Urban Forestry Capacity Building and Models Richard J. Hauer1 1
Assistant Professor of Urban Forestry, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources, Stevens Point, WI 54481 Abstract: Building capacity within local entities throughout the United States is an often stated
goal of Federal and State Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) Programs. Capacity building inputs through technical assistance, financial assistance, and education are used to accomplish a putative greater good. Yet working definitions of capacity and an in-depth understanding of attributes that may explain building of capacity are lacking. This paper proposes three novel definitions of capacity: Urban Forestry Program Capacity – the infrastructure an urban forestry agency, entity, municipality, non-profit organization and others have in place to support urban forest development and sustainability at a local, regional, or national scale, Urban Forest Development Capacity – the ability to incrementally improve the state of the urban forest to a higher level with a given set of infrastructure or inputs, and Urban Forest Sustainability Capacity – the level of infrastructure or inputs needed to maintain the urban forest at a given state within a given time period. Existing U&CF models and papers related to the above capacity definitions are conveyed in a framework with the three proposed models.
Key words: Building Capacity, Capacity, Planning and Management, Sustainability, Urban and Community Forestry, Urban Forestry, Urban Forestry Model
Hauer, R.J. 2006. Urban Forestry Capacity Building and Models. in. Phillips, V.D. and Tschida, R. (editors), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities, June 26–30, 2006. Global Environmental Management Education Center, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, WI. pp. 1-24
1
1
Introduction
2 3
Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) programs at local, state, national, and international
4
scales continue to evolve. Within the United States, urban forestry programs first arose at the
5
local level with state and then federal U&CF programs developing (Hauer 2005). The U&CF
6
progression is recorded over several millennia for attributes and activities common to modern
7
U&CF and has greatly developed since Jorgenson coined the phrase urban forestry in 1965 for
8
the title of a graduate course in urban vegetation management (Jorgensen 1970, Grey and
9
Deneke 1986, Miller 1997). Within the past few decades, U&CF as a profession and field of
10
study has embraced concepts of disciplinary integration, systematic planning and management,
11
and sustainability of community tree populations through a framework of environmental,
12
economic, and societal factors (Clark et al. 1997, Miller 1997, Dwyer et al. 2003, Konijnendijk
13
2003, Westphal 2003). A multidisciplinary approach (e.g., forestry, horticulture, ecology, public
14
policy, communication, landscape architecture) is an integral basis for urban forest management
15
(Grey and Deneke 1986, Bradley 1995, Miller 1997, Konijnendijk and Randrup 2004).
16 17
Several models conceptually explain the extent of urban forests, effective methods for planning
18
and management of urban forests, and also to empirically explain functional benefits from
19
U&CF approaches (Dwyer et al. 1992, McPherson et al. 1994, Clark et al. 1997, Miller 1997,
20
Dwyer et al. 2000, Dwyer et al. 2003). Sustainable urban forests are a desirable objective or
21
outcome resulting through effective and efficient U&CF programs. However, internationally
22
most local U&CF programs vary from inactivity to partial steps leading to sustainable urban
23
forests (Clark and Matheny 1998, Dwyer et al. 2003, Konijnendijk 2003, Hortscience and Aslan
2
24
Group 2004, Hauer 2005). Higher levels of government have taken it upon themselves to
25
increase the capacity in more local U&CF programs and ideally foster sustainable local urban
26
forestry programs.
27 28
Even though the use of building capacity, developing capacity, improving capacity, and other
29
similar phrases suggest a desired end result or outcome within the U&CF profession, capacity
30
lacks definition. A standard dictionary definition of the ability to perform or produce (i.e.,
31
capability) is presumably what is meant by capacity statements developed and used to date
32
within U&CF (AHD 2000). However, a dictionary definition only serves as a rudimentary
33
example for urban forestry capacity. To advance the capacity concept, this paper defines three
34
novel models of urban forestry and urban forest capacity: 1) Urban Forestry Program Capacity,
35
2) Urban Forest Development Capacity, and 3) Urban Forest Sustainability Capacity. A review
36
of existing capacity building literature, urban forestry papers that are related to the proposed
37
capacity models U&CF herein, and existing U&CF models are used to exhibit current thought
38
and how the three proposed U&CF capacity models fit within this context.
39 40
Background
41 42
The Capacity Concept and Urban and Community Forestry
43 44
Increased ability or capacity to carry out local U&CF programs within the United States
45
coincides with increased financial and technical assistance from state and federal U&CF
46
programs over the past several decades (Andresen 1978, Casey and Miller 1988, Johnston 1996,
3
47
Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004, Hauer 2005). These support mechanisms assist
48
communities to overcome limitations and barriers for developing systematic U&CF approaches,
49
fostering tree planting, educating staff, developing enabling mechanisms, increasing local
50
financial inputs, engaging citizenry, managing exotic invasive plants and pest issues, and others
51
(Casey and Miller 1988, Miller 1997, Schroeder et al. 2003). A regularly stated outcome is for
52
an assistance seeking community or local entity to become self-sufficient through a developed
53
ability or capacity. Program capacity, building program capacity, program capacity grants,
54
developing capacity, and other similar phrases have been used to suggest the overall intent
55
nationally of improved U&CF programs at state and local levels. Several state agencies or
56
entities in the United States (e.g., Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
57
Mississippi, Washington, and Wisconsin) specifically state this position within their program.
