Trends in urban forestry practices, programs, and sustainability: Contrasting a pennsylvania, U.S., study

43Citations
Citations of this article
66Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Previous studies provided criteria and guidelines both for measuring and increasing the sustainability of urban forests. These studies have also provided evidence that difficulties existed in completing important practices (e.g., inventories, street tree ordinances, management plans), which contribute to both better urban forest programs and sustainability. In a recent study of both small town tree commissions and programs in northeastern Pennsylvania U.S., there was a marked difference between tree commission members' attitudes toward urban forestry practices and the successful completion of them. Focus groups composed of tree commission members were used to gather information on why these differences existed. Our northeastern Pennsylvania study provided evidence that local tree commissions had difficulties completing urban forestry practices for a number of reasons, including a lack of volunteer time and a need for additional support and assistance. The study also showed that small town tree commissioners viewed and defined urban forest sustainability much more practically than has been expressed in the extant literature. Questions continue about how well local urban forestry practices support sustainable urban forest programs and resources.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Elmendorf, W. F., Cotrone, V. J., & Mullen, J. T. (2003). Trends in urban forestry practices, programs, and sustainability: Contrasting a pennsylvania, U.S., study. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(4), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2003.028

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free