Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

A Literature Review of Resilience in Urban Forestry

Emily S. Huff, Michelle L. Johnson, Lara A. Roman, Nancy F. Sonti, Clara C. Pregitzer, Lindsay K. Campbell and Heather McMillen
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2020, 46 (3) 185-196; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2020.014
Emily S. Huff
Emily S. Huff (corresponding author), Michigan State University, Department of Forestry, 480 Wilson Rd, Room 126, East Lansing, MI, USA,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Michelle L. Johnson
Michelle L. Johnson, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, NYC Urban Field Station, Bayside, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Lara A. Roman
Lara A. Roman, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Philadelphia Urban Field Station, 100 N. 20th St, Suite 205, Philadelphia, PA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Nancy F. Sonti
Nancy F. Sonti, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Baltimore Urban Field Station, Baltimore, MD, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Clara C. Pregitzer
Clara C. Pregitzer, Natural Areas Conservancy, 1234 5th Ave, New York, NY, USA, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 370 Prospect St, New Haven, CT, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Lindsay K. Campbell
Lindsay K. Campbell, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, NYC Urban Field Station, 431 Walter Reed Rd, Bayside, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Heather McMillen
Heather McMillen, State of Hawaiʿi Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Honolulu, HI, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

Urban forests provide many benefits to residents and may also improve cities’ resilience, the overall capacity to recover from anthropogenic and natural disturbances. Resilience is often considered from an ecological, social, or social-ecological perspective. In this literature review, we synthesize past studies (n = 31) to explore resilience in urban forests and green spaces and to understand how social or ecological perspectives have been considered. We found studies that combine resilience and urban forests have been increasing over time. Definitions of both resilience and urban forests are highly variable, but generally the studies increasingly focus on a social-ecological systems approach. The most common theoretical framework applied to understanding urban forests and resilience is a risk and vulnerability assessment approach. Studies were spread across geographies, with some concentration near major research stations and universities with scientists who specialize in resilience and urban green spaces. As more attention is focused on the role of green infrastructure in contributing to urban resilience, we encourage the adoption of consistent definitions, theories, and indicators.

Keywords
  • Adaptive Capacity
  • Resilience
  • Social-Ecological Systems
  • Urban Forestry
  • Vulnerability

INTRODUCTION

Listen

Resilience is an emerging policy goal for cities worldwide, as cities struggle to recover from both chronic and acute stressors. Trees and forests are critical components of the urban ecosystem, providing many benefits to residents within cities and contributing to the resilience of the larger social-ecological system. These benefits include, but are not limited to, reducing stormwater runoff, shade and cooling, and human well-being benefits derived from cultural ecosystem services such as aesthetic enjoyment, improved cognitive function, place attachment (the bonding of people to places, Altman and Low 2012), identity, and space for recreation (Roy et al. 2012). Many of these ecosystem services relate to a city’s ability to be resilient, however, some ecosystem services have only been modeled (rather than empirically measured) and much remains unknown about their value (Pataki et al. 2011).

Trees in urban settings experience distinct growing conditions due to fragmented landscapes, challenging site conditions, altered climatic conditions, and disturbance regimes (Pretzsch et al. 2017; Scharenbroch et al. 2017). In some cases, these conditions have negative effects, like compacted soils that could reduce the sustainability of the forest and reduce the potential opportunities for forests and trees to provide benefits. In other cases, the urban context can present advantages, like access to light and greater potential for increased stewardship (e.g., street trees) than would be the case in a closed-canopy forest (Hunter 2011). For urban forest managers, it is critical to strategize how to maximize ecosystem services while also addressing urban forest system vulnerabilities and ecosystem disservices (Dobbs et al. 2011; von Döhren and Haase 2015; Steenberg et al. 2017).

The literature on urban forestry and resilience is relatively small compared to the literature on urban resilience more broadly, which was found to include over 300 articles in various fields like agricultural and biological science, engineering, and social science (Meerow et al. 2016). Our broad goal was to compile and synthesize the available literature to determine: (1) the state of the current knowledge on what makes urban forests and green spaces resilient; (2) the extent to which social, ecological, and institutional perspectives are considered in urban forest and green space resilience; and (3) how theoretical frameworks are used to address resilience of urban forests and green spaces.