58 59
At a federal level, the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA-FS) has
60
developed strategic goals or outcomes since the mid 1990s to “increase the capacity of state
61
forestry agencies, local governments, and the private sector to create and implement local
62
programs that will sustain and improve urban and community natural resources” and further
63
increase capacity within the agency (USDA-FS 1996, USDA-FS 2002a, USDA-FS 2002b). A
64
base allocation of $150,000 (adjusted upward based on state characteristics and USDA-FS
65
regional area) is provided to state U&CF programs for a minimum capacity to build local
66
capacity (U.S. House of Representatives 2004). The U&CF program within the Northeast region
67
of the USDA-FS set a strategic priority for the 2000 to 2004 timeframe to enhance organizational
68
capacity through improving capacity to address emerging issues, opportunities and incidents and
69
to also strengthen state and local U&CF programs (USDA-FS undated). State and Private
4
70
Forestry within the Northeast region of the USDA-FS during the 2004 to 2008 strategic plan
71
period and Cooperative Forestry within the FY 2002 to 2007 strategic plan period continues this,
72
through the management strategy to help states build and maintain capacity to deliver State and
73
Private Forestry programs and solve their own problems (USDA-FS 2002c, USDA-FS 2003).
74
The federally funded National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council as expressed
75
through their vision statement (“seeks to generate resolve, support, and capacity in all of the
76
nation’s communities to ensure safe, sustainable, and healthy urban forests within human-
77
dominated ecosystems”) lists capacity as an important organizational function (NUCFAC 1998).
78
Finally, the U.S. House of Representatives (2004) reports that capacity building is an important
79
and measurable performance indicator of the national USDA-FS U&CF program.
80 81
The concept of building capacity within U&CF programs is not unique to the United States and
82
is also expressed internationally as a valid instrument of change. The Government of Swaziland
83
(2002) forest plan has a policy on Development of Management Capability and Capacity within
84
urban forestry programs. Wherein it is stated – “There is a need to strengthen the management
85
capacity of local urban and peri-urban authorities with respect to urban forestry. The Ministry
86
responsible for forestry should provide technical advice and co-ordinate urban forestry activities
87
and management amongst stakeholders.” The policy is resultant from the belief that “Urban
88
forestry can provide a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits to all inhabitants.
89
However, there is currently a lack of integrated planning, and local authorities in urban areas
90
only have limited capacity to deal with the urban forestry issue and its implications.”
91
Kuchelmeister (1998) related the importance of capacity building with emergent urban greening
92
projects in developing countries. Documentation and dissemination of urban forestry
5
93
experiences through technical, logistical, and infrastructure elements are important for capacity
94
building and developing sustained urban forestry efforts. Konijnendijk et al. (2004) suggest
95
institutional capacity is especially important with U&CF policy development. Thus, a need to
96
define terms to advance the capacity paradigm within the U&CF profession exists
97
internationally.
98 99
Urban Forest and Forestry Capacity Models
100 101
A formal definition of capacity and building capacity within the urban forestry literature is
102
lacking. Standard dictionary definitions provide an initial basis of definition and identify Ability
103
as conveying a dynamic quality of being able to do something and Capacity as synonymous with
104
ability and is measurable. Urban forests are dynamic systems that change over time in
105
association with people who exert tremendous influence on the urban forest ecosystems. Urban
106
forestry programs vary in approaches to manage the urban forest and they can be examined for
107
effects on the urban forest (Figure 1). Models with indicators or criterion that specify current
108
conditions and predict future changes with infrastructure adjustments are needed. From these
109
needs three novel definitions of urban forestry and urban forest capacity models are presented
110
below:
111
Urban Forestry Program Capacity – the infrastructure an urban forestry agency, entity,
112
municipality, non-profit organization and others have in place to support urban forest
113
development and sustainability at a local, regional, or national scale,
114
Urban Forest Development Capacity – the ability to incrementally improve the state of
115
the urban forest to a higher level with a given set of infrastructure or inputs, and
6
116
Urban Forest Sustainability Capacity – the level of infrastructure or inputs needed to
117
maintain the urban forest at a given state within a given time period.
118
These definitions were initially derived based on an understanding of urban forest dynamics,
119
management of the urban forest through urban forestry, and were independent of existing
120
definitions in other areas (Table 1).
