[CANUFNET] tree canopy target

Wed Jun 22 12:47:05 EDT 2016

Hello Everyone,

This is a very interesting debate and I thought I would join. I echo a lot
of the sentiments so far, but I would also argue that this is a matter of
spatial scale and that there are additional limitations with city-wide
canopy cover targets.

Achievable canopy targets are so variable and scale-dependent across a
given city that 1) tree planting initiatives can often be directed towards
‘low-hanging fruit’ like highway rights of way that have less value as
public space, and 2) neighbourhoods with higher densities and/or less
public space can get left by the wayside.

For Halifax’s urban forest master plan, we adopted neighbourhood-based
canopy cover targets (among other objectives) ranging from 12% to 70% based
on analysis of local conditions with the hopes of establishing more
relevant and attainable goals. Here’s the plan’s website:
https://www.halifax.ca/property/UFMP/

- James

-----

James Steenberg, PhD

Postdoctoral Researcher

School of Urban and Regional Planning

Ryerson University

Email: james.steenberg at ryerson.ca

Web: www.james-steenberg.com

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Charlotte Young <
charlotte at envision-synergy.net> wrote:

> Greetings everyone,
>
>
>
> I was the facilitator for several workshops on Toronto’s “canopy study”
> several years ago. While I can’t comment on the decision to work towards
> 40% coverage (I suspect, as the threads have said, it was somewhat
> arbitrary), participants did identify the land uses they thought were most
> suitable for increasing coverage to get to the 40%. I recall especially
> “commercial” and “industrial” lands holding the highest potential. Have we
> made progress here? I would love to know.
>
>
>
> Charlotte Young
>
>
>
> Charlotte Young, Ph.D.; Facilitator/Graphic Recorder/Evaluator
>
> envision…SYNERGY/PICTURE your Thoughts
>
> 120 Dewhurst Blvd.
>
> Toronto ON M4J 3J6 Canada
>
> www.envision-synergy.net; www.pictureyourthoughts.com
>
> phone: 416-778-4713; fax:416-778-1956
>
> charlotte at envision-synergy.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] *On Behalf Of *Alex
> Satel
> *Sent:* June 22, 2016 10:16 AM
> *To:* 'Canadian Urban Forest Network' <canufnet at list.web.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [CANUFNET] tree canopy target
>
>
>
> Hi Alan (and all),
>
>
>
> I think the very fact that we aren’t able to jump forward with a quick
> reference to why 30% is “good” but, say, 25% isn’t, supports what Dr.
> Duinker has already said – these targets are rarely based on science or
> even high-level assessments of what is possible or reasonable.
>
>
>
> The 40% canopy cover target that’s been adopted by many communities seems
> to go back to a publication by American Forests, which set that level as
> “optimal” for US cities east of the Mississippi. I can’t dig up the
> publication as the link I had to it on AF’s website is broken. That same
> publication set lower targets for western regions (somewhere in the order
> of 20-30%, I believe). I honestly can’t recall the basis behind those
> figures.
>
>
>
> It seems that urban forest managers and decision makers have decided to
> run with targets within that range for any number of reasons, not the least
> of which is that they probably just ‘seem’ reasonable and achievable. I
> think a lot of it also has to do with what Dr. Duinker said – peer
> behaviour. Communities are constantly benchmarking against each other – it
> wouldn’t look good for community X to set a target of 24% if neighbouring
> community Y has a target of 35%, even if community X had done an exhaustive
> potential canopy cover study and found 24% to be a realistic target based
> on its potential carrying capacity. I’ve even heard of one community that
> set its target because “30 by 2030” (or was it 40 by 2040? I can’t recall)
> had a nice ring to it and was sellable.
>
>
>
> Your question again raises valid issues with these high-level canopy cover
> targets:
>
>
>
> ·         are they achievable (how much canopy can we actually cram into
> this urban area)?
>
> ·         Would they actually translate to tangible increases in benefits
> (and therefore, should we even be trying to achieve them)?
>
> ·         When we say 30% or 40%, what do we really mean (is that 30%
> averaged across the entire area, where forest stands can be 95% canopy but
> neighbourhoods where people actually live only 10%)?
>
> ·         Does focusing on increasing canopy detract resources and
> attention from other important urban forest management activities (risk
> management, protecting existing trees, etc. etc.)?
>
> ·         and on and on…
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> *Alex Satel, MFC*
>
> *ISA Certified Arborist ON-1353A*
>
> Urban Forest Innovations, Inc.
>
> 1248 Minnewaska Trail
>
> Mississauga, ON L5G 3S5
>
> P: (905) 274-1022
>
