COS 138-3 - Best practices and challenges in aligning urban forest management to achieve city ecosystem service goals: interviews with urban foresters in the US & Canada

Tuesday, August 8, 2023

4:00 PM – 4:15 PM PDT

Location: E146

Presenting Author(s)

CB

Corinne G. Bassett

PhD Candidate
University of British Columbia, Canada

Coauthor(s)

SD

Susan D. Day, PhD

Professor
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada
CK

Cecil Konijnendijk, PhD

Professor
University of British Columbia & Nature Based Solutions Institute, Canada
LR

Lara Roman, PhD

Research Ecologist
USDA Forest Service, United States

Abstract: Cities are setting ambitious plans to reduce urban heat, mitigate stormwater flooding, and meet critical societal needs, and see urban forestry as a tool to achieve such goals. However, there are often gaps in alignment between strategic-level sustainability goals, such as in climate action plans, and the objectives driving urban forest management decisions. Additionally, how urban foresters connect operations to such goals, and the challenges they face in doing so, has not been documented, despite their potential to significantly impact urban ecosystems.

The study objective was to establish the best practices of municipal urban forest programs for aligning street-level management actions to contribute to city ecosystem service-related (ESS) goals. We conducted semi-structured interviews with employees at 20 cities in the US & Canada with responsibility for managing urban forests, including street trees. To recruit participants likely employing best practices, we targeted cities with (1) one or more ambitious city-wide ESS-related goals and (2) an advanced urban forestry program (assessed using several indicators). Interviews were analyzed using an iterative coding approach.

The most important management objectives cited were mitigating tree risk for public safety and maintaining and increasing urban canopy cover, aligning with arboricultural practices around risk management and tree preservation. All participants considered managing for ESS to be part of their job, but most were uncomfortable selecting one or more ESS as their priority. They expressed a wide variety of opinions on ESS-related goals in city plans, including: i) skepticism about whether plans actually represented a change from current practices; ii) derision about impractical goal setting; iii) cautious optimism related to opportunities for their urban forestry program due to plans for new funding, staff positions, and recognition of their work.

Participants could articulate that their choices (e.g. what species to plant or whether/how to remove dying trees) could influence the type and magnitude of ESS provided. Nonetheless, they tended not to view the specific goals set in city-wide plans (e.g. related to carbon sequestration or stormwater interception), as significant enough to influence their decision making. They preferred to focus on tree health and survival with the understanding that “the benefits come along with that.”

The dominant management paradigm for urban forestry which emerged defines success as increasing canopy cover and planting large trees. This paradigm prioritizes certain ESS over others, whether consciously or not, and has implications for understanding urban landscapes and ways to improve future city plans.