121 122
These capacity models are integral for the planning and management (i.e., urban forestry) of the
123
resource (i.e., urban forest). They also fit within the four part urban forest planning process
124
presented by Miller (1997) that asks what do we have (urban forest program capacity), what do
125
we want (urban forest development capacity and urban forest sustainability capacity), how do we
126
get what we want, (implementation of goals and objectives through capacity models), and
127
feedback (evaluation of outcomes and learning from outcome indicators to adaptively make
128
change).
129 130
Urban Forestry Program Capacity
131 132
Urban forestry program capacity, while not formally defined in the past, has nonetheless been
133
implemented at international, national, state, and local levels. Consistent with Miller (1997), this
134
is simply what do we have. Within the United States, national assessments of the urban forest
135
resource and urban forestry programs since the 1970s depict the state of the urban forest and
136
urban forestry at a given time (Kielbaso et al. 1982, Casey and Miller 1988, Kielbaso 1990,
137
Tschantz and Sacamano 1994, Dwyer et al. 2000, Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004, Hauer
138
2005). Urban forestry program capacity provides an important baseline level of infrastructure in
7
139
place over time to evaluate change, but does not necessarily provide information that depicts
140
outcomes from infrastructure inputs. For example, this can be used to identify different
141
approaches applied to manage the urban forest resource within sectors (i.e., public, private, or
142
combination), regional differences or similarities, relationship to socioeconomic parameters,
143
staffing levels, monetary investments, and tree population dynamics (e.g., trees planted,
144
maintained, and removed; species and genetic diversity; age class and diameter distribution).
145 146
In addition to national assessments, researchers and state urban forestry programs periodically
147
develop composite assessments of local urban forestry infrastructure (Thompson and Ahern
148
2000, Elmendorf et al. 2003, Schroeder et al. 2003). In addition, local level inventories of the
149
urban forest and resources to manage the urban forest resource are contained within this capacity
150
model and are a routine practice. Assessments of urban forest resources are more common at the
151
local than state or federal levels (Konijnendijk and Randrup 2004, Konijnendijk et al. 2004).
152
Assessments also describing historical development of urban forestry programs and research
153
programs exist (Johnston 1996, Dwyer et al. 2002, Konijnendijk 2003). Finally, periodically in
154
both the United States and Europe the status of urban forestry research, gaps in research, and
155
priority areas to direct research in the near future are formulated (Konijnendijk et al. 2000,
156
Dwyer et al. 2002, Konijnendijk 2003). Urban forestry program capacity represents the potential
157
for developing or sustaining the urban forest.
158 159
Urban Forest Development Capacity
160
8
161
Urban forest development capacity as defined is used to understand the relationships between
162
infrastructure and change in the urban forest (Figure 1). Simply put, infrastructure is the base or
163
foundation of inputs into management of the urban forest resource. Infrastructure comprises
164
many dimensions including community members, program staff, financial resources, community
165
attitudes, participatory input, the urban forest and greening resource, biophysical factors, and
166
enabling policy mechanisms. Many of these are also quantified under the urban forestry
167
program capacity model.
168 169
Integrated in Miller’s (1997) planning model, a key difference is where urban forestry program
170
capacity tells us what we have, the urban forest development capacity model supports
171
understanding how best to achieve what do we want. For example, community consensus within
172
a geographical area is useful to drive public policy decisions (Elmendorf and Luloff 2001). If a
173
goal is developed to increase the urban forest canopy by 10% in a downtown setting, what means
174
will best achieve this goal (Table 2)? This requires identifying barriers to achieving the goal(s)
175
in as much as altering inputs through either additions or subtractions from an initial state for
176
urban forest development through a 10% increase in canopy cover. It is also possible that the
177
urban forest system is at a level that the community values and a goal of sustaining this level
178
could become public policy. Alternatively, a community could desire a level of vegetation that
179
is not possible due to ecological constraints with growing the urban forest resource.
180 181
Urban forest development capacity models the influence of inputs on increasing the state of the
182
urban forest (Figure 1). Ultimately the measurable end product or output is the urban forest
183
resource, but the model does not constrain itself at just the local level. For example, the effect
9
184
that state U&CF programs have upon local urban U&CF programs necessitates quantifying what
185
capacity building mechanism(s) were used, selecting and measuring response variable(s), and
186
determining and implementing an appropriate analysis. Likewise, similar methods could be used
187
to investigate the relationship between the USDA-FS U&CF program and enhanced state urban
188
forestry programs. Such a study was recently undertaken by Hauer (2005, 2006) who
189
investigated the effects of various state approaches and federal support with building state U&CF
190
capacity and composite effects on local urban forestry activity.
191 192
Urban Forest Sustainability Capacity
193 194
Urban forest sustainability capacity is dynamic, complex, and a function of economic, ecologic,
195
and sociological attributes unique to a regional area (Clark et al. 1997, Dwyer et al. 2003,
196
Konijnendijk et al. 2004). As much as urban forest development capacity described the concept
197
of inputs that affect the urban forest system, urban forest sustainability capacity defines the
198
infrastructure for maintaining the urban forest at a specified state given economic, ecological,
199
and societal constraints. This model is integrated within Miller’s (1997) what do we want
200
planning process. With this, a set of future goals are described based on community consensus
201
and a process put in place to achieve social preferences.