> asatel at ufis.ca
>
> urbanforestinnovations.com <http://www.urbanforestinnovations.com/>
>
> [image: UFI new logo very small]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net>] *On Behalf Of *Andres Olaya
> *Sent:* June-22-16 8:00 AM
> *To:* Canadian Urban Forest Network
> *Subject:* Re: [CANUFNET] tree canopy target
>
>
>
> Good morning colleges:
>
> I’ve found this interesting article (World Health Organization web site)
> that might give us some answers:
>
>
>
>
> http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/174012/1/9789241508537_eng.pdf?ua=1
>
>
>
> Have a great day.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Andres Olaya*
> *Forestry Information Analyst, Central Operations*
> *Parks & Open Space*
> Town of Oakville | 905-845-6601, ext.2900 | www.oakville.ca
>
> Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> http://www.oakville.ca/privacy.html
>
> *From:* CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net>] *On Behalf Of *Peter Duinker
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 2:05 PM
> *To:* Canadian Urban Forest Network
> *Subject:* Re: [CANUFNET] tree canopy target
>
>
>
> Greetings Alan:
>
>
>
> Canopy targets for a city or town are, in my view, fairly arbitrary and
> definitely not generalizable.  I hold the view that targets are never
> scientifically based because they depend on people to express preferences
> and are therefore value-based.  The target-setting exercise can be
> scientifically informed, of course.  In the case of urban-forest canopy,
> one might expect an analysis of current canopy coverage and its benefits,
> as well as a range of forecasts detailing how many more trees it would take
> to get to a specific canopy coverage, and what would be the benefit stream
> associated with each scenario of canopy coverage.  I have never seen this
> done.
>
>
>
> One could look at the question this way: what factors influence the
> setting of a canopy target?  Factors might include: (a) the current canopy,
> which is presumably lower than the target; (b) the cost, in terms of new
> trees established, to get to a specific canopy target at a particular
> future year; (c) the prospects that the cost predicted can be covered from
> the various budgets available; (d) the increase in benefits associated with
> the targeted canopy cover; and (e) what other cities and towns are doing in
> this respect.  While (a) through (d) are sensible factors, (e) is less so,
> but I’ll bet that many urban-forest strategies are based on peer behaviour
> when it comes to canopy targets.  Perhaps it boils down to this: how much
> canopy cover would we ideally want?  Probably much, much more than we have
> today.  But how much canopy cover can we realistically hope to achieve in
> the next decades?  Probably some smallish fraction of the ideal.  So let’s
> pick a number that seems achievable and gets us substantially more canopy
> than we have today.
>
>
>
> I would be most interested to know if anyone is using a more sophisticated
> approach than this.
>
>
>
> Best wishes, Peter Duinker
>
>
>
> Peter N. Duinker, PhD, P.Ag.
>
> Professor
>
> School for Resource and Environmental Studies
>
> Faculty of Management
>
> Dalhousie University
>
> 6100 University Ave.
>
> Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
>
> B3H 4R2
>
> Phone: 902-494-7100
>
> Cell: 902-229-5141
>
> Fax: 902-494-3728
>
> Email: peter.duinker at dal.ca
>
>
> http://www.dal.ca/faculty/management/sres/faculty-staff/our-faculty/peter-duinker.html
>
>
>
> *From:* CANUFNET [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net>] *On Behalf Of *Alan Kemp
> *Sent:* June 21, 2016 1:11 PM
> *To:* 'Canadian Urban Forest Network' <canufnet at list.web.net>
> *Subject:* [CANUFNET] tree canopy target
>
>
>
> The City of Nanaimo has an Urban Forest Management Strategy. In that
> Strategy we have a target of increasing our forest canopy to over 30% in
> the next decade. Of course this is difficult in the urban setting. Our
> Management and Protection of Trees Bylaw supports this document by
> requiring tree replacement plans for development, which in general terms
> works. However, I was asked why 30% or even 35%? What is the scientific
> reasoning behind that. Although I can explain all the benefits of an urban
> forest, I could not really give a good science based answer. I have looked
> through a lot of literature, but don’t seem to be able to give a reasonable
> answer.
>
>
>
> Any suggestions?
>
>
>
> *Alan Kemp*
>
> Urban Forestry Coordinator
>
> Certified Arborist, Certified Tree Risk Assessor
>
> Community Development
>
> City of Nanaimo
>
> 250 755 4460 (local 4357)
>
> alan.kemp at nanaimo.ca
>
> www.nanaimo.ca/goto/urbantrees
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20160622/5dc72b92/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3274 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20160622/5dc72b92/attachment.jpg>