Resilience theory provides an opportunity to consider how to understand ecosystem services (and disservices) in relationship to system vulnerabilities. Resilience as a concept was initially identified in the field of systems science (Holling 1973), yet many theoretical developments have occurred to date that have advanced and expanded the concept. Holling defined resilience as “a measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables.” This definition of resilience identifies ideal conditions for maintaining stasis, yet current ecological theory has shifted to also considering system nonequilibrium (Suding et al. 2004; Mori 2011). Since the initial application of the term resilience to ecological systems, resilience theory also has deepened to consider resilience of what, to what (Carpenter et al. 2001), and for whom (Lebel et al. 2006), and has expanded system definitions to consider social-ecological systems (SES) (Walker et al. 2004). An SES is “an ecological system intricately linked with and affected by one or more social systems” (Anderies et al. 2004). Press and pulse dynamics is a term used to represent the interactions of continuous, or “press,” disturbances causing a permanent change in the abundance or density of particular species with “pulse” events, short-term disturbances causing an immediate change in the abundance or density of a particular species, after which the species recovers when the disturbance ceases, respectively (Bender et al. 1984). These dynamics were incorporated in the resilience literature and evolved with a social-ecological systems perspective (Smith et al. 2009; Collins et al. 2011). Given these abstract concepts and evolving definitions of resilience, qualitative analysis of attitudes and values around forest resilience has identified a communication challenge with such a large and varied set of terms, with implications for practical application whereby “resilience is a multifaceted concept with an array of potential implications” (Young et al. 2018).

Practical applications of resilience concepts in rural forestry continue to focus on resilience to pests, fire, and other ecological disturbances (Halpern 1988; Herbert et al. 1999; Churchill et al. 2013; Reyer et al. 2015; Johnstone et al. 2016). With a growing recognition of the effects of climate change on forest composition and function, applications also now consider mitigation strategies for being resistant to change and adaptive strategies for being resilient (Millar et al. 2007; Cross et al. 2012; Kemp et al. 2015) but accepting of a state change.

When focusing on urban systems, consideration of social components and processes becomes critical to understanding social mechanisms that can affect ecological processes (Berkes et al. 2000). In a review of urban resilience literature, Meerow et al. (2016) found six conceptual tensions, which included defining what is “urban.” Here, we examine how resilience has been applied in the field of urban forestry.

In urban areas, one aspect of resilience research related to urban forests has focused on the relationship between social resilience and natural resources stewardship. Social resilience has been conceptualized as “the ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social, political, and environmental change” (Adger 2000). Greening actions have been identified as a recovery response by people restoring a system to what they knew before (Tidball and Krasny 2007; Tidball et al. 2010). Indicators of social resilience related to public and green spaces across the urban-rural gradient include place attachment, social cohesion (Chan et al. 2006), social networks (Scott 1988), and knowledge exchange and diversification (Berkes and Ross 2013; McMillen et al. 2016). Some such social indicators of resilience, such as place naming (Alderman 2016), shared group narratives (Rappaport 1995), and identity, may be embedded in stewardship. The ability to recognize empirical evidence for these indicators then holds promise for supporting those activities and promoting generalized resilience (Carpenter et al. 2012) to a range of chronic presses and acute disturbances in both social and ecological contexts (McMillen et al. 2016).

Past studies examining urban ecological resilience often focus on ecological variables and processes such as invasive pests and diseases and extreme weather events. Laćan and McBride (2008) used a pest vulnerability matrix to determine how tree species diversity relates to urban forest susceptibility to disease, while McPherson and Kotow (2013) assessed a report card method to understand and measure ecological resilience in terms of size class distribution of the urban forest as well as pest vulnerability. There is a growing body of literature that provides information on tree susceptibility to extreme weather events like ice storms and hurricanes (Staudhammer et al. 2011) and the role urban forests play in mitigating the consequences of climate change and urban stressors. For example, trees can alleviate increased temperatures related to the urban heat island effect (Gago et al. 2013) and improve the livability of cities and overall landscape resilience. In some studies, the phrase ecological integrity is used to describe the role of urban forests in promoting resilience (Alberti 2010); while such a phrase can be quantified, it can hold context-specific meanings (Tierney et al. 2009). Most measures of ecological resilience acknowledge that the ability to respond is driven by intertwined institutional and community-level decisions. For example, forest resilience to a pest outbreak or disturbance event could be codependent on ecological factors like regeneration and human factors like a decision to initiate a presalvage harvest.

