planners and government officials about the difference between
zoning regulations and comprehensive master plans. The confusion led many cities to develop
zoning plans without first developing a comprehensive master plan. A comprehensive master
plan is intended to serve as a foundation for zoning (Kaiser & Godschalk 1995).

Planners during the early half of the 20th century were independent contractors who
created comprehensive master plans for non-govemmental planning commissions within a city.
The separation of city planning from city government was formulated during the Progressive
Reform movement when there was a distrust of politics. However, the Federal Government
perpetuated this separation in the Standard City Planning Enabling Act of 1928 by purposefully
separating the planning commission from politics. It was intended that the plan created by the
planning commission would serve as the advisor to the city council and city departments not the
commission itself (Kaiser & Godschalk 1995).

Planning took on a new role with the crash of the stock market in 1929 and the
depression that followed. The New Deal, which combined ideas and experiences from previous

presidents including Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover, was designed to help America get

33

out of the depression. One of the major components of the New Deal was planning. In 1933,
the National Resources Planning Board (NRPB) was formed to coordinate work of the Public
Works Administration created under the New Deal (National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933).

There were 8 major planning programs between 1933 and 1940 intended to get the
country out of the depression. Each of the programs employed professional planners who
utilized economic, social and spatial planning. The programs were temporary work relief, major
public works and agriculture projects, industry, housing, resettlement and regional and national
planning.

The NRPB served from 1933-1943, and although it never created any national plans
some of its efforts are evident in planning today. The commission was successful in planning
and construction of public works, coordinating federal planning activities, promoting regional
planning commissions and conducting national research on a variety of issues including land
use, industry, population and housing (Brinkley 2000, Hancock 1988).

Planning became a national issue following World War II for several reasons (Kaiser and
Godschalk 1995). First, cities were experiencing a post war population surge, urban areas were
expanding, urban blight was a serious problem and urban infrastructure projects that had been
postponed due to the depression and the war were in need of investment. Second, cities began
to create urban planning departments, taking over the role that non-govemmental planning
commissions once served. This switch in responsibility created enormous interest in planning
among city officials. Third, was the passage of the federal Housing Act of 1954. Section 701 of
the act mandated that communities develop a long range comprehensive plan in order to be
eligible for federal grants for urban renewal and other programs. The act was important in that
it also provided money to communities to create their comprehensive master plan which led to

an unprecedented amount of urban planning in the 1950's and 1960's.

34

The mandate fl're federal government placed on cities to develop comprehensive master
plans to be eligible for federal funding set a precedent in city planning. Urban planners had
long understood the importance of planning for the future of the city and now had backing and
funding from the federal government to help convince city officials. Planning developed rapidly
from 1950-1980 as communities were confronted with new and unique issues. As communities
addressed these issues, their plans adapted to reflect their changing priorities and needs.
Planning in the 1950's and 1960's focused on urban renewal, housing issues and poverty
assistance and were reflected in sections on blight, neighborhood development, citizen
participation and transportation being added to comprehensive plans. The 1970's and 1980's
planning issues focused on managing urban growth, protecting the quality of natural resources
(water, air and land), concerns with waste management practices, historic preservation and
community development. These concerns led to new sections in comprehensive plans on
growth management, economic development, environmental protection, historic preservation,
affordable housing and community development (Kaiser, Godschalk and Chapin 1995).

The issues that affected the United States in the 1970's and 1980's have helped to
shape planning in the United States today. Planners today have increasingly focused their
attention on controlling urban sprawl and development to promote move livable communities.
To address these planning issues they have combined planning practices of the past to create
their comprehensive master plans (Kaiser & Godschalk 1995). Planning will continue to shift

focus and change as important new planning issues are brought to the forefront of society.

35

2.6 The Comprehensive Master Plan

Planning has been defined by the American Planning Association "...as a comprehensive,
coordinated and continuing process, the purpose of which is to help public and private decision
makers arrive at decisions that promote the common good society," (Elmendorf 2000, p.65). A
comprehensive master plan is a planning document that guides future community growth,
development and change. Based on the needs and priorities identified by the city, the plan
provides a snapshot of how the community will look in the future and identifies the steps that
need to be taken in order to meet the cities future goals and objectives (Elmendorf 2000).

Development of a comprehensive master plan is a process that involves several steps -
(1) creation of a vision that will guide the community, (2) gathering, analyzing and organizing
community information and data, (3) identifying and evaluating community alternatives, (4)
coordinating development activities, (5) reviewing and changing proposed land use
development,(6) disseminating information,(7) involving the public and (8) updating and
formulating community ordinances (Elmendorf 2000, Gordon 1993, Kaiser, Godschalk &
Chapman 1995). The end product of the planning process is a document that proactively plans

for future development and change by providing a course of action that will help the community

avoid future costs.

Benefits of Planning and Costs of Not Planning

Development of a comprehensive master plan provides a community with many benefits
according to Gordon (1993). Frrst, the community can better anticipate future needs and
problems. By gathering, analyzing and organizing community information and data, the

community can foresee potential opportunities and problems and account for them in

36

development. Second, the process provides a tool to evaluate community strengths and
weaknesses and identify where they want to go and how to get there. Third, by involving the
public and stakeholders, community officials can build consensus on future goals and visions of
the community. Community consensus will avoid opposition to the plan and allow for its
adoption and implementation. Fourth, the process facilitates the allocation of scarce resources.
By carefully reviewing community information and evaluating community alternatives,
government officials use past, present and future trends to allocate scare community resources.
Frfth, the planning process and resulting plan provide benchmarks for the community. These
benchmarks allow the community to evaluate the successes and failures of the plan and the
planning process.

There are also costs associated with communities that do not develop a plan for their
future development and growth. By not participating in the planning process potential
opportunities and threats within the community can go undetected and lead to insurmountable
problems (Gordon 1983). These problems can cause unforeseen municipal expenditures, a
decrease in both public and private property values and a lack of private investment in the

community (Elmendorf 2000).

Components of a Comprehensive Master Plan

The comprehensive plan that results from the planning process is a document that
contains maps, outlines the visions, goals, policies, and implementation that guides the future
growth and development of the community. It contains five main parts (1) community
background,(2) resource inventory, (3 )the community's visions, goals and objectives, (4) plan

elements and (5) plan implementation (Arendt 1999).

37

Community history, demographics, transportation, community services and other
characteristics make up the background section of the plan and are collected early in the
planning process. The resource inventory identifies and describes all of the resources available
within the community, including cultural, social, natural, economic and physical. The resource
inventory section usually includes a map that highlights the location of important community
resources. The community's visions, goals and objectives are based in part on the information
collected during the background and resource inventory (Elmendorf 2000). The vision describes
the future of the community and the goals and objectives help to achieve the vision.

The plan elements section are the components of the master plan that help to achieve
the vision, they include land use, transportation, community facilities and utilities and
conservation. The land use plan highlights current and future land use patterns and the
relation of different land use types (i.e. industrial, residential, agriculture, etc.) to each other.
The transportation plan focuses not only on vehicular traffic but also pedestrian walkways and
bike paths. Transportation plans are important to the growth of a community because they
help to influence development patterns (Elmendorf 2000). The community facilities and utilities
section directs those elements that serve the community including schools, hospitals, libraries,
electricity, and sewage treatment plants. The conservation element of the plan helps to
incorporate the natural environment into the comprehensive plan by addressing issues of
acquisition, conservation and preservation of the natural environment. "If the natural
environment is not considered in the comprehensive plan, it may not be adequately or correctly
addressing in zoning and subdivision, or other ordinances used to implement policies expressed
within the plan, (Elmendorf 2000, p. 67). The plan implementation section is the most critical
of the comprehensive master plan because it describes how the policies in the plan will be

executed and financed (Arendt 1989).

38

The comprehensive master plan has evolved significantly since its inception in the early
20th century. Plans adopted during the City Beautiful movement were extravagant and
expensive and provided no guidance on how the plan would be financed. Plans today are
fiscally responsible and now direct the community on how plan implementation will be financed.
Issues and problems addressed in the master plan have also changed as communities confront
new challenges. The flexibility and adaptability of comprehensive master plans to meet
changing community needs and priorities explains why its development continues to be an

important part of city planning departments across the United States.

2.7 Summary

Trees have been used in the urban environment since antiquity. Ancient civilizations
used them to beautify areas and provide food. Today, in addition to the benefits that ancient
civilizations received, we know that trees also provide numerous environmental, economic,
psychological and social benefits. They improve air quality, modify air temperature, increase
energy efficiency, reduce storm water runoff, increase property values, influence local economic
development, improve wildlife habitat, influence recreation, have a positive effect on mental
health, improve social interactions and make the urban environment a more pleasant, safe,
comfortable, and healthy environment in which to live, play and work.

Although trees and the urban and community forest provide numerous benefits to the
urban environment there are also costs associated with them. As with the benefits the costs
can be environmental, economic, physical or psychological. Environmental and economic costs
include increases in power plant emissions of carbon dioxide due to improperly placed trees,
planting and maintenance (i.e. pruning, watering, removal, administration), repair of the urban
infrastructure, and litigation. Physical costs or health costs are associated with an increase in

pollen that leads to more allergic reactions and respiratory illnesses. Feelings of fear that trees

39

give criminals a place to hide, anxiety caused by the thought a tree may cause damage to
people or personal property, annoyance of having to "clean up" sticks, flowers, fruit and leaves,
and personal conflict associated with having to remove a tree that has personal meaning are
some of the psychological costs associated with trees and the urban forest.

While these costs exist, many of them can be reduced or avoided through proper
planning and management, which can also help to maximize the benefits of the urban and
community forest. "Planning is collective action for the common good, but particularly action
that concentrates on building and shaping the shared physical infrastructure for present needs
and future growth," (Frshman 2000 p. 2). Planning helps a city evaluate potential opportunities
and threats in their community, so they can be addressed before they are missed or cause a
problem.

Planning flourished in American cities in the late 19th century and 20th century. It
evolved from the City Beautiful movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, which
advocated beautifying the urban landscape and creating long range comprehensive master
plans that would guide future improvements. To a more practical and realistic approach, used
during most of the 20th century that focused on incorporating housing issues, urban renewal,
poverty assistance, neighborhood development, transportation, waste management, historic
preservation and natural resource management into their master plans. Today, planning is still
practical and realistic, but it now incorporates urban sprawl, development and creating more
livable communities into its master plan, while still addressing the earlier planning issues.

In the past, planning of the urban environment has primarily focused on the city's gray
infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, sewers and lighting) (McMahon 2000), while overlooking the
city's green infrastructure resource (urban forest, parks, open space, etc.). In 1985, Stirrat

(1985), an urban planner said,

40

"Trees have long been regarded as an intrinsic part of town planning

but only from a visual point of view. The biology of trees has not really
been understood, and therefore the planning need for long-ten'n site and
area tree management has not been promoted," (p.204).

The objectives of this paper are: ( 1) to identify if trees and the urban and community
forest resource of a city have been incorporated into its comprehensive master plan; and (2) to
provide insight into how cities are planning their urban and community forestry resource to
identify if they are maximizing the benefits that trees provide.