202 203
Societal preference is collectively what a community desires of an urban forest (Figure 2).
204
Potential ways to describe social preference are possible by understanding relationships between
205
and among attributes of the urban forest and people responses to these attributes (Payne 1973,
206
Schroeder and Green 1985, Richards 1993, Grahn and Stigsdotter 2003, Trakolis 2003, Chiesura
10
207
2004). The density and carrying capacity of urban vegetation is related to social preference. It is
208
possible that the maximum potential of the urban forest is neither preferred nor attainable over
209
extended time periods as economic and ecological constraints further determine if social
210
preference is attainable. Economic constraints limit achieving societal goals through limited
211
resources and the allocation of these to achieve the socially desired urban forest resource.
212
Elected decision makers, and program managers collectively through allocation decisions create
213
resource conditions that may change or differ over time and among communities. Without an
214
increase in the maximum infrastructure a community is willing to add as inputs, and if social
215
preference is not being met, then an increase in efficiency is one potential way to reach them.
216
For example, a local urban forestry program may be 60% efficient with allocating inputs, yet at
217
this level it is not possible to achieve social preference though the economic constraints of two
218
few inputs given the level of inefficiency. From Figure 2, an increase in efficiency to at least
219
70% would allow reaching social preference level one (e.g., SP1) with the same level of inputs.
220
A community may also desire an urban forest that is not possible due to ecosystem constraints
221
that impose a maximum attainable urban forest (e.g., SP3 from Figure 2). The resource can be
222
sustained, but at a lower level than that socially preferred. An example from rural forest
223
management is site index that reflects the potential productivity of a site and it is correlated with
224
the annual sustained yield from a forest stand. Within urban areas, buildings, net impervious
225
area, land use patterns, soils, hydrology, disturbance, and other factors impose urban ecology
226
constraints on the urban forest. Trakolis (2003) uses carrying capacity or the ability of the
227
environment to sustain a desired quality of life over the long term to describe sustainable urban
228
forests. This is analogous to the Urban Forest Sustainability Capacity model.
229
11
230
Vegetation is a basic structural component of the urban forest and it is the measurable
231
component serving as an indicator of sustainability. McPherson (1989) suggests species
232
diversity, age diversity, tree condition (i.e., health), and suitability (i.e., silvical requirements and
233
site condition matching) are indicators of urban forest sustainability. Canopy cover can further
234
serve as a benchmark for sustainability when adjusted for climate appropriateness and integrated
235
within an economic accounting framework to quantify benefits and costs (Nowak et al. 1996). In
236
as much as the urban forest has an ecological carry capacity, a social framework also entails a
237
landscape or visual carrying capacity (Trakolis 2003). This expresses the ability of vegetation to
238
physically buffer recreational use of a site.
239 240
Discussion and Conclusion
241 242
Capacity and building capacity concepts are frequently used, yet they lack definition within the
243
urban forestry profession. The three proposed urban forest and forestry capacity models within
244
this paper put forward formal definitions of urban forestry and urban forest capacity. They serve
245
to assess where urban forestry efforts compare to an urban forest vision and define a structure to
246
quantify factors related to urban forest development and sustainability. Using Miller’s (1997)
247
model for comparison, an underlying understanding of what we have and what we want leads to
248
what we get. Evaluation of what we get serves to evaluate if we are moving towards meeting,
249
sustaining, or moving away from the end-point of the goal.
250 251
The Urban Forestry Program Capacity model explains the inherent infrastructure an entity has
252
available for planning and managing the urban forest. It does not describe the use of this
12
253
capacity or quantify outputs (e.g., through economic terms of efficiency or effectiveness). Past
254
assessments of urban forestry and urban forests at local, state, and national levels are consistent
255
with urban forestry program capacity (Kielbaso et al. 1982, Kielbaso 1990, Casey and Miller
256
1988, Tschantz and Sacamano 1994, Dwyer et al. 2000, Elmendorf et al. 2003, Schroeder et al.
257
2003, Hortscience and Aslan Group 2004, Hauer 2005). These efforts document the potential
258
capacity to manage the tree resource. The state of the urban forest resource, whether it is stable,
259
increasing, or decreasing from a state at a given time, necessitates the inclusion of the Urban
260
Forest Development Capacity and Urban Forest Sustainability Capacity models into planning
261
and management. Understanding the outcome of infrastructure inputs leads to a greater ability to
262
predict the future resource base. Current approaches typically use past events to predict where
263
urban forest capacity was, is, and proceeding towards. Repeated measurements from an urban
264
forest population provide data to identify and verify trends in the urban forest and develop causal
265
relationships.