The ecological and social perspectives on how urban forests contribute to overall urban resilience are more often analyzed as distinct concepts. Moreover, it is only recently that the contribution of social resilience and the concept of governance have been recognized as critically important to our understanding of urban forest resilience (e.g., McMillen et al. 2016). Evidence for how urban forests are (or can be made) resilient and how trees and forests contribute to overall urban resilience are critical to bridge the concept of resilience across social and ecological disciplines. In this paper, we provide a literature review of multidisciplinary approaches to resilience to provide new insights for cities wishing to incorporate resilience metrics into planning processes and urban forestry management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Listen

Search Strategy

Articles were gathered using a combination of snowball and criterion sampling (Patton 2002), beginning with the Science Direct, Web of Science, JSTOR, Ingenta, and Google Scholar databases (Table 1) and pulling citations from papers until there were no longer relevant citations to view. We cross-referenced citations from papers initially discovered from a database to identify new studies not found via our keyword search. We specifically targeted urban forestry, arboriculture, urban planning, and geography literatures. We directly searched journals not indexed by the above databases (e.g., Cities and the Environment or CATE). We established two criteria for inclusion in our review. The first criterion was that the paper should pertain to (1) urban forests/green spaces AND (2) resilience. The second criterion for inclusion was that the study should either (1) examine the role that urban forests/green spaces play in overall resilience OR (2) examine the role that resilience plays in urban forestry and urban green space management.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Comparison of database search results listing counts of potentially relevant papers.

We searched for potential literature to include also using the terms vulnerability, tolerance, and sustainability, as these terms are often used to describe the same concept as resilience. We searched titles, abstracts, and keywords and compared those results to searching the whole text, finding that expanding to the whole text did not add relevant papers because these terms had to be central to the paper and thus always appeared in the abstract or keywords. For the purposes of this review, we define urban forests as trees and forest resources in and around urban community ecosystems (Johnston 1996; Konijnendijk et al. 2006). We define green spaces as parks, gardens, and yards (Jorgensen and Gobster 2010; Hunter and Luck 2015).

Search Results

With the exception of JSTOR, which had a different search structure and thus returned more results, most of the databases returned similar numbers of articles within the different combinations of search terms (Table 1). We used the search list from Science Direct, ensuring that articles found by other databases that were not included in Science Direct were also added to the list. This combined list included 82 potentially relevant articles, accounting for some overlap between search terms. These articles were then assessed with our criterion, resulting in 31 articles for inclusion, 11 articles for background information related to our review topic, and the remainder not used in the review. Of the final 31 coded papers (Appendix Table 1), 18 were found from a database search, 8 were found from a direct search on a journal website, and 5 were pulled from the reference lists of coded papers.

Coding Strategy

Articles were coded for basic information (e.g., authors, year published), study characteristics (e.g., theoretical framework, data analysis type), and resilience characteristics (e.g., treatment of resilience)(Appendix Table 2). We identified theoretical frameworks by emergent coding and then linking these codes to established theoretical frameworks familiar to the authors or cited in the articles reviewed. We applied Binder et al.’s (2013) broad definition of frameworks as “a set of concepts, values, and practices that constitute the way of viewing the specific reality.” We tested our coding strategy with 3 articles and 6 reviewers, with team discussions when disagreement occurred. All articles were then coded by two people independently, with similar discussions when disagreements were found. Finally, two additional coauthors checked coding on a random sample of 5 articles.

RESULTS

Listen

Basic Information

The plurality of articles were published in Urban Forestry & Urban Greening (n = 9, 29%) while the following journals had two articles each: Urban Ecosystems, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, Environmental Reviews, Sustainability, and Environmental Science & Policy. There was one article each in a wide variety of journals from Forest Policy & Economics to Atmosfera. Articles were published from 1998 to 2017, with a sharp increase in 2013 (Figure 1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Number of articles published over time on urban forests and resilience.

We found that there was little consensus in this literature on the definition of “urban forest.” Eleven of the studies (36%) did not define urban forest at all. The remaining 20 all had slightly different definitions. Some relied on definitions from the literature, such as Clark et al. (1997), Rowntree (1984), Konijnendijk et al. (2006), Kenney et al. (2011), and Pickett and Grove (2009). Most included urban trees (e.g., Duryea et al. 2007; Barona 2015), others included parks (McPherson and Kotow 2013; Campbell et al. 2016), and others considered the entire ecosystem of trees and parks (Mincey et al. 2013; Davies et al. 2017).

Study Characteristics

There is wide geographic representation in the 31 articles, with earlier articles studying Western cities in the United States and newer articles spread worldwide (Figure 2). There were several studies in Chicago, Illinois; New York, New York; and in Sacramento, California, as well as one study that examined 15 cities in the United Kingdom.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Study locations for articles on urban forests and resilience.