When trees are not incorporated into the plan, the urban forest is deemed not a priority
within the city and tree care suffers financially. City officials and residents mistakenly believe
that trees can take care of themselves and allocate tree care dollars to other city services. In
1990, tree care was .49% of the total city budget (Kielbaso 1990). By not planning, not only
are cities not maximizing the benefits they receive from trees and the urban forest but they are
also allowing them to become a threat to the community because they can lead to unforeseen
costs. These costs can be associated with the removal of trees due to an insect or disease
infestation and the subsequent replanting; legal cases caused by limbs or trees injuring people
or damaging property; or decreases in property value or disinvestment in the city due to a loss
in tree cover. This study provides insight into how cities are planning their urban and
community forest resource to help understand the role that trees play in today's cities. The
urban and community forest has seen a steady decline in the United States over the past 20
years due to disinvestment and it generally being overlooked by city officials and planners. The
purpose of this study is to identify if city officials and planners have begun to understand the
importance of the urban and community forest by incorporating it in their comprehensive
master plans. This knowledge can help reverse the trend of a declining urban and community

forest and help to maximize the benefits it provides to urban residents

41

CHAPTER 3
METHODS

This study examined whether trees and the urban and community forest resource have
been incorporated into recent (completed after 1990) city master plans to answer the question,
are trees and the urban and community forest part of the plan? The study examined the
comprehensive master plans of seventeen Midwestern cities. Cities in the Midwest were chosen
because the states are similar economically. The seventeen cities are in states that are covered
by the Northeast area of the United States Forest Service geographical areas. The cities were
in the following states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and
Wisconsin.

Initially, the seventeen cities were randomly chosen from the 2000 United States Census
list of incorporated cities with populations of 100,000 or more. Cities of 100,000 or more were
identified for each state and their names were written on a piece of paper. To randomly select
the cities, all the cities for a particular state were placed in a bag and one was chosen. Two
cities were randomly chosen for each state, except Wisconsin where three cities were
inadvertently chosen. Each city was contacted with a request for a copy of their most recent
comprehensive master plan. Several of the cities selected during the first random selection
process did not have comprehensive master plans, completed after 1990, and had to be
‘eplaced. The year 1990 was chosen because comprehensive master plans design the city for
Jetween 10 and 30 years into the future. To select replacement cities for those that did not
neet the criteria, cities were again selected randomly, following the above process. If the city
ad a comprehensive master plan completed after 1990 it was selected; if it did not, another

:ity was randomly chosen. In Indiana and Michigan, there was only one city with a population

42

of 100,000 or more that had a plan completed after 1990. In \Msconsin, there were no cities
with a population of 100,000 or more that had plans completed after 1990. In these states a
list of cities with populations of 50,000 or more was created for each state and the cities were
selected based on the selection process described earlier. Indiana had no cities with a
population of 50,000 or more that had a recent comprehensive plan. In this case, a list of cities
with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 was compiled and the city was randomly chosen
from that list based on the selection process. The cities selected, their populations and year

that their comprehensive plan was adopted can be seen below in Table 1.

Table 1: Populations and year comprehensive master plans were adopted for the
seventeen Midwestern Cities studied (2002).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY POPULATION YEAR PLAN ADOPTED
1994, 1996, 1998 (city divided
into three sectors- each with their
Naperville, IL 128,358 own master plan)
Peoria, IL 112, 936 1992
Carmel/Clay IN 37,733 1996
Indianapolis, IN iMarlon County) 791,926 1991
Cedar Rapids, IA 120,758 1999
Des Moines, IA 198,682 1995
Detroit, MI 951,270 1994
Westland, MI 88,602 1996
Minneapolis, MN 382,618 2000
St. Paul, MN 287,151 1999
Kansas City, MO 441,545 1997
SpriggfleldLMO 151,580 1996
Cleveland, OH 478,430 1991
Toledo, OH 313,619 2000
Appleton, WI 70,087 1996
Kenosha, WI 90,352 1995
West Allis, WI 61,254 1990

 

 

 

 

After the plans were selected, each of the master plans was carefully studied based on

ix variables identified by the researcher. There were two types of variables used, those that

43

were predetermined prior to analysis and those that were added during analysis.

Predetermined variables were chosen based on several factors: - the researcher's perception of
the role that trees play in cities (i.e. planted along streets) based on the literature, components
of a city's urban forestry program (i.e. tree planting, maintenance), the role of trees in urban
growth and development and the concepts of open space and greenspace and their connection
with the urban infrastructure. The predetermined variables used were: ordinances, trees in
public spaces, transportation and open space/greenspace. Variables were added during
analysis when they were mentioned in at least two master plans or referenced trees in a way
that had not been addressed in the predetermined units. Variables added after analysis began
were: landscaping in public spaces and development. The term landscaping was added after
analysis began because it was used so frequently within the master plans. Since the term
landscaping was not defined in any of the master plans a definition was created, based on the
definition of landscaping in Webster's New World Dictionary. The definition of landscaping used
for the purpose of this study was the planting of vegetation in public spaces. Development was
another unit of analysis that was added after analysis of the plans began. At first, the
references were sorted into other units; however, the concept of development was so strong in
these references that a new unit of analysis was created.

The defined variables were subdivided into units of analysis that helped to identify how
the variable was referenced within the master plan. As with the variables, units of analysis
were both predetermined before analysis and added on after analysis began. Both were
selected using the same criteria as the variables. Units of analysis were further subdivided to
provide more detail on how the unit was referenced. For example, the unit of analysis
"reference to planting on public property" included subunits such as "planting and preservation"

and "planting and replacement." A list of variables, units of analysis and subunits of analysis are

included in Appendix A; variables and units with an asterisk by them were added after analysis

began.

45

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the results of the master plan analysis of the seventeen
Midwestern cities and provides interpretation and discussion. For further detailed information
on the results please see Appendices B and C. Appendix B provides the number of references

to each unit of analysis by city and Appendix C provides detailed references for each of the

cities studied.

4.1 Overall Results

All seventeen of the master plans studied referenced trees at least once in their
comprehensive master plan. In four cities, tree references covered only one variable. For
instance in Kenosha, WI trees were referenced four times in the master plan. All four of the
references were addressing the need for a tree planting ordinance. In West Allis, WI the only

reference to trees was a drawing of a plan that included trees; there were no references to

trees within the text.

In all, there were 126 references to trees within the master plans of the seventeen
cities. Total references to trees per plan ranged from 1 to 20. Figure 1 provides the

percentage of references for each of the variables studied.

46

 

Figure 1: Percentage of References to Trees for
each Variable
Lanscaping h

Public Spaces
0%

Development d'
13% Or rna nces Trees in Public

0
\ 4 /° Spaces
~ . 31°/o

   

Tra nsporatation
29%

 

 

 

The results that follow provide a more detailed look at how the cities specifically referenced

trees in their plans. Appendices B and C provide further detailed information for each of the
cities.
4.2 Ordinances

Ordinances are one tool that communities can use to help create a sustainable and

healthy urban and community forest resource. Tree ordinances can be used to
protect/preserve existing trees, require the planting of trees, describe who is responsible for the
maintenance of public and privately owned trees, decide what constitutes a hazardous tree on
public/private property and even help to resolve conflicts between landowners and their trees
(International Society of Arboriculture 2002).

Between 1890 and 1970 there were a number of legal cases where trees or tree limbs

fell and injured or killed a person or damaged property. During this time, governmental

47

agencies in the United States could not be sued because of governmental and sovereign
immunity. There was one exception to this law, when a dangerous condition existed (Evans
1981). The plaintiff's in these cases had the burden of proof; it was their responsibility to prove
that the tree was dangerous prior to the accident. Today, resulting from Supreme Court
rulings, governmental agencies no longer have immunity from prosecution and can be sued
whether or not the tree was dangerous prior to the event. The plaintiff now has to prove that
the governmental agency was negligent (Evans 1981).

Trees provide many benefits to a community; however, without proper planning,
management and investment they can also be a liability. Table 2 provides the results of the
number of cities that referenced ordinances in their master plans.

Table 2: References to ordinances in the master plans of
seventeen Midwestern cities (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of % of Total # of
Cities Cities Times
Referenced
Tree Planting Ordinance 1 5.9% 4
Tree Removal Ordinance 0 0.0% 0
Tree Preservation Ordinance 1 5.9% 1
Landscaping Ordinance 3 17.6% 4
Zoning and Beautification 2 11.8% 2

 

 

 

 

Of the seventeen master plans examined six cities (35.3%) made reference to a
landscape ordinance. Minneapolis, MN was the only city that recommended a tree preservation
a nd replacement ordinance. The five other cities referenced ordinances in terms of
development, landscaping, beautification and screening. References in this variable ranged from

Minneapolis, MN recommending the adoption of a tree preservation and replacement ordinance

48

for public and private development; to Des Moines, IA recommending the enforcement of
ordinances that promoted beauty and safety. None of the seventeen communities studied,
mentioned removal ordinances in their master plans. Removal ordinances can help cities avoid
paying damages in legal cases. By having such an ordinance and adhering to it, removing trees
that pose a risk to human life and property, cities can demonstrate that they are doing
everything possible to remove hazards from the community.

A study completed by Perry in 1978, requested tree ordinances from sixty US. cities.
Fifty-one cities provided ordinances, and most of them (forty-eight) pertained to the protection
of trees on public lands (Miller 1978). While in the Perry study, 85% of the cities provided tree
ordinances, in this study 11.8%, or two cities, referenced tree ordinances in their plan. One
city referenced tree preservation ordinances while the other city referenced the creation of a
tree planting ordinance. While the studies are clearly different in terms of the documents that
were examined, the comprehensive master plan, reviewed in this study, is the impetus behind
the development of city ordinances. The master plan guides the city's future growth,
development and change; and ordinances are used to affect the actions of residents, city
officials and developers to help achieve the goals of the master plan. The small number of tree
ordinances referenced could be explained in two ways: (1) the community has tree ordinances
in place but did not incorporate them in the master plan or (2) the city does not fully
understand the benefits of trees in their community and does not yet see a need for a tree
ordinance.

As mentioned earlier, tree removal ordinances were not referenced in any of the master
plans studied; however, the absence of such an ordinance may not be limited to just these
cities. In creating a tree ordinance, most cities address the need for removals in sections on

overall tree maintenance (Johnson, Baker and Johnson 1990) and do not treat them separately.

49

Incorporating removals into the overall tree ordinance is adequate only if they fully address the
hazardous nature of trees and have a plan in place on how to properly handle trees that pose a
risk to human life and property. If the broad tree ordinance does not properly address these
issues it may be prudent for the city to consider creating a removal ordinance.

If the community has not created a tree ordinance because they fail to fully understand
the benefits of the urban forest or do not see the need for a tree ordinance, they are missing an
important opportunity. Ordinances can affect the actions of residents and developers, and
cities can use them to create or enhance their urban forestry program. Creation of a
preservation and planting ordinance can require developers to preserve as many existing trees
in a development and to plant trees in public spaces when the development is complete.
Requiring homeowners who request tree planting in the public right-of-way to maintain the
trees for three to five years can reduce both mortality and maintenance expenses. By
developing tree ordinances that include both planting and preservation, cities can begin to

create an urban forestry program and help reduce costs of planting and maintenance.