266 267
The literature widely supports that inputs into an urban forestry program produces identifiable
268
and tangible benefits or outputs (Miller 1997, McPherson 2003). The Urban Forest
269
Development Capacity model conceptually describes how various infrastructure inputs result in
270
subsequent outputs and various alterations in inputs affect development of the urban forest.
271
These outputs are expressible through different ways such as:
272
increased urban forestry activity at the local level,
273
urban tree populations attributes (diameter/age distributions, species diversity, canopy
274
coverage, urban forest heath),
13
275
276 277
technical literacy of practitioners following training (changes in literacy and application of knowledge),
278
expenditure of financial resources and outputs (dollars invested, effectiveness with reaching goals, efficiency of activities),
279
citizen participation processes (tree board and community representativeness), and
280
human well-being (expressed through physiological and psychological parameters).
281
Urban forest sustainability capacity also follows an infrastructure input leading to output premise
282
with a mix of inputs that achieve an intended vision or goal for the urban forest resource. A
283
maximum attainable sustainability capacity is possible for a given level of infrastructure inputs;
284
however, a lower or existing sustainability capacity occurs through inefficiencies with input
285
allocation. Reaching a potential higher state can occur through greater inputs or through
286
increased efficiency with allocation of inputs.
287 288
Sustainability and its connotation is far from complete with much discussion, confusion, and
289
dissent as to what it means (Costanza and Patten 1995, Antrop 2005, Newton and Freyfogle
290
2005). Economic, social, and ecological (or environmental) aspects are often considered integral
291
to sustainable decision making. Urban forest sustainability capacity is consistent with the
292
sustainability premise that defines sustainability within an area to be sustained (i.e., system,
293
subsystem), characteristics to be sustained, a time-frame to place sustainability within, and
294
measurement protocols to assess whether a system has been sustained (Costanza and Patten
295
1995, Antrop 2005). The urban forest exists within geographically definable boundaries,
296
management plans typically are time frame dependent, people select characteristics to be
297
sustained, and assessment systems are used to assess characteristics selected to be sustained. In
14
298
the context of the urban forest, sustainability follows how the urban forest resource changes over
299
time. Assessment of the urban forest requires measurements across boundaries of ownership
300
(McPherson et al. 1994). It needs an accounting for attrition, natural regeneration, and net
301
difference required for artificial planting (Clark et al. 1997). Finally, defining socially preferred
302
stocking levels (e.g., canopy cover, trees per unit area) and an accounting of net returns (or
303
deficits) on investments with these urban forestry inputs provide a basis to evaluate marginal
304
costs of benefits relative to marginal returns on investments for incremental changes to the forest
305
population and management intensiveness (Miller and Sylvester 1981, Miller and Marano 1986,
306
Miller 1997).
307 308
In summary, this paper proposes three novel definitions of capacity for the urban forest and
309
urban forestry. The primary objective was to define and develop working methodology to
310
support capacity and building capacity within the urban forestry sector. Urban Forestry Program
311
Capacity serves to define what we have through the infrastructure an urban forestry agency,
312
entity, municipality, non-profit organization and others have in place to support urban forest
313
development and maintenance at a local, regional, or national scale. Development and
314
sustainability of the urban forest resource follow the premise of what do we want. Urban Forest
315
Development Capacity facilitates a framework to measure and analyze the ability to
316
incrementally improve the state of the urban forest to a higher level with a given set of
317
infrastructure or inputs. Urban Forest Sustainability Capacity supports the creation of a steady
318
flow of urban forest benefits through determination of the level of infrastructure or inputs needed
319
to maintain the urban forest at a given state, within a given time period, and is dependent upon
320
societal preferences.
15
Literature Cited AHD (2000) The American heritage dictionary of the English language. 4th Edition Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts. 2074 pp. Alaerts GJ (1999) Capacity building as knowledge management: purpose, definition and instruments. In: Water sector building: concepts and instruments (Eds. Alaerts GJ, Hartvelt, FJA & Patorni, FM): 49-84. Proceedings of the second UNDP symposium on water sector capacity building / DELFT / 1996. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands Andresen JW (1978) Urban forestry today. In: Proceedings of the California Symposium on Urban Forestry, May 19 & 20, 1978 (Eds. McBride, J & Beatty, R): 3-8. Berkeley, CA. Antrop, M (2005) Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landscape and Urban Planning. In press Bradley GA (1995) Urban forest landscapes: integrating multi-disciplinary perspectives. In: Urban forest landscapes: integrating multi-disciplinary perspectives. (Ed. Bradley, GA): 1-11. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Casey CJ and Miller RW (1988) State government involvement in community forestry: a survey. Journal of Arboriculture 14: 141-144 Chiesura, A (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning. 68: 129-138 Clark JR & Matheny NP (1998) A model of urban forest sustainability: application to cities in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 24: 112-120 Clark JR, Matheny NP, Cross G, & Wake V (1997) A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture 23: 17-30 Costanza R & Patten BC (1995) Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecological Economics 15: 193-196 Dwyer JF, McPherson EG, Schroeder HW, & Rowntree RA (1992) Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18: 227-234 Dwyer JF, Nowak DJ, & Noble MH (2003) Sustaining urban forests. Journal of Arboriculture 29:49-55 Dwyer JF, Nowak DJ, Noble MH, & Sisinni SS (2000) Connecting people with ecosystems in the 21st century: an assessment of our nation’s urban forests. General Technical Report, PNWGTR-490. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 483 pp.