Of our 31 papers, 20 used a theoretical framework (64%), while 11 did not (36%). The most common theoretical framework was a risk and vulnerability assessment approach (20%)(Table 2). The earliest paper published (McPherson 1998) did not have a theoretical framework, but a subsequent paper included in our database (Alberti and Marzluff 2004) put forth a new theoretical framework that explicitly linked urban patterns and ecosystem resilience, which we coded as resilience measurement. Ecosystem services appeared in the literature by 2008 (e.g., Martin 2008), followed by risk and vulnerability assessment (e.g., McPherson and Kotow 2013).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Frequency of theoretical frameworks used in the analyzed studies and the definition of each framework.

About 39% of the studies (n = 12) used a quantitative approach to data collection and analysis, while 10 used a literature review, 4 used a mixed methods approach, 3 used qualitative approaches, 1 used a conceptual model, and 1 used secondary data. Of the 4 articles that collected data with a mixed methods approach, 1 analyzed the data quantitatively and the other 3 analyzed data qualitatively.

Resilience Characteristics

Resilience was defined and discussed in a wide variety of ways. The articles were categorized and coded using the resilience of what, to what, for whom framework (Table 3, Carpenter et al. 2001), bearing in mind that few articles explicitly used this framework. Rather, they described general resilience. The majority of articles focused on resilience of an ecological component or system as the target of the study, but there was a fairly even distribution of studies that considered pulse events, such as insect outbreaks, and press events, such as climate change, when measuring resilience. Finally, most studies tried to understand how the resilience of urban forests to various stressors might impact various actors within cities (e.g., McPherson 1998). These actors ranged from urban residents to urban forest managers. Some studies considered governments and planning boards as the practitioners who would use this information to improve urban resilience.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Resilience perspectives (codes derived from emergent coding process).

Although the majority of studies focused on ecological components or systems as the target of resilience measurement and understanding, the dominant disciplinary perspectives across the 31 studies were social-ecological (n = 17) and ecological (n = 13). Only one study was conducted with an entirely social perspective (McMillen et al. 2016). While 13 of the studies did not explicitly describe which system components they used to measure resilience, 18 studies did describe specific variables. Of the 13 studies that did not identify system components, 4 were ecologically focused, while the other 9 were social-ecological perspectives. The data collection and analysis methods of the studies without specific variables related to resilience included all types (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, literature review). The studies that included measured system components had anywhere from 1 to over 10 variables measured, ranging from ecological characteristics like drought tolerance to social characteristics like institutional robustness (Table 4). Some variables were straightforward, like relative species abundance, while others were more complex to measure, like adaptive capacity.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Compilation of measured system components that may indicate resilience as identified in reviewed articles, summarized by data collection method and overall resilience perspective.

DISCUSSION

Listen

Our literature review of the resilience concept as applied to urban forests and green spaces indicates that there is not yet consensus on what makes the urban forest more resilient, nor the degree to which urban forests improve overall resilience in cities. The state of the current knowledge (Goal 1) on what makes urban forests and green spaces resilient is still early exploration of ecological and social components driving ecosystem function and urban resident well-being. Emerging themes from an ecological perspective were tree/plant diversity (species, age, function) and drought tolerance. If forest community composition shifts more rapidly under climate change, it is possible that urban environments will serve as pilot cases for species migration, and new opportunities for innovative urban silviculture may arise. Social themes we identified were resilience-facilitating legislation, institutions, and public acceptance.

Although resilience was originally measured and understood from an ecological perspective (Holling 1973), a number of studies considered the entire social-ecological systems (SES) perspective (Goal 2). We attribute this shift in perspective to the rise in SES methods and theoretical frameworks more generally and to several key works that link the concept of resilience with SES (e.g., Folke 2006). Although SES research approaches to resilience were present in the majority of articles, the next most common was an ecological approach, perhaps reflecting the origins of the term. It is important to note that although many of the papers in our review raised an SES perspective in the framing of the study, very few actually measured the range of SES variables in their study, but rather focused on a narrow set of variables.

We found no consistent theoretical framework (Goal 3) applied to studies that link resilience and urban forests. Resilience is often used synonymously with “adaptive capacity” (Gallopín 2006), and thus climate-related vulnerability assessments seem to be the most common theoretical framework and tool applied to this research. Indeed, the lack of consistent treatments of the resilience concept is consistent with past critiques, particularly in relation to tensions across disciplinary perspectives (Davidson 2010; Olsson et al. 2015). Yet even with those critiques, researchers reflecting on forest management and extreme weather events point out that resilience approaches have emphasized social-ecological interactions, uncertainty in predicting change, as well as reaction to and recovery from disturbances (Rist and Moen 2013; de Bruijn et al. 2017). In this way, “resilience thinking” has become a useful perspective for integrated considerations of human and ecological systems in natural resource management (Rist and Moen 2013), notwithstanding the ongoing academic debates concerning definitions of resilience.