4.3 Trees in Public Spaces] Landscaping in Public Spaces
The urban forest resource is changing due to changes in land use patterns. Dwyer et. al
(2000) described what happens as areas are developed:
"As an urban area becomes more intensely developed, the amount
of available growing space decreases, residential lot size is reduced,
the amount of impervious ground cover increases, and tree canopy
cover decreases," (p. 53).

Development and sprawl can lead to a decrease in tree cover, if an effort is not made by cities

during development and expansion to plan for and plant trees. The environmental, economic,

50

social and psychological benefits urban residents receive from trees are reduced as trees die or
are removed and not replaced.

The results in this section examined whether cities are planning for the planting and
maintenance of the urban and community forestry resource. The variable "Trees in Public
Spaces" referred to the planting of trees on property owned by the city. Public spaces included,
but were not limited to, areas within the city owned right-of-way, parks, and around city-
owned buildings. References to “Landscaping in Public Spaces" pertained to whether cities
mentioned landscaping on public lands. This variable was included in the analysis of the master
plans because of the frequency in which it appeared in all of the master plans. Since it was not
defined in any of the plans, a definition was created based on Webster's New World Dictionary.
The definition used for the plan analysis was, the planting of vegetation in public spaces. The
broad nature of the definition reflects the way in which the term was referenced in the plans.

The results for this variable are displayed in Table 3.

51

Table 3: References to Trees in Public Spaces in the master plans

of seventeen Midwestern cities (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of % of Total # of
Cities Cities Times
Referenced

Tree Planting Plans

Maps 1 5.9% 6

Plans 4 23.5% 5
Reference to Planting on Public Property

Planting & Preservation 1 5.9% 1

Planting 8. Replacement 2 11.8% 2

Tree Planting 4 23.5% 4

Design Standards 1 5.9% 1

Planting (general) 1 5.9% 1

Background 3 1 7.6% 4
General

Trees in Neighborhoods 1 5.9% 1

Arboretum 1 5.9% 1

Forest/ands/Woodlands/ Forested 1 1 .8% 9

Com'dors/Forest Preserves

Vegetation 1 5.9% 2

City Infrastructure 1 5.9% 1

Air Quality 1 5.9% 2

Maintenance of Trees 2 11.8% 4
Landscaping in Public Spaces 9 52.9% 22

 

 

"Trees in Public Spaces" were mentioned in 13, or 81.3% of the master plans studied.
The references in this section ranged from "Tree Planting" referred to by five cities to "Trees in
Neighborhoods" that was referenced by one city. Although trees in this variable were
mentioned by 13 of the cities, the total number of references in these master plans was 44.
Total references to trees this variable ranged from 1 to 11 per plan. Nine of the seventeen
cities or 52.9% of the communities referred to “Landscaping in Public Spaces.” Landscaping is
a general term that can include tree planting. Since it was used in a general manner, it was

treated separately from the "Trees in Public Spaces". Typical references in this category

52

included the use of landscaping to identify an area and the use of landscaping to buffer/screen
areas. None of the city plans mentioned maintenance of landscaping in public spaces. While
landscaping can include trees, a distinction needs to be made between landscaping with trees
on public property and planning and planting trees in a comprehensive urban and community
forestry program. Landscaping is usually done to meet a specific need in the community (ex.
beautify the new library), and is typically installed by an outside contractor to provide an instant
effect with little or no maintenance. Planting of trees for a comprehensive urban and
community forestry program means planning, planting and maintaining them for the future
benefits they will provide the community.

For the subunit of analysis of "Tree Planting Plans," trees were considered referenced if
there were drawings or maps that included trees even if there was no direct mention to trees
within the body of the text. For one city, Appleton, Wisconsin, a set of proposed plans that
included trees in the design was the only reference to trees in their entire plan; there was no
direct mention of trees in the text of their plan.

“Tree planting” was referred to by the most number of cities in this variable. Examples
of references to this subunit of analysis included:

. St. Paul, MN - planted more than 25,000 trees along the Mississippi River to create a
river corridor and return the area to its original landscape.

. Springfield, MO - recommended the planting of a public orchard.
. Detroit, MI -— recommended the “...use of more evergreen trees and shrubs that
have interesting wintertime color and shape."
References that were sorted into the "Background" subunit of analysis described existing
conditions within the city or desired community characteristics. Examples of references within

the master plans were:

53

. Springfield, MO residents desired parks that had an "abundance of trees..." ,
community members believed that "additional parks, greenways, trails and
preserved open space and trees were desired as a necessary component of the
community's future development pattern."

. Detroit, MI’s plan stated that, "shade trees are the single most important element
that enhances the character and amenity of residential neighborhoods."

The "General" unit of analysis was used for specific references to trees that did not fit
into other units or subunits of analysis in this variable. "Forestland/Woodlands" was referenced
by two of the seventeen cities a total of nine times. References in this category included:

. Springfield, MO - recommended that the "...city as a park..." could protect forest
lands. The plan also recommended that forested corridors, forests and woodlands
would make good setting for greenways.

. Naperville, IL - identified several areas that were already part of their forest
preserve system.

One of the most intriguing finding in this variable was the number of cities that
mentioned "Maintenance of Trees" in their master plan. Detroit, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio
were the only two plans out of the seventeen that referred to the maintenance of trees. Detroit
recommended that the city encourage residents to maintain newly planted trees, while Toldeo
recommended that they improve their tree trimming services throughout the city.

In a study of Michigan's urban forests, the researchers found that 49.15% of urban
trees were in the fair to poor condition category (Kielbaso and Wildenthal 1994). They also
found that a majority of the trees in 24" + diameter class were in the poor condition class.
Maintenance is an important component of an urban forestry program. It not only aids the city
in litigation by demonstrating that they do not neglect their publicly owned trees but it also
helps maintain the trees health and long-term survival.

While most of the cities studied, 13, referenced "Trees in Public Spaces", the results in

this section demonstrate that the planting and maintenance of the urban and community forest

54

resource has not been fully addressed in the cities studied. Qty officials are not only failing to
maximize the benefits of the urban and community forest but they may be inadvertently

causing their trees to become a threat to the community.

4.4 Transportation

Transportation corridors are the life of a city. They are intended to move people
smoothly around the city with limited disruption in movement. In the past, city streets were
lined with American Elms that arched gracefully over the road forming a continuous canopy. In
the 1960's and 1970's Dutch Elm disease killed most of the American elm trees that lined city
streets, leaving many open spots in the canopy and along the street. Today, although, the
elms have disappeared, many cities continue to plant trees along their transportation corridors.
This is where most of the trees owned by the city are located, in the public right-of-way, usually
found in the area between the sidewalk and the curb. Table 4 displays the results of references

to both trees planted along transportation corridors and the more general analysis unit,

landscaping along transportation corridors.

55

Table 4: References to Transportation in the master plans of seventeen Midwestern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cities (2002)
# of % of Total
Cities Cities # of Times
Referenced
Trees Planted Along Streetsl'l'ransportation Corridors
Trees Planted/Planting 9 52.9% 22
Screen/Buffer 1 5.9% 4
Drawings/Plans 0 0.0% 0
Trees Creating an Identity for an Area 5 29.4% 5
Benefits of Trees 1 5.9% 1
Background 4 23.5% 4
Landscaping Along Streetsl'l'ransportation Corridors
Improve/Provide Landscaping 8 47.1 % 27
Buffer/Screen 4 23.5% 1 1
Landscape Parking Lots 1 5.9% 2
Landscaping & Development 1 5.9% 2
Landscaping creates an Identity for an Area 2 1 1.8% 2
Landscape Entrances into City 2 11.8% 6
Landscape Design Standards 3 17.6% 4
Landscaping & Streetscapes 1 5.9% 1
Landscaping & Traffic 2 11.8% 2
Landscaping & Sidewalks 1 5.9% 1
Landscaping & Pedestrians 2 11.8% 4
Benefits of Landscaping 1 5.9% 1
Background/Characteristics 2 1 1.8% 21
General- Beautification
Streetscapes 8 47.1% 33
Greenway 9 52.9% ‘ 250 +
Irrigated Medians 1 5.9% 3
Planted Medians 1 5.9% 1
Buffer 1 5.9% 1
Planting (General) 1 5.9% 1
Boulevards/Parkways 5 29.4% 57
Open Space & Transportation 1 5.9% 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Landscaping" was included in this section along with tree planting, but each was

treated as a separate subunit of analysis. Of all of the units of analysis, "Greenways" was

referenced the most, more than 250 times by nine cities. A greenway is a natural corridor

56

along a river that provides for ecological, recreational and cultural/historical uses (The New
England Greenway Vision Plan). The large number of references to greenways may be due to
the shift in planning that has occurred because of the fragmentation of the green infrastructure
(Benedict 2000). The cities studied appeared eager to connect the fragments of open space
throughout the city and return the river corridor to its natural state, creating an interconnected
greenway. References to "Greenways" were similar throughout the master plans, common
references included:

. Appleton, WI - recommended the creation and enhancement of the greenways
within the city

. Kansas City, MO - recommended the creation and enhancement of the greenway
system; creation of a regional greenway system; integration water quality into
greenway; and preservation of greenways.

"Trees Planted/Planting Along Transportation Corridors" was referenced by 52.9% or
nine of the cities studied. The references in all of the units and subunits of analysis pertained
to the use of trees to beautify the transportation corridor, buffer/screen incompatible land uses
and to create a gateway along transportation corridors into the community. Beautification was
a strong element in the Transportation variable. In studying this section of the plans, it
appeared that cities wanted to use landscaping and trees to create the best image possible for
people driving through their community. The city officials may believe that this could lead to
new people and businesses moving into their community, increasing their tax base.

References to streetscapes, and boulevards and parkways were mentioned in several of
the master plans. Neither units of analysis were defined in any of the plans but references
typically focused on the beautification of the street environment by using one or the other.

Although not mentioned specifically, tree planting is one method the city could have used to

57

create a streetscape or boulevard/parkway. Examples of how the cities referenced

boulevards/parkways were:

. Kansas City, MO - recommended the expansion, creation and enhancement of boulevards
within the city.

. Kenosha, WI - recommended that neighborhoods be bounded by "...park, parkway and
institutional area..."

. Naperville, IL- defined a right of way as 66 feet to accommodate utilities, sidewalks and
parkways.

In this section over half of the cities, 52.9%, referenced the subunit of analysis "Trees
Planted/Planting" along transportation corridors. The results point to an understanding that the
cities studied had about the value of planting trees along their transportation corridor. Most of
the references focused on using them to beautify and create an identity for an area. If city
officials understand the other benefits of trees, it may help to facilitate more tree planting along
transportation corridors. A study of Michigan's urban forest resource found that on average
there are 50.9% available planting sites along city streets (Kielbaso and Wildenthal 1994). By

planting even half of these sites, cities can increase the benefits they receive from trees and

help increase the quality of life for its residents.

