Traits of a bloom: a nationwide survey of U.S. urban tree planting initiatives (TPIs)

Abstract

Municipal leaders worldwide are showing substantial interest in urban greening. This encompasses incentives, policies, and programs to vegetate urban landscapes, and it often includes urban tree planting initiatives (TPIs). Over the past decade there has been a seven-fold increase in scholarly use of terms denoting TPIs, and roughly two-thirds of associated studies address TPIs in the United States (U.S.). This reflects a bloom of scholarly interest in TPIs. Yet, there has been limited research on contemporary TPIs as historically situated cultural phenomena, and there has to the best of our knowledge been no nationwide survey of TPIs across municipal scales. Addressing these gaps, this article presents findings from a survey of 41 TPIs in the United States. We report on typical traits of U.S. TPIs across six themes: background, dates and goals, public awareness, funding and governance, planting, and stewardship. Respondents identified over 115 traits that distinguish TPIs from typical urban tree planting activity, suggesting that TPIs are a discrete form of urban forestry. Over two-thirds of TPIs are funded separate from traditional urban forestry, and lack of institutionalization raises questions about long-term viability. TPIs mobilize political and financial resources for program launch, tree purchasing, and planting, but there may be a need for greater investment in stewardship activities and the social infrastructure that undergirds green infrastructure. Large shade trees for ecosystem services and native trees are the principal factors informing TPI species lists. Beautification and regulating ecosystem functions are, in turn, the principal potential benefits animating tree planting goals, yet few TPIs have conducted research to assess the fulfillment of associated outcomes. This study provides a foundation for future interdisciplinary scholarship on TPIs across the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences.

Street Trees for Bicyclists, Pedestrians, and Vehicle Drivers: A Systematic Multimodal Review

“…As noted by studies included in this review and others, the management and governance of urban street trees is often unclear [73,116], and may be perceived as a reluctant undertaking in public works and transportation departments. Lack of clear authority can be exacerbated during urban tree planting initiatives (TPIs), which are often spearheaded by actors who may lack short-and long-term management authority [12,26]. Professional arborists, for example, spend much of their time managing trees to reduce disservices and risks [13,27,117], and vegetation in urban settings requires ongoing care in order to ensure socio-environmental benefits [118].…”

“…Co-arising with contemporary efforts to improve urban streets for all users, there has in recent years been a bloom of interest in urban greening, defined as organized or semi-organized efforts to introduce, conserve, or manage outdoor vegetation in urban areas [12,13]. In many cases, greening includes substantial tree planting.…”

“…Across the United States, municipal leaders have likewise established ambitious canopy cover goals and major tree planting initiatives (TPIs), including programs to plant a million trees [18][19][20][21]; New York City met its million-tree planting goal in less than a decade [22]. Importantly, a nationwide survey of U.S. TPIs found that half of trees planted during these campaigns are along streets [12].…”

“…Yet, trees adjacent to streets can also be a potential safety hazard to vehicle drivers, as well as bicyclists and pedestrians due to falling limbs and debris and by bucking sidewalks [13]. These trade-offs are important considerations in the design and management of streetscapes, yet street tree planting and managementdepending on national and local context-can often fall upon a hybrid network of public, private, and nonprofit actors [12,23,24]. Even within the public domain, street tree management often crosses administrative and disciplinary jurisdictions including departments of public works, transportation, parks and recreation, and planning [21,25], as well as state and municipal boundaries [26].…”

Open for All: How Are Federal and Municipal Land Management Agencies Adapting to the COVID-19 Pandemic Alongside Increased Societal Recognition of Racial Injustice

“…"Street level bureaucrats" working on national forests have some room to maneuver and innovate, but also they are nested within a larger bureaucratic and institutional structure (Lipsky, 1980;Trusty and Cerveny, 2012;Moseley and Charnley, 2014). Recent scholarship continues to emerge about the culture and capacity of land management agencies operating in urban areas or at the municipal level, including from the lenses of: public lands management (Zamanifarda et al, 2016), parks and recreation management (Farland, 2010), urban forestry management (Wirtz et al, 2021), tree planting initiatives (Eisenman et al, 2021), and green infrastructure governance (Hsu et al, 2020). Though various factors are identified and discussed, these studies point to the importance of financial resources from both public and private sectors, leadership, collaborative management approaches with multiple stakeholders, and data-driven decision-making as key components in successful outcomes.…”