Additionally, we found no consistent definition and treatment of the urban forest, thus there was difficulty assessing how urban forests might contribute to overall resilience in cities, given that some research treats urban street trees as separate from larger contiguous blocks of forest (e.g., city parks). Different types of urban forest provide different benefits and are more sensitive or tolerant to different stressors. For example, street trees are more widely distributed spatially, so they can help to alleviate the urban heat island and provide shade for buildings (Rosenzweig et al. 2009). However, these trees are managed on an individual basis and thus have higher maintenance costs compared to a stand with natural regeneration (Donovan and Butry 2010).

Further research could explore municipal sustainability plans and urban forest master plans to explore how managers have practically applied resilience of urban trees and green spaces to urban green infrastructure. Research could also focus on institutional analyses of agencies and nonprofits who manage urban forests in order to understand how application of resilience affects organizational structure and function. Moreover, future research could evaluate what is in formal (written) plans at the city or municipal level compared to testimony from forestry practitioners on how and if they deal with resilience in their job.

Like Meerow et al. (2016), we found varying definitions of urban resilience as applied to urban forests and green spaces, based on the subject area of the articles’ authors. The contributions of urban forests to overall urban resilience has not yet been well documented, but there is a growing awareness of the importance of trees and green spaces to social well-being. As more attention is focused on the extent to which green infrastructure improves urban resilience, we encourage the adoption of consistent definitions, theories, and critical system components to communicate about and consistently assess resilience within urban forestry.

Appendix

Listen

Appendix Table 1. Full database of coded articles is available online. https://www.isa-arbor.com/Publications/Arboriculture-Urban-Forestry

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Appendix Table 2.

Codes used to analyze included studies.

Footnotes

Listen
  • Conflicts of Interest:

    The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

  • © 2020, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

LITERATURE CITED

Listen
  1. ↵
    1. Adger WN
    . 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography. 24(3):347–364.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Alberti M
    . 2010. Maintaining ecological integrity and sustaining ecosystem function in urban areas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2(3):178–184.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Alberti M,
    2. Marzluff JM
    . 2004. Ecological resilience in urban ecosystems: linking urban patterns to human and ecological functions. Urban Ecosystems. 7(3):241–265.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Graham B,
    2. Howard P
    1. Alderman DH
    . 2016. Place, naming and the interpretation of cultural landscapes. In: Graham B, Howard P, editors. The Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity. Farnham (UK): Ashgate. p. 195–213.
  5. ↵
    1. Altman I,
    2. Low SM
    1. Altman I,
    2. Low SM
    . 2012. Place attachment. In: Altman I, Low SM, editors. Human behavior and environment: advances in theory and research. Vol. 12. Boston (MA, USA): Springer Science & Business Media. 12 p.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Anderies J,
    2. Janssen M, and
    3. Ostrom E
    . 2004. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society. 9(1):18.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Barona CO
    . 2015. Adopting public values and climate change adaptation strategies in urban forest management: a review and analysis of the relevant literature. Journal of Environmental Management. 164:215–221.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Bender EA,
    2. Case TJ,
    3. Gilpin ME
    . 1984. Perturbation experiments in community ecology: theory and practice. Ecology. 65:1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Berkes F,
    2. Folke C,
    3. Colding J
    . 2000. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. 459 p.
  10. ↵
    1. Berkes F,
    2. Ross H
    . 2013. Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Society and Natural Resources. 26:1–16.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Binder CR,
    2. Hinkel J,
    3. Bots PWG,
    4. Pahl-Wostl C
    . 2013. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society. 18(4):26.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Campbell LK,
    2. Svendsen ES,
    3. Sonti NF,
    4. Johnson ML
    . 2016. A social assessment of urban parkland: analyzing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning. Environmental Science & Policy. 62:34–44.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Carpenter S,
    2. Walker B,
    3. Anderies JM,
    4. Abel N
    . 2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems. 4(8):765–781.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Carpenter SR,
    2. Arrow KJ,
    3. Barrett S,
    4. Biggs R,
    5. Brock WA,
    6. Crépin AS,
    7. de Zeeuw A
    . 2012. General resilience to cope with extreme events. Sustainability. 4:3248–3259.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Chan J,
    2. To HP,
    3. Chan E
    . 2006. Reconsidering social cohesion: developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research. 75(2):273–302.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Churchill DJ,
    2. Larson AJ,
    3. Dahlgreen MC,
    4. Franklin JF,
    5. Hessburg PF,
    6. Lutz JA
    . 2013. Restoring forest resilience: from reference spatial patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and monitoring. Forest Ecology and Management. 291:442–457.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Clark JR,
    2. Matheny NP,
    3. Cross G,
    4. Wake V
    . 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture. 23:17–30.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Collins SL,
    2. Carpenter SR,
    3. Swinton SM,
    4. Orenstein DE,
    5. Childers DL,
    6. Gragson TL,
    7. Grimm NB,
    8. Grove JM,
    9. Harlan SL,
    10. Kaye JP,
    11. Knapp AK
    . 2011. An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social–ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 9(6):351–357.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Cross MS,
    2. Zavaleta ES,
    3. Bachelet D,
    4. Brooks ML,
    5. Enquist CAF,
    6. Fleishman E,
    7. Graumlich LJ,
    8. Groves CR,
    9. Hannah L,
    10. Hansen L,
    11. Hayward G,
    12. Koopman M,
    13. Lawler JJ,
    14. Malcolm J,
    15. Nordgren J,
    16. Petersen B,
    17. Rowland EL,
    18. Scott D,
    19. Shafer SL,
    20. Shaw MR,
    21. Tabor GM
    . 2012. The adaptation for conservation targets (ACT) framework: a tool for incorporating climate change into natural resource management. Environmental Management. 50:341–351.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Davidson DJ
    . 2010. The applicability of the concept of resilience to social systems: some sources of optimism and nagging doubts. Society & Natural Resources. 23(12):1135–1149.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. McDonald J,
    2. Cater-Steel A
    1. Davies C,
    2. Hart A,
    3. Eryigit-Madzwamuse S,
    4. Stubbs C,
    5. Aumann K,
    6. Aranda K,
    7. Heaver B
    . 2017. Communities of practice in community-university engagement: supporting co-productive resilience research and practice. In: McDonald J, Cater-Steel A, editors. Communities of practice. Singapore: Springer. p. 175–198.
  22. ↵
    1. de Bruijn K,
    2. Buurman J,
    3. Mens M,
    4. Dahm R,
    5. Klijn F
    . 2017. Resilience in practice: five principles to enable societies to cope with extreme weather events. Environmental Science & Policy. 70:21–30.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Dobbs C,
    2. Escobedo FJ,
    3. Zipperer WC
    . 2011. A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning. 99:196–206.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Donovan GH,
    2. Butry DT
    . 2010. Trees in the city: valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning. 94(2):77–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Duryea ML,
    2. Kampf E,
    3. Littell RC
    . 2007. Hurricanes and the urban forest: I. Effects on southeastern United States coastal plain tree species. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 33(2):83.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Folke C