4.5 OPEN SPACE/GREENSPACE

Over the past decade the terms open space and greenspace have become widely used
in cities across the United States. Community leaders and citizens alike have begun to
understand the importance of preserving undeveloped land for the betterment of the
community. This is best evidenced by the number of web sites devoted to the topic of open
space on the intemet. These sites are hosted by municipalities, non-profits and citizen action

groups. This variable examined how open space and green space were being planned for in

58

the seventeen cities, if trees were referenced as part of open space/greenspace and if and how
the terms were defined.

Although the terms open space and greenspace were combined as a variable they were
analyzed individually in the plans. This was done to identify if communities referenced the

terms differently or if the types of references were similar. Table 5 displays the results of this

variable.

59

Table 5: References to Open Space/Greenspace in the master plans
of seventeen Midwestern cities (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of % of Total
Cities Cities # of Times
Referenced
Open Space
Preservation/Protection 12 70.6% 32
Creation/Development 8 47.1 % 38
Buffer 3 17.6% 8
Planning 3 1 7.6% 4
Definition 6 35.3% 8
Open Space & Development 5 29.4% 12
Link 2 11.8% 7
Part of Community Infrastructure 1 5.9% 1
Improve 2 11.8% 5
Providing Adequate Open Space 2 11.8% 3
Benefits of Open Space 1 5.9% 1
Background 1 3 76.7% 71
Greenspace 1 5.9% 1
Creation 1 5.9% 1
Improve 1 5.9% 1
Link 1 5.9% 1
Planting 1 5.9% 1
Butter 1 5.9% 1
Preservation 1 5.9% 1
Development & Green Space 2 11.8% 2
Background 2 1 1.8% 4
Provide Adequate Greenspace 1 5.9% 1
Other
Greenbelt 1 5.9% 1
Landscaping 6 35.3% 1 5
Woodlands 5 29.4% 28
Urban Gardens 1 5.9% 1
Natural Resources 1 5.9% 1
Natural Areas 1 5.9% 1
Arboretum 1 5.9% 1
Community Gardens 2 11.8% 2
Vegetation 1 5.9% 2
Urban Ecology 1 5.9% 1

 

 

6O

The variable "Open Space/Greenspace" was referenced by all of the cities studied. All
17 of the cities referenced the unit of analysis "Open Space" in their master plan; while 5 cities
referenced the unit of analysis "Greenspace." The total number of references to "Open
Space/Greenspace" ranged from 1 to 36 per plan. On average, there were twice as many
references to "Open Space/Greenspace" than to trees in all the other variables combined.

As seen in Table 5, the units of analysis of "Open Space" and "Greenspace" were
referenced in similar ways to each other. References ranged from preservation/protection to
providing adequate greenspace or open space in the city. No difference or similarities in the
terms, aside from their references, could be gleaned from the plans. This was because, while
six of the cities provided definitions for "Open Space" none of them provided one for
"Greenspace."

Definitions for "Open Space" varied widely among the six cities. They ranged from
places for active recreation to areas set aside for retention/detention purposes (Le. a temporary
storage area for storm water). The definitions of open space were:

0 Naperville, IL - defined open spaces as "...land reserved within developed areas
generally for detention/retention purposes with no active recreational uses provided

. Peoria, IL- defined open space as "parks...[with] developed and undeveloped open
space for passive and active recreation."

. Detroit, MI — open space definition "included large open areas with use not specified but
usually available for the general public."

. Westland, MI — parks and open space definition, "this classification included parcels
either improved or unimproved that are used for public and private non-intensive
recreational activities, including parks, natural areas, golf courses and private outdoor
recreational facilities

. Springfield, MO - defined open space as "...land not used for development or formal
parks that is to remain available for public enjoyment."

. Cleveland, OH it was defined as "parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, stadiums and
land reserved for outdoor open space."

61

The broad use of the term open space in these plans is consistent with definitions found

in planning texts.

"...open space refers to lands intended to conserve and protect valuable
natural features and processes...[it] is sometimes also the location of natural
[events], such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes...Open space might also
include scenic, geological, ecological or historical features that have cultural
value. That is, open space contributes to both social use values as well as
environmental values," (Kaiser et. al 1995 p. 295).

Although each city provided a different definition, there is a common thread through each of
them, that the land is open and undeveloped among developed lands within the city.

Cities in this section primarily mentioned open space in one of three ways, either in
terms of its preservation/protection, creation or background information.
Preservation/protection was referenced by 12 of the cities studied. References focused on the
preservation and protection of open space areas during development and growth in the city.
The creation of open space was mentioned in 8 of the seventeen cities, common references
included the creation and enhancement of open spaces. Background issues were referred to by
the most cities studied, 13, the most number of times 71. Typical references in the background
section described existing open space conditions in the city.

In this variable trees were only mentioned in relation to woodlands within the city. As
with the other variables and units/subunits of analysis, references to woodlands in the “Open
Space” variable either described existing conditions or encouraged the preservation and
protection of woodlands during development and growth.

In examining the results of the seventeen plans it seems clear that open
space/greenspace are an important component of future land use. Since the master plan
guides future growth, development and change, the cities are using them to protect, preserve
and create open space and greenspace, to help create a more livable city for their residents.

The Cedar Rapids, IA plan provides a good example of the high value that the cities studied

62

have placed on open space, "A network of public open spaces and facilities provide gathering

places where ideas and experiences are freely shared to continually enhance the lives of

residents."

4.6 Development

This variable included references that focused on the development of the urban
environment. Development included both new construction and repairs to existing structures
and infrastructure on both public and private property. Several of the units of analysis in this
variable have been used in other variables throughout this study. They have been separated
from the other variables because they specifically address development. The results for this
variable are displayed in Table 6.

Table 6: References to Development in the master plans of
seventeen Mldwestem cities studied (2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of % of # of Times

Cities Cities Referenced
Tree Planting/Preservation 7 41.2% 15
Landscaping 1 1 64.7% 40
Site Plan Review 1 5.9% 4
Special Use Permit (includes landscape 1 5.9% 1
provisions)
Vegetation 1 5.9% 3
Deforestation 1 5.9% 1
Buffer/Screening 1 5.9% 1
Landscape Manual 1 5.9% 1
General Development- Includes natural 1 5.9% 2
resources/landscaping

 

 

 

 

 

63

While the concept of development can be seen throughout the master plans of the
seventeen cities, the references in this category had a strong development theme and therefore
were placed in a separate variable. The unit of analysis "Landscaping" was referenced by the
most cities, 11, and the most number of times, 41. As in other sections, landscaping was not
defined, and the definition created for this analysis was used. Typical references to landscaping

included:

. Cleveland, OH - required the use of landscaping in development to buffer different
land uses.

. Des Moines, IA - recommended that the city "Assure that new structures and
landscaping are compatible with surrounding areas."

. Detroit, MI's that recommended that "Landscaping be included as an integral

element of both public and private development."

Tree planting and preservation in the context of development was referenced by 7 of
the cities. The references mentioned the planting of trees in new developments and their use
as a buffer to screen new development with other land uses. Examples of common references
included:

. Carmel/Clay, IN - recommended that development be clustered to protect significant
stands of trees.

0 Naperville, IL- advocated the protection trees during development and the use trees
to buffer development.

0 Westland, MI - called for the creation of a list of recommended trees for developers
to use and encouraged the use of trees to buffer development and incompatible land
uses.

The focus on protection and preservation of natural resources in development was a

common theme in this section. It points to the understanding that most of these cities, 12 of

the 17, had about the unique natural resources of their city, the need to protect them from

development and the importance of landscaping and planting trees following development. The

64

results of this section once again point to the importance of creating tree ordinances. If the
cities studied developed tree ordinances, they can incorporate their interests in preserving,
protecting and enhancing landscape features during development into their ordinances and
mandate that developers protect, preserve and plant trees during and after development. This
would not only help enhance their urban forest resource but would also increase property

values and reduce urban forestry planting costs.

4.7 Summary

This study examined whether trees and the urban and community forestry resource
were a part of the comprehensive master plans of seventeen Midwestern cities. There were a
total of 126 references to trees in the all of the master plans, and references were found in
each of the variables studied. References ranged from tree protection/preservation during
development to their planting along transportation corridors. While the references to trees
were found in all of the variables, most of the variables focused on planting trees to beautify
the area and preserving them during development. These are both important components in
planning the urban and community forest; however, the maintenance of trees was absent in 15
of the plans studied.

The results prove that while trees were mentioned in the master plans, they are far from
being fully incorporated. Two results illustrate this point: (1) there were 126 total references
to trees in all seventeen plans, which is equal to an average of 7.4 references per plan; and (2)
15 of 17 plans did not mention maintenance of trees in any section of their master plan. For
trees to be fully incorporated into the master plans they must intenivoven into all sections of the
master plan from housing to transportation and include the maintenance of trees and the urban

forest resource.

65

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This study examined the comprehensive master plans of seventeen Midwestern cities to
identify if trees and the urban and community forest resource are part of the plan. The results
of this research suggest that trees have not been fully incorporated into the master plan. All
the cities studied referenced trees in their plan; however, the references primarily focused on
the planting of trees and failed to address their maintenance, except in the cases of Toledo and
Detroit.

The results of this study support the idea that Stirrat proposed in 1985, that

"trees have long been regarded as an intrinsic part of town

planning but only from a visual point of view. The biology of

the tree has not really been understood, and therefore the planning

need for long-tenn site and tree management has not been promoted," (p.204).

By not fully incorporating trees into the plan, cities are failing to gain the maximum benefit of
their urban and community forest resource, and possibly causing this resource to be a threat to
the community.

The findings of this study also provide insight into the role that trees play in today's city.
Trees continue to be valued for their aesthetic qualities and ability to screen visually
unappealing components of the city. Their benefits were addressed in two cities, Peoria, IL,
which described several environmental and aesthetic benefits of street trees and Detroit, MI
that highlighted trees ability to improve air quality. Overall, trees continue to be in the
periphery of the urban environment, they are acknowledged by residents, city officials and
planners; however, their use and benefits are yet to be maximized.

While the results of this analysis have demonstrated that trees have not planned and

managed for within the city's master plan, it does not necessarily mean that trees are being

66

overlooked. Many cities have forestry departments that plant and care for the city's trees;
however, by not fully incorporating trees into the master plan, they are not a city priority and
financing of the forestry department may be in jeopardy during hard economic times.
Additional research on this subject could examine how many of the seventeen cities studied
have city forestry departments and what their role is in the planning and maintenance of trees.
This could provide a better idea of the importance each city places on its urban and community
forestry resource.

How can trees and the urban and community forest resource be incorporated into a
city's comprehensive master plan? City planners, government officials and urban residents
need to be educated on the need for planning the urban and community forest, the resulting
benefits and the costs (Morgan and Johnson 1993). Building awareness about the integral role
that trees play in the urban environment and the benefits of planning it can help leverage
support for incorporating it into the comprehensive master plan.

Once trees and the urban and community forest have been incorporated into the master
plan, cities need to create a tree management program. The comprehensive master plan only
provides a vision of how the community will look in the future, the tree management program is
the method by which to achieve the goals set forth in the plan. To begin, the city needs to
create tree preservation, removal and planting ordinances. These ordinances will provide
information on who is responsible for the trees, how the ordinances will be enforced, what trees
should be preserved or removed, when planting is required and what species of trees should be
planted. The next step is to create a tree board or city department that will oversee the trees
within the community based on the tree ordinance created. They will be responsible for the

planting, maintenance and care of all city owned trees.