16
Dwyer JF, Nowak DJ, & Watson GW (2002) Future directions for urban forestry research in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 28: 231-236 Elmendorf WF, Cotrone VJ, & Mullen JT (2003) Trends in urban forestry practices, programs, and sustainability: contrasting a Pennsylvania, U.S., study. Journal of Arboriculture 29: 237-248 Elmendorf WF & Luloff AE (2001) Using qualitative data collection methods when planning for community forests. Journal of Arboriculture 27: 139-151 Franks T (1999) Capacity building and institutional development: reflections on water. Public Administration and Development 19: 51-61 Grahn, P & Stigsdotter UA (2003) Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forests and Urban Greening 2: 1-18 Government of Swaziland (2002) The national forest policy, 2002, Section 2.3 Urban Forestry http://www.ecs.co.sz/forest_policy/forest_policy/fp_chapter2_3.htm (accessed 10/11/2006) Grey GW & Deneke FJ (1986) Urban forestry. 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons. New York. 299 pp. Grindle MS & Hilderbrand ME (1995) Building sustainable capacity in the public sector: what can be done? Public Administration and Development 15: 441-63 Hamdy A, Abu-Zeid M, & Lacirignola C (1998) Institutional capacity building for water sector development. Water International 23: 126-133 Hauer RJ (2005) Urban Forestry and Urban Forest Capacity: Defining Capacity and Models of Capacity Building. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota. 232 pp. http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/faculty/hauer/Files/Hauer%20Dissertation.pdf (accessed 10/11/2006) Hauer, R.J (2006) Development of Local Urban Forestry Programs: Relationships with Federal and State Urban & Community Forestry Programs. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (Submitted) Honadle BW (1986) Defining and doing capacity building: perspectives and experiences. In: Perspectives on management capacity building (Eds. Honadle BW & Howitt AM): 9-26. State University of New York Press. Albany, New York Horton D, Alexaki A, Bennett-Lartey S, Noële Brice K, Campilan D, Carden F, de Souza Silva J, Thanh Duong L, Khadar I, Maestrey Boza A, Kayes Muniruzzaman I, Perez J, Somarriba Chang M, Vernooy R, & Watts J (2003) Evaluating capacity development: experiences from research and development organizations around the world. International Service for National Agricultural Research. The Hauge, The Netherlands. 170 pp. http://www.isnar.cgiar.org/publications/ecdbook.htm#download2 (accessed 10/11/2006)
17
Hortscience & The Aslan Group (2004) Assessment of the USDA Forest Service Urban & Community Forestry Program. Prepared for the National Urban & Community Forestry Advisory Council, USDA Forest Service. Hortscience, Pleasanton, California 47 pp. with Appendixes http://www.treelink.org/linx/?navSubCatRef=58 (accessed 10/11/2006) Johnston M (1996) A brief history of urban forestry in the United States. Arboricultural Journal 20: 257-278 Jorgensen E (1970) Urban forestry in Canada. In: Proceedings of the 46th International Shade Tree Conference: 43a-51a. International Society of Arboriculture, Urbana, Illinois Kielbaso JJ (1990) Trends and issues in city forests. Journal of Arboriculture 16: 69-76 Kielbaso J, Haston G, & Pawl D (1982) Municipal tree management in the U.S.-1980. Journal of Arboriculture 8: 253-257 Konijnendijk CC (2003) A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 5: 173-186 Konijnendijk, CC & Randrup TB (2004) Urban forestry. In: Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences (Eds. Burley, J, Evans J, & Youngquist JA): 471-478. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam Konijnendijk CC, Randrup TB, & Nilsson K (2000) Urban forestry research in Europe: an overview. Journal of Arboriculture 26: 152-161 Konijnendijk CC, Sadio S, Randrup TB, & Schipperijn J (2004) Urban and peri-urban forestry in a development context – strategy and implementation. Journal of Arboriculture 30: 269-276 Kuchelmeister G (1998) Urban green for local needs – improving quality of life through multipurpose urban forestry in developing countries. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities, 4-6 March 1998, Singapore, Volume 1: 181-191. Kuo FE (2003) The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture 29: 148-155 McPherson EG (1998) Structure and sustainability of Sacramento’s urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 24: 174-190 McPherson EG (2003) Urban forestry the final frontier? Journal of Forestry 101(3): 20-25 McPherson EG, Nowak DJ, & Rowntree RA (1994) Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago urban forest climate project. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NE-186. Radnor, Pennsylvania. 201 pp.
18
McPherson EG & Rowntree RA (1989) Using structural measures to compare twenty-two U.S. Street Tree Populations. Landscape Journal 8: 13-23 Miller RW (1997) Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. 2nd edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 502 pp. Miller RW & Marano MS (1984) URFOR/SIMULATION an urban forest management computer simulation. Journal of Arboriculture 10: 55-63 Miller RW & Sylvester WA (1981) An economic evaluation of the pruning cycle. Journal of Arboriculture 7: 109-112 Newton JL & Freyfogle ET (2005) Sustainability: a dissent. Conservation Biology 19: 23-32 Nowak DJ, Crane DE, & Dwyer JF (2002) Compensatory value of urban trees in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 28: 194-199 Nowak DJ, Rowntree RA, McPherson EG, Sisinni SM, Kerkmann ER, & Stevens JC (1996) Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Landscape and Urban Planning 36: 49-57 NUCFAC (1998) Action plan. The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council. Sugarloaf, CA. http://www.treelink.org/nucfac/nf98actn.htm (accessed 10/11/2006) Payne BR (1973) The twenty-nine tree home improvement plan. Natural History 82(9): 74-75 Pirie RL, de Löe RC, & Kreutzwiser R (2004) Drought planning and water allocation: an assessment of local capacity. Journal of Environmental Management 73: 25-38 Richards NA (1993) Optimum stocking of urban trees. Journal of Arboriculture 18: 64-68 Schroeder HW & Green TL (1985) Public preference for tree density in municipal parks. Journal of Arboriculture 11: 272-277 Schroeder HW, Green TL, & Howe TJ (2003) Community tree programs in Illinois, U.S.: a statewide survey and assessment. Journal of Arboriculture 29: 218-225 Springgate L & Hoestery R (1995) Bellevue, Washington: managing the urban forest for multiple benefits. In: Urban forest landscapes: integrating multidisciplinary perspectives (Ed. Bradley GA): 195-200. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington Thompson RP & Ahern JJ (2000) The state of urban and community forestry in California: status in 1997 and trends since 1988. Technical Report Number 9. Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute, California Polytechnic State University. San Luis Obispo, California. 48 pp. Trakolis D (2003) Carrying capacity – an old concept: significance for the management of urban forest resources. Mediterranean Journal of Economics, Agriculture and Environment 2(3): 58-64
19
Tschantz BA & Sacamano PL (1994) Municipal tree management in the United States. Davey Tree Expert Company, Kent, Ohio. 58 pp. UNDP (1998) Capacity assessment and development: in a systems and strategic management context. Technical Advisory Paper Number 3. Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Development Policy, United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY. 110 pp. http://magnet.undp.org/docs/cap/CAPTECH3.htm (accessed 10/11/2006) USDA-FS (1996) Urban and community forestry on course into the future, vital communities through healthy ecosystem - a strategic direction. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, DC. 12 pp. U.S. House of Representatives (2004) A report to the committee on appropriations U.S. House of Representatives on the U.S. Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program. Surveys and Investigations Staff, March 2004. http://www.treelink.org/linx/?navSubCatRef=58 (accessed 10/11/2006) USDA-FS (1996) Urban and community forestry on course into the future, vital communities through healthy ecosystem - a strategic direction. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, DC. 12 pp. USDA-FS (2002a) Strengthening forest service and state leadership in the care of urban and community forest resources. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/ucf/action_plan.htm (accessed 10/11/2006) USDA-FS (2002b) Urban and community forestry technology transfer: national strategy for 2002-2005. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. FS-722. Washington, D.C. 18 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/ucf/publications/index.shtml (accessed 10/11/2006) USDA-FS (2002c) Cooperative forestry strategic plan FY 2002 – 2007. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/library/CF_Strategic_Plan.pdf (accessed 10/11/2006) USDA-FS (2003) Northeastern area state and private forestry Strategic Plan FY 2004 to FY 2008. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. USDA-FS (Undated) Strategic plan. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/urban/htm/ucf_strategicplan.htm (accessed 10/11/2006) Westphal LM (2003) Urban greening and social benefits: a study of empowerment outcomes. Journal of Arboriculture 29: 137-147
20
.
Effect on State Capacity Building
Effect on Local Capacity Building
Effect on the Urban Forest
Federal U&CF Program Capacity
State U&CF Program Capacity
Local U&CF Program Capacity
Potential Infrastructure Inputs:
Potential Infrastructure Inputs:
Potential Infrastructure Inputs:
Financial Assistance Technical Assistance Technology Transfer Demonstration Projects Research National Policy Staffing Levels Advisory Council Funding Levels Funding Sources
State Coordinator Partnership/Volunteer Coordination Staffing Levels Staffing Framework Financial Assistance Technical Assistance Technology Transfer Research Demonstration Projects Advisory Council Funding Levels Funding Sources Strategic Plan
City Forester Arborists/Staff Citizen Advisory Resource Assessment Management Plan Tree Supply Tree Maintenance Funding Levels Funding Sources Education Technical Assistance Private Sector Legal Structure Demonstration Projects
Figure 1. Relationships among local, state, and federal U&CF programs, effect on urban forestry capacity at a lower level, and ultimately effect on the urban forest
21
Table 1. Select definitions of capacity, capacity building, and affiliated source. Definition
Source
Capacity is the ability to perform appropriate tasks effectively, efficiently, and sustainably.
Grindle and Hilderbrand 1995
Capacity building refers to improvements in the ability of public sector organizations, either singly or in cooperation with other organizations, to perform appropriate tasks. Capacity is the ability of individuals and organizations to perform effectively, efficiently, and in a sustainable manner.
Horton et al. 2003
Capacity development is an ongoing process by which individuals, groups, organizations, and societies increase their abilities to perform core functions, solve problems, define and achieve objectives, and understand and deal with their development needs in a broad context and sustainable manner. The ability of an organization to achieve its objectives, for instance, to deliver programs and services.
Pirie et al. 2004
Capacity is defined by the ability to do the following: (1) anticipate change, (2) make informed decisions about policy, (3) develop programs to implement policies, (4) attract and absorb resources, (6) manage resources, and (7) evaluate performance to guide future actions.
Honadle 1986
Capacity is defined as the ability of individuals and organizations or organizational units to perform functions effectively, efficiently and sustainably. Capacity is the power of something (a system, an organisation, a person) to perform or to produce. Capability, a closely allied term, can be seen as synonymous with capacity, or simply as undeveloped or unused capacity.
UNDP 1998
Alaerts 1999 Capacity building is the process to provide individuals, organizations and the other relevant institutions with the capacities that allow them to perform in such a way that the sector as an aggregate can perform optimally, now as well as in the future. Capacity building helps initiating and supports institutional strengthening and reform. It is the process of implementing institutional development. The capacity building process (i) assists in the diagnosis of sector performance and institutional strength and weakness; (ii) articulates and prioritizes the required capacities that need to be imparted to the individuals and institutions (e.g., through capacity building needs assessments); and (iii) implements the support by using a variety of tools and instruments. Capacities are the knowledge, skills and other faculties, in individuals or embedded in procedures and rules, inside and around sector organizations and institutions. Capacity building is the process of gaining technical, managerial and institutional Hamdy et al. 1998 knowledge and insight in relation to the socio-economic structure, cultural standards and values of the society concerned. Capacity refers to the overall ability of the individual or group to actually Franks 1999 perform the responsibilities. It depends not only on the capabilities of the people but also on the overall size of the tasks, the resources which are needed to perform them, and the framework within which they are discharged.
22
Table 2. Example identification of barriers and possible alterations to achieve the goal of increasing urban forest canopy coverage in a downtown setting by 10%. Barriers
Alterations
Social: Business community members like trees but do not support greater tree canopy because of perceived or real costs involved with trees in downtown business district
Develop an understanding why the business does not want more trees through participatory tools (e.g., focus group, survey, or other tool) and further include business community in the process through participatory approaches
Ecological: Variable restrictions on potential tree planting sites and existing trees exist within the below ground soil resource with 47% within 3x3x3 sidewalk cut outs, 24% within 4’ wide planting strips, and 29% with no restrictions to support growing trees to 16” diameter
Create greater soil volume to support rooting environment to support growth of greater tree size in diameter and canopy dimensions through retrofit of existing sites or protection/creation of existing sites when new development or redevelopment occurs
Economic: Public resources are scare and competing interests and proposals are competing for a finite pool of resources that can be accounted for through economic means
Determine costs to retrofit, create, or protect a soil resource for a goal tree size (i.e., 1,000 ft3 = 16” diameter tree with 640 ft2 of canopy) and project these on a per unit canopy cover basis
23
Social Preferences (Dotted Lines) H
Infra
Ecological Potential of Urban Forest
max
3
Not Attainable
2
Maximum Attainable
1
Attainable max
I100
I80
I60
I40
1) Infra is the maximum infrastructure inputs a community is willing to invest in the urban forest. 2) I100 = 100% efficiency, I80 = 80% efficiency, etc. 3) In figure, I70 or greater infrastructure allocation efficiency is required to reach SP1, maximum urban forest attainability (SP2) ~ reached with I100 but not lower levels.
Baseline Urban Forest Level From Natural Regeneration
80%
Infrastructure Inputs (Economic)
Figure 2. A conceptual model of three social preference levels on the urban forest, their potential attainability, and the effects of resource allocation efficiency on meeting social preferences.
24