    . 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change. 16:253–267.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Gago EJ,
    2. Roldan J,
    3. Pacheco-Torres R,
    4. Ordóñez J
    . 2013. The city and urban heat islands: a review of strategies to mitigate adverse effects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 25:749–758.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Gallopín GC
    . 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change. 16(3):293–303.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Halpern CB
    . 1988. Early successional pathways and the resistance and resilience of forest communities. Ecology. 69(6):1703–1715.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Herbert DA,
    2. Fownes JH,
    3. Vitousek PM
    . 1999. Hurricane damage to a Hawaiian forest: nutrient supply rate affects resistance and resilience. Ecology. 80(3):908–920.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Holling CS
    . 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 4(1):1–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Hunter AJ,
    2. Luck GW
    . 2015. Defining and measuring the social-ecological quality of urban greenspace: a semi-systematic review. Urban Ecosystems. 18(4):1130–1163.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Hunter MR
    . 2011. Impact of ecological disturbance on awareness of urban nature and sense of environmental stewardship in residential neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning. 101:131–138.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Johnston M
    . 1996. A brief history of urban forestry in the United States. Arboricultural Journal. 20(3):257–278.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    1. Johnstone JF,
    2. Allen CD,
    3. Franklin JF,
    4. Frelich LE,
    5. Harvey BJ,
    6. Higuera PE,
    7. Mack MC,
    8. Meentemeyer RK,
    9. Metz MR,
    10. Perry GL,
    11. Schoennagel T
    . 2016. Changing disturbance regimes, ecological memory, and forest resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 14(7):369–378.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Jorgensen A,
    2. Gobster PH
    . 2010. Shades of green: measuring the ecology of urban green space in the context of human health and well-being. Nature and Culture. 5(3):338–363.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. Kemp KB,
    2. Blades JJ,
    3. Klos PZ,
    4. Hall TE,
    5. Force JE,
    6. Morgan P,
    7. Tinkham WT
    . 2015. Managing for climate change on federal lands of the western United States: perceived usefulness of climate science, effectiveness of adaptation strategies, and barriers to implementation. Ecology and Society. 20:17.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Kenney WA,
    2. Van Wassenaer PJ,
    3. Satel AL
    . 2011. Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 37(3):108–117.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Konijnendijk CC,
    2. Ricard RM,
    3. Kenney A,
    4. Randrup TB
    . 2006. Defining urban forestry—a comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 4:93–103.
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Laćan I,
    2. McBride JR
    . 2008. Pest Vulnerability Matrix (PVM): a graphic model for assessing the interaction between tree species diversity and urban forest susceptibility to insects and diseases. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 7(4):291–300.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Lebel L,
    2. Anderies J,
    3. Campbell B,
    4. Folke C,
    5. Hatfield-Dodds S,
    6. Hughes T,
    7. Wilson J
    . 2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society. 11(1).
  42. ↵
    1. Martin CA
    . 2008. Landscape sustainability in a Sonoran Desert city. Cities and the Environment. 1(2):5.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. McMillen H,
    2. Campbell LK,
    3. Svendsen ES,
    4. Reynolds R
    . 2016. Recognizing stewardship practices as indicators of social resilience: in living memorials and in a community garden. Sustainability. 8:775.
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. McPherson EG
    . 1998. Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Sacramento’s urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture. 24:215–223.
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. McPherson EG,
    2. Kotow L
    . 2013. A municipal forest report card: results for California, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 12(2):134–143.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Meerow S,
    2. Newell JP,
    3. Stults M
    . 2016. Defining urban resilience: a review. Landscape and Urban Planning. 147:38–49.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Millar CI,
    2. Stephenson NL,
    3. Stephens SL
    . 2007. Climate change and forest of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 17:2145–2151.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Mincey SK,
    2. Hutten M,
    3. Fischer BC,
    4. Evans TP,
    5. Stewart SI,
    6. Vogt JM
    . 2013. Structuring institutional analysis for urban ecosystems: a key to sustainable urban forest management. Urban Ecosystems. 16(3):553–571.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. ↵
    1. Mori AS
    . 2011. Ecosystem management based on natural disturbances: hierarchical context and non-equilibrium paradigm. Journal of Applied Ecology. 48(2):280–292.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. ↵
    1. Olsson L,
    2. Jerneck A,
    3. Thoren H,
    4. Persson J,
    5. O’Byrne D
    . 2015. Why resilience is unappealing to social science: theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Science Advances. 1(4):e1400217.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Pataki DE,
    2. Carreiro MM,
    3. Cherrier J,
    4. Grulke NE,
    5. Jennings V,
    6. Pincetl S,
    7. Pouyat RV,
    8. Whitlow TH,
    9. Zipperer WC
    . 2011. Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 9:27–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. Patton MQ
    . 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks (CA, USA): Sage. 688 p.
  53. ↵
    1. Pickett ST,
    2. Grove JM