67

Determining how the program will be funded is the next step. Careful scrutiny of the
city's finances and available state and federal funds should be examined. Alternative tree care
options should also be evaluated. Creating a volunteer program to maintain trees and conduct
street tree inventories or requiring homeowners to maintain a newly planted street tree in front
of their home can help reduce costs of the program. The next step is to identify the public
urban forest resource in the community by conducting a street tree inventory. The inventory
will determine tree species, age, size, condition and planting and maintenance needs in the city.
Following completion of the street tree inventory a maintenance and planting program should
be developed. This program should detail the pruning cycle (ex: pruning the sugar maple on
Fowler St. every six years), planting priorities and steps for handling emergencies. The final
step is reevaluation of the program every few years to ensure that the needs and priorities of
the community continue to be met.

The findings of this study suggest that work still needs to be done to elevate the urban
and community forest to the level of gray infrastructure in planning. However, it is a positive
sign that all seventeen cities referenced trees at least once in their master plan. Planning has
become an important issue in cities and its focus has switched to controlling growth and
development and creating a more livable city environment for its residents and visitors. Trees
are an important part of creating a more livable environment, and the time is right for it to be
incorporated into the comprehensive master plans. Educating city officials, planners and urban
residents is the key to increasing awareness of the urban and community forest and
incorporating it into the comprehensive master plan. An education program is difficult to
execute; however, there are many resources at the state, local and national level that can be
utilized. To begin, a statewide committee should be developed with members from the urban

and community forestry field, the private tree care sector, government agencies, planning

68

officials and citizens. This committee would be similar to state’s urban and community forestry
council, and could even be a subcommittee of the council. The committee would decide how
best to reach local decision-makers and citizens with information about the urban and
community forest resource and which messages would be most pertinent for each group. Local
conservation districts, state natural resource agencies, tree related non-profit organizations and
tree related trade groups and associations could help disseminate information and be speakers
at forums and meetings. Using the media would be another important step in educating
decision-makers and citizens. Providing media outlets with press releases and opportunities to
see urban and community forestry issues (i.e. emerald ash borer, Asian long horned beetle) will
help bring the importance of urban trees to the forefront. Creation of an education program
may take years to develop and implement. Although, it may be a slow process, the end result
could be a community that understands the benefits of its urban and community forestry
resource and wants to keep it healthy. "'l'o grow successfully, the urban forest must be

designed as an integral part of the urban whole...," (Urban and Sievert 1989, p. 101).

69

APPENDICES

on

 

09.8: a 0.253 2: 8...... :. 2:2. _.<..

828: 2:3 88a 9.5 29.85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.swt28m :85
.858;
8:00.00 3.50.800
.E:.0.0€<
.524. .8302 .:0.5.0005.... a 8000 :30
.8238: .852 80555558:
.8250 50.5 50.050. 055.0
805.0003 Locam smoounm 0.3:..— E 9.3ngqu
8:38:23 .8082 8.5.:
0.8820 .2085. 8.8.... .82.. .o 8:225:
.050 seamen. 5.30.2
8888.0 288:: 8.59: 888388 .2838: 2.0
0:30.933 5:85.53 40.050 .5550;
83% 50.0 M. 5230.800 88588055505800 .8288... «00.0.5050
5.5.58.1 0538005.. .0 85:8 E;
8.30 8:588: u 8:823 8:858:82 :. 82»
05.5.3 92300.6 0 050885.. .8050
0...... :5: a. 8.58:3 2:29.08
0.63:: :380526 0 538005.. 5.05% 055.0.
5.500 8505.0 5.600 388:3 0.5055 :58
88800.0 5.0 9:. 085...:m 3885.. 05.5.1 00....
050.933 02:. 5 .0. £52 5 0058 053885.. .5E80301 c 055.1
83m. :30 .0 25:3 .:0qu.0>00 a. 0:380:54 55380.3 a 05.5.0.
83m. :30 05:00.3 050.303 0.0.. 05:3 3885.. 2.000.... 0.33. :0 9.55.... 0. 85.05”.
0.6.3:. :3Q.0§:m 05....
.6:.n8mu5<m8.=0mc. 0.:8E.5..:. 3.5550 .0 5n. 0538005.. 00.30.8035. £302
535.2 8885.. 5.... 0.02.50 confloamcegogw m:0.< 0508005.. 05.... 0:05... 00....
85:88:88 558.98 a 880 :80 .5888 05.5 0.30.... c. 000....
20:88.28 5.550 m8... .0 0.550
.0008000> 0:.E5E 00cc. 5 .0. £50. 5 0:520 000.... .680 60.505500 60.00% .050
55.0.5... 008005. 00020:: 55¢ 8: 5.008 .mkzm 05.303320 .85....20 050805..
56.5: :e: 2.0 558.900.5520 8:380 8:835 5555:. 8:
0:388:04 5200.8383823 05535253 000: 8550.0 .0>0E0m 00....
.552823557. 00.... 88m :30 200.50 :8305F3000w 0:02 085.0 «00.: 8550.0 0553 00¢
355.3580 0030 000050300020 :05tcmocflb 08550.0

 

 

 

 

 

.

.

 

 

Pb

08:20.0. 8:... .0 .095: u A...

 

Ex

3..

Ex

.0. x

Ex

.0. x

.0. x

8..

Ex

08.00 23.... :. 83885..

 

 

.0. x

Ex

000.... .0 8:80.503.

 

.0. x

b.0030 0?

 

Ex

28:80:... 0.0

 

.0. x

:88000>

 

.0. x

.0. x

«33¢ BEOKxflObEOO

00.080... 0.0003003300000000“.

 

Ex

E38093.

 

Ex

aboofionc902 0.. 000....

 

20.800. .050

 

 

a. x

Ex

Ex

05.0.9000

 

3..

00.800. 05.8.0

 

3..

00.00500 :9000

 

Ex

5..

2...

3..

05000.0 00....

 

3..

3..

30580.03. 0 8.80.0

 

2...

8.0020020 0 0:08....

 

3.0080
0.300 :0 0520.0 0. 00:20.00

 

 

3..

Ex

:7

.0. x

0:0.0

 

.0. x

0003.

 

0:0: 05.5.0 09.:

 

82.0 23.... :_ 08..»

 

 

Ex

Ex

08:80.0 80005508 0 8.:0N

 

 

.0. x

5..

3..

00:80.0 0:080:04

 

 

Ex

00:0:.0.0 50020020 00. ..

 

 

00:0:_0.0 .0>0Eom 00. h

 

 

.0. x

8:820 20:00 00...

 

000000.20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W3,

 

 

 

 

3511M
IMO

 

00
”‘31

 

4,.

 

 

’1
'p
”w

 

 

N3

Bocflflm: 8E: S .353: u c:

 

E x

=£Eo%:mt. a 83m. :30

 

AN. x

09 x

:Vx

Ex

5 x

nxgmlwagoSOQ

 

Ex

930E

 

Ex

Em

 

Ex

8&3: ESE

 

5 x

3&8: 8395

 

8V x

3:.

E x

a: x

Ex

E x

E x

Ex

Ex

xmicmEO

 

a: x

Amy x

Ex

$83 x

E:

E x

Ex

g x

830885“

 

eozaoczawom -5059 .26

 

 

su x

Ex

«cantatemcoigeufimm

 

Ex

9.58%ch *0 £3ch

 

Ex

5 x

«5.58me a 9.58%:3

 

Ex

wig—8.5 w gigantg

 

Ex

Ex

MEN: 6 838mbcfl

 

Ex

mamoflwgw M. 938323

 

E x

Ex

Ex

«Embcam .5..me 88%:3

 

E x

Ex

5.6 as moocgcm 883:3

 

3..

Ex

no? cm
g8 £52 cm «28.6 938%ch

 

E x

EoEq2o>oQ a. 933%ch

 

E x

83 95th 23833

 

E x

5 x

Ex

5 x

.620ng

 

Ex

8: x

Ex

E x

Ex

Ex

E x

E x

938%ch obEEEQEQ§

 

Eoquo cozfloamcfltflogm
oco_< 9.38%ch

 

 

Ex

Ex

Ex

Ex

b58933

 

Ex

mom: ‘0 «E38

 

5 x

Ex

Ex

mo?
cm .6.‘ >552 cm 9.320 moot.

 

mcmianwCEEQ

 

E x

5:39:83”

 

E x

E x

Ex

E x

Ex

Ex

E x

E x

E x

acacmEioEmE moot.

 

28:80 cozfioamcfitflogw
95? RENE 82»

 

constancflh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'1
may

 

 

 

 

I “In.“

 

 

MM

 

 

 

 

 

 

MK

32.232 8E.» B .353: u 93

 

Ex

E

Siam =25

 

coagouo>

 

Ex

Ex

30200 $55500

 

Ex

ESEOE<

 

Ex

«no? .8332

 

Ex

38:83.. .9532

 

Ex

33:36 :35

 

a: x

E x

E x

E x

E x

«3389:

 

Ex

E x

Ex

E x

E x

Ex

930333

 

Ex

toacoemu

 

550

 

 

Ex

839820 29.33‘ €321

 

E x

E x

b58933

 

Ex

Ex

8QO =86 w 26:32ng

 

Ex

coamtmmoi

 

Ex

sfigm

 

Ex

8.851

 

Ex

«.5

 

Ex

9.9qu

 

Ex

:8.qu

 

Ex

389590

 

 

a: x

E x

Ex

Ex

8E x

E x

E x

E x

E x

a: x

Ex

Ex

E x

b55533

 

Ex

8me :30 .6 3:38

 

Ex

E x

83m. :30 amaoobc‘ ESSEQ

 

E x

E x

9.295

 

Ex

esophagus @2558 3 Sq

 

E x

E x

«:3

 

E x

Ex

Ex

E x

E x

32329.8 6 83m :80

 

E x

Ex

Ex

Ex

Ex

E x

cofitth

 

Ex

Ex

E x

uSEmE

 

Ex

E x

E x

kogm

 

E x

E x

Ex

E x

Ex

3: x

E x

f:

EosqsgoQESuEQ

 

Ex

E x

E x

E x

E x

Ex

E x

E x

E x

E x

coaooEnanmEcwEQ

 

38m :80

 

00an :303032825

 

 

 

 

 

 

”0
My”

 

 

 

 

 

\
h ‘k
the \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V5

“.855th 88: kc .383: u 95

 

E x

Aacaoéwucgmoesome .823
8.5.9.: $5an550 .9959 .650

 

 

Ex

.35: 883:3

 

 

Ex

aficoflomtmtzm

 

 

Ex

nonmagn—

 

 

E x

c2§m8>

 

 

Ex

$8632,“
manomucfl 836...: «E51 mm: .388

 

 

E x

533. an: 25

 

 

Ex

Ex

6v x

E x

E x

E x

E x

E x

E x

Ex

9.38%ch

 

 

Ex

E x

Ex

E x

E x

Ex

cougomoihczcmi 02...

 

«cc—522:5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In

 

 

 

W 511%

 

 

 

 

«‘"o

 

 

APPENDIX C

Examples of References for Each Variable, Unit and Subunit of Analysis

Ordinances

Planting, Removal, Preservation and Landscaping Ordinances

Kenosha, WI - mandated that street tree planted occur in new developments.

Minneapolis, MN - recommended the adoption of a tree preservation and
replacement ordinance for public/private development.

Appleton, WI - emphasized the need for landscaping in parking lots and in any
development or redevelopment projects along major roads.

Cleveland, OH - created a landscape ordinance in 1990.

Peoria, IL- mandated that non-residential parking lots and yards are well-
landscaped.

Zoning and Beautification Ordinances

Peoria, IL - recommended the city study the effectiveness of screening that is
required in the zoning ordinance.

Des Moines, IA - recommended enforcing ordinances that promoted beautification
and safety.

Trees in Public Space

Tree Planting Plans

Kenosha, WI- provided six maps of existing and planned conditions, land use plans
and revitalization strategies that included trees and tree planting in public spaces.

Westland, MI- included site development guideline plans that included trees.

West Allis, WI- included a drawing of a street improvement plan that included the
planting of street trees.

Kansas City, MO - recommended creating a reforestation plan along the Big Blue
River.

Appleton, WI - proposed plans included drawing of trees in public spaces.

75

Reference to Planting on Public Property

Tree planting

Minneapolis, MN - required the creation of sidewalks that accommodate a variety of
needs including trees.

Springfield, MO - recommended the planting of a public orchard.

Detroit, MI - recommended the "...use of more evergreen trees and shrubs that
have interesting wintertime color and shape."

Peoria, IL - mandated that the city must provide street trees. "Street trees are
needed in densely developed areas like these to reduce noise, cleanse the air,
reduce glare, absorb heat, provide shade, add human scale and improve
neighborhood character."

Planting and Replacement of Trees

Detroit, MI - recommended the immediate replacement of trees lost from disease.
They also recommended that homeowners be encouraged to maintain these trees
regularly

Minneapolis, MN - recommended the planting and replacement of trees on public
property.

Background
References in this category described existing conditions within the city or desired
community characteristics.

Springfield, MO - residents desired parks that had an "...abundance of trees..."
Community members believed that "Additional parks, greenways, trails and
preserved open space and trees were desired as a necessary component of the
community's future development pattern."

St. Paul, MN - planted more than 25,000 trees along the Mississippi River to create a
corridor and return the area to its original landscape.

Detroit, MI - "Shade trees are the single most important element that enhances the
character and amenity of residential neighborhoods."

Planting and Preservation, Design Standard, Planting (General)

Minneapolis, MN - created a goal to "...encourage the planting and preservation of
trees and other vegetation." Recommended the use 0 "...design standards...for
public/private development with supporting street furniture (including street
trees)..."

76

0 West Allis, WI - recommended the "...creation of a 'planting' parkway of 10 to 20'
between the back of the curb and parking lot or storage areas."

General

Trees in Neighborhoods
0 Des Moines, IA - described existing older residential areas that contain mature
trees.

Arboretum
o Westland, MI - recommended the creation of a city arboretum.

Forestlands/Wodlands/Forested Corridors/Forest Preserves

0 Springfield, MO - recommended that the "...city as a park..." could protect forest
lands. Recommended that forested corridors, forests and woodlands would make
good setting for greenways.

o Naperville, IL - identified several areas that are already part of their forest preserve

system.

Vegetation

0 Springfield, MO - described the character of its public open space as having a
"...variety of vegetation." They also recommended the use of native or natural
vegetation in landscaping.

th Infrastructure
0 Kansas City, MO - recommended that the city "Require 1% of the city infrastructure
projects go toward design enhancement and beautification of public projects."

Air Quality
0 Detroit, MI - recommended the use of trees to reduce air pollution.

Maintenance of Trees
0 Detroit, MI - recommended that "When trees are lost from disease, replacing them
immediately and then encouraging homeowners to maintain them regularly.

0 Toledo, OH - recommended that the city improve its neighborhood services
including tree trimming.

77

Landsmping in Public Spaces

Landscaping in Public Spaces

Toledo, OH - recommended the use of "attractive landscaping" to serve as a
gateway into the downtown area.

Naperville, IL - recommended the use of extensive landscaping "to promote a sense
of identity to the area."

Minneapolis, MN - promoted the maintenance and cleaning of all landscaped areas in
the public right-of-way. Recommended the use of landscaping to promote safety
and security in parks.

St. Paul, MN - recommended the use of landscaping to give an area a "sense of
place."

Westland, MI - recommended the use of landscaping to buffer incompatible public
and private lands uses. Recommended that signs and landscaping be updated
throughout city.

West Allis, WI - recommended that parking lots be landscaped to provide a buffer
between public areas and private residential areas.

Kansas City, MO- recommended that parking lots be landscaped to provide a buffer
between public areas and private residential areas. Recommended the use of
landscaping to identify the entertainment areas of the city.

Detroit, MI - recommended the creation of a "fun area" that could be identified
through landscaping. Encouraged residents to maintain landscaping on both private
and public property. Recommended parking areas be landscaped.

Appleton, WI - provided background on housing and landscaping in the city.

Transportation

Most examples in this section are presented differently than the other sections because the

subunits of analysis used accurately described how the cities referenced them. No examples

are provided for those subunits of analysis that were only referenced by one city, except in

cases where elaboration was required (see General-Beautification unit below).

78

Trees Planted Along Streets/Transportation Corridors
Trees Planted/Planting
The cities below all referenced trees planted/planting along transportation corridors.

References in this section were general recommendations for planting street trees.

Appleton, WI Kansas City, MO Springfield, MO
Cleveland, OH Minneapolis, MN St. Paul, MN
Detroit, MI Peoria, IL Toledo, OH

Trees Creating an Identity for an Area
The cities below all recommended the use of trees to help create an identity or sense of

place for a particular area.

Detroit, MI Westland, MI Appleton, WI

Background

The cities below described previous boulevards and city streets that were lined with

large, canopy shade trees.

Minneapolis, MN Cleveland, OH

Springfield, MO Appleton, WI

79

Landscaping Along Streets/Transportation Corridors

Improve/Provide Landscaping

The cities below referenced this unit of analysis in one of several ways: improving the
appearance of a transportation corridor using landscaping and providing landscaping

around parking lots and along streets.

Naperville, IL St. Paul, MN Appleton, WI
Detroit, MI Kansas City, MO West Allis, WI
Minneapolis, MN Toledo, OH

Buffer Screen
The subunit was typically recommended for areas where there were conflicting land
uses (i.e. residential area next to or near an industrial area). Cities that mentioned the

use of landscaping for a buffer/screen are:

Detroit, MI Cleveland, OH

Minneapolis, MN Appleton, WI

Use of Landscape Design Standards
Design standards were recommended to aid developers in creating a landscape design

theme that was common to the area.

Detroit, MI Appleton, WI Kansas City, MO

Landscaping to Create an Identity
0 Cedar Rapids, IA - believed that "The community's appearance is determined by a
combination of streetscape, landscaping, public art and development design.

80

0 Springfield, MO - recommended to "Define civic parks by providing signage,
landscaping and streetscapes that signify a destination or arrival at a unique place."

Landscaping the Entrances into the City
0 Cedar Rapids, IA - recommended the use of more stringent landscaped standards
along community entry corridors.

. Detroit, MI - recommended that "gateways" into the city be well-landscaped.
Landscaping and Traffic

0 Detroit, MI — recommended the use of landscaping to reduce traffic in certain areas.
0 Toledo, OH - referred to landscaping along streets as an essential element of an

urban village.

Landscaping and Pedestrians
0 Detroit, MI - recommended providing landscaping to provide a better pedestrian
environment.

0 Kansas City, MO - recommended landscaping in the pedestrian environment.

Background/Characteristics

This subunit of analysis included those references that described existing conditions

within the city, desired community characteristics or development conditions.

0 Minneapolis, MN believes that auto oriented travel "...discourages pedestrian scale
design, landscaping and facade treatment contributing to patterns of strip mall

development..."

0 Appleton, WI referred to landscaping when describing existing conditions along
roadways within the city.

81

General- Beautification

Streetscape

Streetscapes were not defined within any of the master plans of the cities studied.
However, references typically focused on the beautification of the street environment.
References to streetscape included the recommendation for the creation and
improvement of streetscapes; the use of streetscapes to affect traffic patterns; the use
of lights, furniture, and landscaping in the streetscape design; and the creation of
streetscape plans to guide future improvements.

Appleton, WI Detroit, MI Toledo, OH
Cedar Rapids, IA Minneapolis, MN Kansas City, MO
Cleveland, OH Springfield, MO

Greenway

o Appleton, WI - recommended the creation and enhancement of greenways within
the city.

0 Kansas City, MO - recommended the creation and enhancement of the greenway
system; creation of a regional greenway system; integration of water quality into
greenway; and preservation of greenways.

. Minneapolis, MN - recommended the creation of greenways throughout city and
highlighted the importance of greenways.

o Naperville, IL - provided background into a greenway that exists within county.
0 Peoria, IL - recommended developing a greenway.

0 Springfield, MO - identified the need for a greenway throughout city. Defined a
greenway as "...a corridor of lands that is protected or managed in some manner
and generally follows a natural stream or drainage way." Devotes an entire section
to greenways that highlights background, recommendations and strategies.

0 St. Paul, MN - recommended the restoration of existing greenways within the city.

0 Toledo, OH - recommended the creation, expansion and linking of greenways.

82

Irrigated Medians

Toledo, OH - recommended that by 2020 all boulevards will be irrigated.

Planted Median

Naperville, IL - recommended the creation of a four lane road with a planted median

Boulevards and Parkways

Camel/Clay, IN - recommended that development occurs at intersections of at least
one major parkway.

Kansas City, MO - recommended the expansion, creation and enhancement of
boulevards within the city.

Kenosha, WI - recommended that neighborhoods should be bounded by "...park,
parkway and institutional area..."
Naperville, IL - defined a right of way as 66 feet to accommodate utilities, sidewalks

and parkways.

St. Paul, MN - recommended the enhancement of the parkway system.

Open Space/Greenspace

As in the Transportation section, many of the examples in this section are presented differently

than the other sections because the subunits of analysis used accurately described how the

cities referenced them.

83

Preservation and Protection of Open Space
The preservation of open space during development was the common way open space

was mentioned in this category. Cities that promoted open space preservation were:

Cedar Rapids, IA Naperville, IL Minneapolis, MN
Des Moines, IA Peoria, IL Appleton, WI
Carmel/Clay, IN Detroit, MI Kenosha, WI
Marion County, IN Westland, MI West Allis, WI

Creation/Development of Open Space

The creation/development of open space was recommended by:

Naperville, IL Westland, MI Kansas City, MO
Peoria, IL Minneapolis, MN Toledo, OH
Detroit, MI St. Paul, MN

Common references included:
_ . Cedar Rapids, IA - recommended the establishment of new open spaces.

0 Detroit, MI - recommended creation/enhancement of open space throughout the
city.

. Kansas City, MO - Goal: "Development preserves or creates open space, respects
existing topography and minimizes the impact of development on the natural
environment."

0 Minneapolis, MN - transformed brownfields into open space.

84

Buffer
The use of open space as a buffer was in the master plans of:

Carmel/Clay, IN Detroit, MI Toledo, OH

Open Space & Planning
References in this category addressed the need of planning for open space within the

city. It was addressed in the following cities master plans:

Cedar Rapids, IA Westland, MI Kansas City, MO

Definition of Open Space
0 Naperville, IL - defined open spaces as "...land reserved within developed areas
generally for detention/retention purposes with no active recreational uses provided.

0 Peoria, IL - defined open space as "parks...[with] developed and undeveloped open
space for passive and active recreation."

a Detroit, MI - open space definition "Included large open areas with use not specified
but usually available for the general public.

0 Westland, MI- parks and open space definition "This classification includes parcels
either improved or unimproved that are used for public and private non-intensive
recreational activities, including parks, natural areas, golf courses and private
outdoor recreational facilities.

0 Springfield, MO - defined open space as "...land not used for development or formal
parks that is to remain available for public enjoyment."

0 Cleveland, OH - defined recreation and open space as "parks, playgrounds,
recreation centers, stadiums and land reserved for outdoor open space."

Open Space & Development
0 Camel/Clay, IN - recommended making developers fund open space.
0 Detroit, MI - recommended policy to restrict billboards near parks and open space.

. Marion County, IN - encouraged in-fill development "...with full consideration of
environment/open space impact on the surrounding area."

. Naperville, IL - required that subdivisions over 50 acres had to have an open space
area.

85

o Appleton, WI - recommended the creation of parks and open space along roads of
new developments.

Link
Naperville, IL and Kansas City, MO recommended the city try to link existing and newly
created open spaces to form an open space corridor.

Part of Community Infrastructure
Kansas City, MO recommended that open space be considered as part of the community
infrastructure.

Improve Open Space
Detroit, MI and Minneapolis, MN encouraged the improvement of existing open spaces
in their cities.

Provide Adequate Open Space
Naperville, IL and Minneapolis, MN wanted their cities to ensure that there was
adequate open space in existing areas and new developments.

Benefits of Open Space
Peoria, IL - highlighted the benefits of open space

Background

The following cities made background references to open space:

Cedar Rapids, IA Cleveland, OH
Westland, MI

Des Moines, IA Toledo, OH
Minneapolis, MN

Carmel/Clay, IN Appleton, WI
Kansas City, MO

Naperville, IL Kenosha, WI
Springfield, MO

Peoria, IL

Typical references in the background category included:

0 Cedar Rapids, IA- "A network of public open spaces and facilities provide gathering
places where ideas and experiences are freely shared to continually enhance the
lives of residents."

0 All cities described existing open space conditions in their city.

86

0 Minneapolis, MN- Began planning parklands according to open space specifications in
the 1950's.

Greenspace

Greenspace was mentioned in the master plans of fewer cities than open space.
Greenspace was mentioned in the master plans of Detroit, MI; Minneapolis, MN; Kansas
City, MO; Toledo, OH; and West Allis, WI. References fell into the following categories:
creation, improve, link, planting, buffer, preservation, development and greenspace,
background and provide adequate greenspace. The references were similar to the ones
highlighted in the open space section above.

Other
Greenbelt

0 West Allis, WI- recommended the creation along the northern boundary of the city.

Landscaping
0 Carmel/Clay, IN - described an area in the township that was "...the most expansive
undeveloped landscape in the township."

0 Cleveland, OH - set a goal to use vacant lands for gardening and landscaping
activities.

0 Detroit, MI - recommended the use of landscaping to improve areas near the river,
in parks and in between conflicting land uses.

0 Peoria, IL - recommended the use of landscaping along its riverfront.

0 Springfield, MO - recommended the creation of "...design and landscape standards
for the entire park system."

0 St. Paul, MN - recommended using natural landscaping to reconnect neighborhoods
to the Mississippi River.

Woodlands
o Carmel/Clay, IN - highlighted where existing woodlands exist in the county and
townships, mainly along the river.

0 Cedar Rapids, IA - encouraged the preservation of woodlands and also notes that
the master plan does not provide significant woodland protection.

0 Kansas City, MO - used woodlands as natural corridors.

87

0» Kenosha, WI - highlighted the benefits of woodlands, current woodland resource and
recommended the preservation of woodlands.

0 Marion County, IN - encouraged the protection of woodlands.

Urban Gardens
0 Cleveland, OH - described a residential area as having urban gardens

Natural Resources
0 Camel/Clay, IN - recommended adopting development standards to protect natural
resources.

Natural Areas
- Kenosha, WI - Natural areas were delineated on a map in the master plan.

Arboretum
o Appleton, WI- public library contained an arboretum

Community Gardens
0 Minneapolis, MN and Springfield, MO both described the need to create a community
garden.

Vegetation
o Naperville, IL - recommended that unique vegetation be protected.

Urban Ecology
- St. Paul, MN - encouraged the city to, "Restore and establish the unique urban
ecology."
Development
Tree Planting/Preservation

o Appleton, WI - "The City and MI [a developer] should discuss design standards
such as strong canopy tree landscaping in the right-of-way.

o Carmel/Clay, IN- cluster development to protect significant stands of trees.

88

Naperville, IL recommends the protection of trees during development and the use
of trees to buffer development.

Westland, MI recommended that the city create of list of recommended trees for
developers and to use trees to buffer development and incompatible land uses.

Landscaping

Appleton, WI - encouraged the use of vegetation to block non-conforming land uses.

Carmel/Clay, IN - "Required the preservation of unique landscapes in the platting
process." They also encouraged the use of landscaping to buffer different land uses.

Cleveland, OH - required the use of landscaping in development to buffer different
land uses.

Des Moines, IA - recommended that the city "Assure that new structures and
landscaping are compatible with surrounding areas."

Detroit, MI - recommended that "Landscaping be included as an integral element of
both public and private development."

Kansas City, MO - recommended that "Require landscaping and/or screening plans
to be prepared for all new development visible from interstate..."

Marion County, IN - recommended the city "Encourage...adequate landscaping... to
buffer nonresidential development."

Minneapolis, MN - required the landscaping of newly developed parking lots.

Naperville, IL - recommended the city "Continue to implement high quality
development standards, with sufficient fully landscaped parking facilities."

Toledo, OH - one of the evaluation criteria for the master plan was that, "There will
be no unlandscaped vacant lot."

Westland, MI - required "New and expanding industrial land uses must upgrade
landscaping and signs." Recommended that a new subdivision have a landscaped
median.

Site Plan Review

Appleton, WI - recommended that the city enact a site plan review process that
would be used to evaluate landscaping, lighting, traffic flow, etc.

89

Special Use Permit

o Appleton, WI - recommended that landscaping be incorporated into conditions to
receive a special use permit.

Vegetation
0 Detroit, MI - recommended the use of vegetation around buildings to help with
climate control and as a buffer between existing land uses.

Deforestation

a Kansas City, MO - encouraged the "prohibition of deforestation within the floodplain
and other environmentally sensitive areas."

Buffer/Screening
a Minneapolis, MN - recommended buffer and screening between new development
and existing residential areas.

Landscape Manual
0 Toledo, OH recommended the creation of a landscape manual for developers.

General Development
0 Marion County, IN recommended that urban development not be permitted on
environmentally sensitive lands.

90

Literature Cited

Adbollahi, K.K., Z.H. Ning, and A. Appeaning. 2000. In Adbollahi, K.K., Z.H. Ning, and
A. Appeaning. 2000. Global Climate Change and the Urban Forest. Franklin Press Inc.: Baton
Rouge, LA. p. 17-30.

Akbari, H., S. Davis, J. Huang, P. Liu and H. Taha (1992). The Urban Heat Island:
Causes and Impacts. In Akbari, H., S. Davis, S. Dorsano, J. Huang, and S. Winnett (Eds.).
Cooling Our Communities a Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing. US.
Environmental Protection Agency. GPO Document No.: 005-000-00371-8. p. 5-26.

Arendt, Randall. 1999. Growing Greener Putting Conservation Into Local Plans and
Ordinances. Natural Land Trust: Media, PA.

Arnold Jr., C.L., and Cl Gibbons. 1996. Impervious Surface Coverage The Emergence
of a Key Environmental Indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(2): 243-
258.

Beattie, J., C. Kollin, and G. Moll. 2000. Trees Tackle Clean Water Regulations.
American Forests: Summer 2000. p. 18-19.

Benedict, Mark A. 2000. Green Infrastructure: A Strategic Approach to Land
Conservation. PAS Memo October 2000: American Planning Association.

Brinkley, A. 2000. The Natural Resource Planning Board and the Reconstruction of
Planning. In Fishman, Robert (Ed.). 2000. The American Planning Tradition. The Woodrow
Wilson Center Press: Washington, DC. p. 173-192.

Driver, BL and D. Rosenthal. 1978. Social Benefits of Urban Forests and Related
Green Spaces, Proceedings of the National Urban Forest Conference- Washington DC. State
University of New York: Syracuse, NY. p. 98-113.

Dwyer, J. F. 1991. Economic Benefits and Costs of Urban Forests of Urban Forests. In
Rodbell, P.D. (Ed.). 1991. Proceedings of the Fifth National Urban Forest Conference. The
American Forestry Association: Washington, DC. p. 55-58.

Dwyer, J.F., Twardus, D. and CT. Scott. 2000. Pr0posal for Urban Forest Health
Monitoring in the United States. Proceedings of Society of American Foresters 2000 National
Convention. The Society: Washington, DC.

Dwyer, J.F., D.J. Nowak, M.H. Noble, and SM. Sissini. 2001. Connecting People with
Ecosystems in the let Century: An Assessment of Our Nation's Urban Forest. USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-490.

Dwyer, J.F., E.G. McPherson, H.W. Schroeder, and R. Rowntree. 1992. Assessing the
Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5): 227-234.

91

Dwyer, J.F., E.G. McPherson, and P.H. Gobster. 1991. The Significance of Urban Trees
and Forests: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Values. Journal of Arboriculture 17(10): 276-

264.

Elmendorf, WP. 2000. Community Planning and the Natural Environment. In Kuser
(Ed.). 2000. Handbook of Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York. p. 61-75.

Evans, W.J. 1981. Reduction of Public Trees as Liabilities. Journal of Arboriculture
7(8): 218-220.

Fishman, R. 2000. The American Planning: An Introduction and Interpretation. In
Fishman, R. (Ed.). 2000. The American Planning Tradition. The Woodrow Wilson Center

Press: Washington, D.C. p. 1-32.
Grey, G.W. and E]. Denke. 1978. Urban Forestry. John Wiley and Sons: New York.

Gordon, G.L. 1993. Strategic Planning for Local Government. International City/County
Management Association: Washington, D.C.

Hair, M. (1999, May 28). Upscale New Homes Demand the Biggest Trees and They're
in Short Supply. The Detroit Free Press: www.freep.com.

Hancock, John. 1988. The New Deal and American Planning- The 1930's. In D.
Schaffer (Ed.). 1988. Two Centuries of American Planning. Mansell Publishing Limited:

London. p. 197-230.

Haller, Robert. 1996. Economic Benefits of Greening: The Stittsville Experience. In
Blouin, G. and Klassen, K. (Eds). Forest Forum Urban Forests, Special Issue #10. Canadian

Forestry Association. p. 13-14.

Harris, Richard W. Arboriculture Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs
and Vines, Second Edition. 1992. Prentice-Hall, Inc: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Heisler, G.M., R.H. Grant, S. Grimmond and C. Souch (1995). Urban Forests-- Cooling
our Communities? In Proceedings of the 7th National Urban Forest Conference. American

Forests: Washington, D.C. p. 31-34.

Huang, J., R. Ritschard, N. Sampson, H. Taha. (1992). The Benefits of Urban Trees. In
Akbari, H., S. Davis, 5. Dorsano, J. Huang, and S. Winnett (Eds.). Cooling Our Communities a
Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing. US. Environmental Protection
Agency. GPO Document No.: 005-000-00371-8. p. 27-42.

Hull N, RB. and RS. Ulrich. 1991. Health Benefits and Costs of Urban Trees. In
Rodbel, PD. 1991. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Urban Forest Conference. The
American Forest Association: Washington, D.C. p. 69-72.

92

Hull IV, RB. (1992). Brief Encounters with Urban Forests Produce Moods that Matter.
Journal of Arboriculture. 18(6). P. 322-324.

Johnson, C.W., F.A. Baker, and W5. Johnson. (1990). Urban and Community Forestry
A Guide for the Interior Western United States. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region:
Ogden, UT.

Johnston, Mark. 1996. A Brief History of Urban Forestry in the United States.
Arboricultural Journal 20: 257-278.

Jorgenson, Erik. 1970. Urban Forestry in Canada. In Neely, D. (Ed.). Proceedings of
the 46th International Shade Tree Conference, August 8-13, 1970. p. 43a-51a.

Kaiser, El and D.R. Godschalk. 1995. Twentieth Century Land Use Planning a Stalwart
Family Tree. Journal of the American Planning Association. 61(3): 365-385.

Kaiser, E.J., D.R. Godschalk, and ES. Chapin Jr. 1995. Urban Land Use Planning.
Board of Trustees University of Illinois: USA.

Kielbaso, 1]. 1988. Baseline Data Report Trends in Urban Forestry. International City
Management Association 20:1.

Kielbaso, J.J. 1990. Trends and Issues in City Forests. Journal of Arboriculture 16(3):
69-76.

Kielbaso, 3.]. and R. Wildenthal. 1994. 1994 Forest Health Report: Urban Forest.
Michigan Forest Health: Urban Forest. p. 31-36.

Kielbaso, J.J. and V. Cotrone. 1989. The State of the Urban Forest. Proceedings of the
4th Urban Forest Conference. American Forest Association: St. Louis, MO. p. 11-18

Kielbaso, J.J., G. Haston, D. Pawl. 1982. Municipal Tree Management in the United
States 1980. Journal of Arboriculture. 8(10): 253-257.

Koch, J. 2000. The Origins of Urban Forestry. In Kuser (Ed.). Handbook of Urban and
Community Forestry in the Northeast. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York. p. 1-10.

Krueckeberg, D.A. 1983. The Culture of Planning, In Krueckeberg, D. (Ed.) 1983.
Introduction to Planning History in the United States. Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NJ.
p. 1-13.

Laverne, RJ. and GM. Lewis. 1996. The Effect of Vegetation on Residential Energy
Use in Ann Arbor, MI. Journal of Arboriculture 22(5): 234-243.

Lawrence, H.W. 1988. Origins of the Tree-Lined Boulevard. The Geographical Review
78(4): 355-374.

93

Lawrence, H.W. 1995. Changing Forms and Persistent Values: Historical Perspectives
on the Urban Forest. In Bradley, GA. 1995. Urban Forest Landscapes. University of
Washington Press: USA. p. 17-40.

Lawrence, H.W. 1988. From Private Allée to Public Shade Tree. Amoldia. Summer
1997: 5-15.

Lawson, M. 1996. Vegetation and Sustainable Cities. Arboricultural Journal 20: 161-
172.

Lorenzo, A.B., A.B. Catalino, Y. Qi and M. Guidry. Assessing Residents' Willingness to
Pay to Preserve the Community Urban Forests: A Small-City Case Study. 2000. Journal of
Arboriculture 26(2): 319-325.

Maguire, M., R. Foote, and F. Vespe. 1997. Beauty as Well as Bread. Journal of the
American Planning Association 63(3): 317-328.

Mao, L.S., Y. Gao, and W.Q. Sun. 1993. Influences of Street Tree Systems on Summer
Micro-Climate and Noise Attenuation in Najing City, China. Arboricultural Journal 17: 239-251.

McMahon, ET. 2000. Green Infrastructure. Planning Commissioners Journal 37: 4-7.

McPherson, E.G. 2000. Urban Forests and Climate Change. In Adbollahi, K.K., Z.H.
Ning, and A. Appeaning. 2000. Global Climate Change and the Urban Forest. Franklin Press
Inc.: Baton Rouge, LA. p. 17-30

McPherson, E.G. 1994. Benefits and costs of tree planting and care in Chicago. In:
McPherson, E.G., D.J. Nowak and RA. Rowntree (Eds.). Chicago's urban forest ecosystem:
results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-186. Radnor, PA: US.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 115-133.
Chapter 8.

McPherson, E.G. and R. Rowntree. 1993. Energy Conservation Potential of Urban Tree
Planting. Journal of Arboriculture 19(6): 321-331.

Miller, R.W. 1989. The History of the City. In Moll, G. and S. Eberneck (Eds.). 1989.
Shading our Cities. Island Press: Washington, D.C. p. 32-34.

Moll, Gary. 1988. The City Forests of the United States of America. Arboricultural
Journal 12: 35-21.

Morgan, N.R. and K.J. Johnson. 1993. An Introductory Guide to Urban and Community
Forestry Programs. Forestry Report R8-FR 16. Atlanta, GA: US. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southern Region.

Nowak, DJ. 2000. The Interactions Between Urban Forests and Global Climate
Change. In Adbollahi, K.K., Z.H. Ning, and A. Appeaning. 2000. Global Climate Change and
the Urban Forest. Franklin Press Inc.: Baton Rouge, LA. p. 31-44.

94

Nowak, 0.3., and J.F. Dwyer. 2000. Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Urban
Forest Ecosystems. In Kuser (Ed.). Handbook of Urban and Community Forestry in the
Northeast. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York. P. 11-25.

Peterson, J.A. 1983. The Impact of Sanitary Reform Upon American Urban Planning.
In Krueckeberg, D. (Eds.). 1983. Introduction to Planning History in the United States.
Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NJ. p. 13-39.

Peterson, J.A. 1983a. The City Beautiful Movement: Forgotten Origins and Lost
Meanings, p. 40-57. In Krueckeberg, D. (Ed.) 1983. Introduction to Planning History in the
United States. Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NJ.

Petit, J. D.L Bassert and C. Kollin. (1995). Building Greener Neighborhoods- Trees as
Part of the Plan. American Forests and Home Builders Press: Washington, D.C.

Rudie Jr., R. and RS. Dewers. 1984. Effects of Tree Shade On Home Cooling
Requirements. Journal of Arboriculture 10(12): 320-322.

Ryan HI, H.D.P. Vegetation's Impact on Urban Infrastructure. 1985. Journal of
Arboriculture 11(4): 112-115.

Schafer, EL and Moeller, G.H. 1979. Urban Forestry: Its Scope and Complexity. The
Journal of Arboriculture 5(9): p. 206-209.

Schroeder, H., and C. Lewis (1991). Psychological Benefits and Costs of Urban Forests.
In Rodbell, P.D. (Ed.). 1991. Proceedings of the Fifth National Urban Forest Conference. The
American Forestry Association: Washington, D.C. p. 66-68.

Schroeder, H.W. and SR Ruffolo (1996). Householder Evaluation of Street Trees in a
Chicago Suburb. Journal of Arboriculture 22(1): 35-43.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. and T, Banerjee. The Negotiated Plaza: Design and Development
of Corporate Open Sapce in Downtown Los Angeles and San Fransisco. 1993. Journal of
Planning and Education Research 13: 1-12.

Souch, CC, and C. Souch. 1993. The Effect of Trees on Summertime Below Canopy
Urban Climates: A Case Study Bloomington, IN. Journal of Arboriculture 19(5): 303-311.

Sommer, R., F. Learey, J. Summit, and M. T'irrell. 1994. The Social Benefits of Resident
Involvement in Tree Planting. Journal of Arboriculture 20(3): 170-175.

Sommer, R. 2001. The Dendor-Psychoses of 10. Quantz. Journal of Arboriculture
27(1): 40-43.

Starkey, D.G. 1979. Trees and Their Relationship to Mental Health. Journal of
Arboriculture 5(7): 153-154.

95

Stirrat, R. (1985). The Place of Trees in Towns: A Planners View. Arboricultural
Journal 9: 201-205.

Strom, S. 2000. Urban and Community Forestry Planning and Design. . In Kuser
(Ed.). Handbook of Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers: New York. P. 77-94.

Sullivan, W.C., and FE. Kuo. 1996. Do Trees Strengthen Urban Communities, Reduce
Domestic Violence? USDA Forest Service Southern Region Technology Bulletin 4, January 1996
Forestry Report R8-FR 56.

Taylor, A.F., A. Wiley, F.E. Kuo, and WC. Sullivan. 2001. Trees for Children: Helping
Inner-City Children Get a Better Start in Life. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area
Technology Bulletin 7, April 2001 Forestry Report R8-FR 68.

Tschantz, B.A., and P.L. Sacamano. 1994. Municipal Tree Management in the United
States. International Society of Arboriculture and the USDA Forest Service. Davey Resource
Group: Ohio.

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2001. 2000 census of
population. Incorporated Places of 100,000 or More, Ranked by Population. Washington D.C.

Urban, 3., RC. Sievert Jr. and J. Patterson. A Blueprint for Tomorrow: Getting trees
into the Urban Design. 1989. In Moll, G. and S. Ebenreck (Eds.). Shading Our Cities.
American Forestry Association: Washington D.C.

Wilson, W.H. 1989. The City Beautiful Movement. The Johns Hopkins University Press:
Baltimore, MD.

On-Line Resources

International Society of Arboriculture (2002). Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating
Tree Ordinances. www.isa-arbor.com/tree-ord.

McPherson, E.G. and P. Peper (2000). Expenditures Associated with Conflicts between
Street Tree Root Growth and Hardscape in California. USDA Forest Service- Pacific Southwest
Research Station. http://wcufre.ucdavis.edu/green.
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2002.
www.census.gov/DMD/www/glossary.

The New England Greenway Vision Plan (2002). http://www.umass.edu/greenway/ZGR-
index.html.

96

HlGAN

in

ill!

3

12lllliu‘llllllillliillill

9 02638 2667