    . 2009. Urban ecosystems: what would Tansley do? Urban Ecosystems. 12(1):1–8.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Pretzsch H,
    2. Biber P,
    3. Uhl E,
    4. Dahlhausen J,
    5. Schütze G,
    6. Perkins D,
    7. Rötzer T,
    8. Caldentey J,
    9. Koike T,
    10. van Con T,
    11. Chavanne A,
    12. du Toit B,
    13. Foster K,
    14. Lefer B
    . 2017. Climate change accelerates growth of urban trees in metropolises worldwide. Scientific Reports. 7:15403.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Rappaport J
    . 1995. Empowerment meets narrative: listening to stories and creating settings. American Journal of Community Psychology. 23(5):795–807.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Reyer CP,
    2. Brouwers N,
    3. Rammig A,
    4. Brook BW,
    5. Epila J,
    6. Grant RF,
    7. Holmgren M,
    8. Langerwisch F,
    9. Leuzinger S,
    10. Lucht W,
    11. Medlyn B
    . 2015. Forest resilience and tipping points at different spatiotemporal scales: approaches and challenges. Journal of Ecology. 103(1):5–15.
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Rist L,
    2. Moen J
    . 2013. Sustainability in forest management and a new role for resilience thinking. Forest Ecology and Management. 310:416–427.
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    1. Rosenzweig C,
    2. Solecki WD,
    3. Parshall L,
    4. Lynn B,
    5. Cox J,
    6. Goldberg R,
    7. Hodges S,
    8. Gaffin S,
    9. Slosberg RB,
    10. Savio P,
    11. Dunstan F
    . 2009. Mitigating New York City’s heat island: integrating stakeholder perspectives and scientific evaluation. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 90(9):1297–1312.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. ↵
    1. Rowntree RA
    . 1984. Ecology of the urban forest—introduction to Part I. Urban Ecology. 8(1-2):1–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. Roy S,
    2. Byrne J,
    3. Pickering C
    . 2012. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 11(4):351–363.
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Scharenbroch BC,
    2. Carter D,
    3. Bialecki M,
    4. Fahey R,
    5. Scheberl L,
    6. Catania M,
    7. Roman LA,
    8. Bassuk N,
    9. Harper RW,
    10. Werner L,
    11. Siewert A
    . 2017. A rapid urban site index for assessing the quality of street tree planting sites. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 27:279–286.
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    1. Scott J
    . 1988. Social network analysis. Sociology. 22(1):109–127.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. ↵
    1. Smith MD,
    2. Knapp AK,
    3. Collins SL
    . 2009. A framework for assessing ecosystem dynamics in response to chronic resource alterations induced by global change. Ecology. 90:3279–3289.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Staudhammer C,
    2. Escobedo F,
    3. Lawrence A,
    4. Duryea M,
    5. Smith P,
    6. Merritt M
    . 2011. Rapid assessment of change and hurricane impacts to Houston’s urban forest structure. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 37(2):60–66.
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    1. Steenberg JWN,
    2. Millward AA,
    3. Nowak DJ,
    4. Robinson PJ
    . 2017. A conceptual framework of urban forest ecosystem vulnerability. Environmental Reviews. 25:115–126.
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    1. Suding KN,
    2. Gross KL,
    3. Houseman GR
    . 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 19(1):46–53.
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    1. Wals A
    1. Tidball KG,
    2. Krasny ME
    . 2007. From risk to resilience: what role for community greening and civic ecology in cities. In: Wals A, editor. Social learning towards a more sustainable world. Wageningen (Netherlands): Wageningen Academic Publishers. p. 149–164.
  68. ↵
    1. Tidball KG,
    2. Krasny ME,
    3. Svendsen E,
    4. Campbell L,
    5. Helphand K
    . 2010. Stewardship, learning, and memory in disaster resilience. Environmental Education Research. 16:591–609.
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. Tierney GL,
    2. Faber-Langendoen D,
    3. Mitchell BR,
    4. Shriver WG,
    5. Gibbs JP
    . 2009. Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 7:308–316.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  70. ↵
    1. von Döhren P,
    2. Haase D
    . 2015. Ecosystem disservices research: a review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecological Indicators. 52:490–497.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  71. ↵
    1. Walker B,
    2. Holling CS,
    3. Carpenter S,
    4. Kinzig A
    . 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society. 9(2).
  72. ↵
    1. Young JC,
    2. Marzano M,
    3. Quine CP,
    4. Ambrose-Oji B
    . 2018. Working with decision-makers for resilient forests: a case study from the UK. Forest Ecology and Management. 417:291–300.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 46 (3)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 46, Issue 3
May 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Literature Review of Resilience in Urban Forestry
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
A Literature Review of Resilience in Urban Forestry
Emily S. Huff, Michelle L. Johnson, Lara A. Roman, Nancy F. Sonti, Clara C. Pregitzer, Lindsay K. Campbell, Heather McMillen
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2020, 46 (3) 185-196; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2020.014

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A Literature Review of Resilience in Urban Forestry
Emily S. Huff, Michelle L. Johnson, Lara A. Roman, Nancy F. Sonti, Clara C. Pregitzer, Lindsay K. Campbell, Heather McMillen
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2020, 46 (3) 185-196; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2020.014
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Appendix
    • Footnotes
    • LITERATURE CITED
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
  • Thiabendazole as a Therapeutic Root Flare Injection for Beech Leaf Disease Management
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Adaptive Capacity
  • Resilience
  • Social-Ecological Systems
  • Urban Forestry
  • Vulnerability

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire