Tracking Changes to Urban Trees over 100 Years in Ithaca, NY, USA

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Anbinder MH

   . 2020. Grim budget cuts ahead for city services, says City of Ithaca. 14850 Today. [Accessed 15 June 2020]. https://www.14850.com/061214266-ithaca-reduction-services
2. ↵
   1. Arbor Day Foundation

   . 2019. 2018 Tree City USA Communities. Lincoln (NE, USA): The Arbor Day Foundation. [Accessed 14 June 2020]. https://www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa/directory.cfm
3. ↵
   1. Baker FA

   . 1993. Monitoring the urban forest: Case studies and evaluations. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 26:153-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00547493

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Ball J

   . 2015. The 5 percent rule. American Nurseryman. January: 8-11.
5. ↵
   1. Bassett JR,
   2. Lawrence WC

   . 1975. Status of street tree inventories in the U.S. Journal of Arboriculture. 1(3):48-52.

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   1. Berland A,
   2. Hopton ME

   . 2016. Asian longhorned beetle complicates the relationship between taxonomic diversity and pest vulnerability in street tree assemblages. Arboricultural Journal. 38(1):28-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2016.1157305

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Boone CG,
   2. Cadenasso ML,
   3. Grove JM,
   4. Schwarz K,
   5. Buckley GL

   . 2010. Landscape, vegetation characteristics, and group identity in an urban and suburban watershed: Why the 60s matter. Urban Ecosystems. 13:255-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-009-0118-7

   OpenUrlCrossRef
8. ↵
   1. Bray JR,
   2. Curtis JT

   . 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs. 27:325-349. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942268

   OpenUrlCrossRef
9. ↵
   1. Buzas MA,
   2. Gibson TG

   . 1969. Species diversity: Benthonic foraminifera in western North Atlantic. Science. 163:72-75. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.163.3862.72

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
10. ↵
    1. CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation)

    . 2009. Ecoregions of North America. Washington (DC, USA): United States Environmental Protection Agency. [Accessed 6 June 2020]. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregions-north-america
11. ↵
    1. Clark JR,
    2. Matheny NP,
    3. Cross G,
    4. Wake V

    . 1997. A model of urban forest sustainability. Journal of Arboriculture. 23(1):17-30.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Levin SA,
    2. Carpenter SR,
    3. Godfray HCJ,
    4. Kinzig AP,
    5. Loreau M,
    6. Losos JB,
    7. Walker B, and
    8. Wilcove DS

    1. Colwell RK

    . 2009. Biodiversity: Concepts, patterns, and measurement. In: Levin SA, Carpenter SR, Godfray HCJ, Kinzig AP, Loreau M, Losos JB, Walker B, and Wilcove DS, editors. The Princeton guide to ecology. Princeton (NJ, USA): Princeton University Press. 848 p.
13. ↵
    1. Cowett FD,
    2. Bassuk NL

    . 2014. Statewide assessment of street trees in New York State, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 13:213-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.02.001

    OpenUrlCrossRef
14. ↵
    1. Cowett FD,
    2. Bassuk NL

    . 2020. Street tree diversity in Massachusetts, U.S.A. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 46(1):27-43.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Crown CA,
    2. Greer BZ,
    3. Gift DM,
    4. Watt FS

    . 2018. Every tree counts: Reflections on NYC’s third volunteer street tree inventory. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 44(2):49-58.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Cumming AB,
    2. Twardus DB,
    3. Nowak DJ

    . 2008. Urban forest health monitoring: Large-scale assessments in the United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 34(6):341-346.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Dawson JO,
    2. Khawaja MA

    . 1985. Change in street-tree composition of two Urbana, Illinois neighborhoods after fifty years: 1932–1982. Journal of Arboriculture. 11(11):344-348.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Denig BR

    . 2014. Ithaca’s trees: Master plan, inventory, & arboricultural guidelines for the public trees of the City of Ithaca, New York. Ithaca (NY, USA): The City of Ithaca Shade Tree Advisory Committee. [Accessed 17 January 2020]. https://www.cityofithaca.org/247/Forestry-Master-Plan
19. ↵
    1. Kammen C

    1. Dieckmann JM

    . 2004. City of Ithaca. In: Kammen C, editor. Place names of Tompkins County. Ithaca (NY, USA): Office of the Tompkins County Historian. 131 p.
20. ↵
    1. Donovan GH,
    2. Landry S,
    3. Winter C

    . 2019. Urban trees, house price, and redevelopment pressure in Tampa, Florida. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 38:330-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.01.014

    OpenUrl
21. ↵
    1. Dwyer JF,
    2. Nowak DJ,
    3. Noble MH,
    4. Sisinni SM

    . 2000. Connecting people with ecosystems in the 21st century: An assessment of our nation’s urban forests. Portland (OR, USA): US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report No. PNW-GTR-490. 483 p. [Accessed 16 July 2020]. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/29448
22. ↵
    1. Forest Park Reservation Commission of New Jersey

    . 1915. Tenth annual report. Camden (NJ, USA): S. Chew & Sons.
23. ↵
    1. Gartner JT,
    2. Treiman T,
    3. Frevert T

    . 2002. Missouri urban forest—A ten-year comparison. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(2):76-83.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Greene CS,
    2. Millward AA

    . 2016. The legacy of past tree planting decisions for a city confronting emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) invasion. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 4(27):1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00027

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. Halpin CR,
    2. Lorimer CG

    . 2017. A demographic approach to evaluating tree population sustainability. Forests. 8(46):1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8020046

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Hammer Ø,
    2. Harper DAT,
    3. Ryan PD

    . 2001. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica. 4(1):1-9.

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    1. Harvey C,
    2. Aultman-Hall L

    . 2019. Urban streetscape design and crash severity. Transportation Research Record. 2500(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.3141/2500-01

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Hauer RJ,
    2. Peterson WD

    . 2016. Municipal tree care and management in the United States: A 2014 urban and community forestry census of tree aactivities. Stevens Point (WI, USA): College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point. Special Publication 16-1. 71 p.
29. ↵
    1. Hope D,
    2. Gries C,
    3. Casagrande D,
    4. Redman CL,
    5. Grimm NB,
    6. Martin C

    . 2006. Drivers of spatial variation in plant diversity across the Central Arizona-Phoenix ecosystem. Society and Natural Resoures. 19(2):101-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920500394469

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. Hutcheson K

    . 1970. A test for comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 29(1):151-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(70)90124-4

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. ↵
    1. Irga PJ,
    2. Burchett MD,
    3. Torpy FR

    . 2015. Does urban forestry have a quantitative effect on ambient air quality in an urban environment? Atmospheric Environment. 120:173-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.08.050

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. i-Tree Eco

    . 2019. User’s Manual v6.0. [Accessed 20 January 2019]. https://www.itreetools.org/support/resources-overview/i-tree-manuals-workbooks
33. ↵
    1. Jactel H,
    2. Brockerhoff EG

    . 2007. Tree diversity reduces herbivory by forest insects. Ecology Letters. 10:835-848. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01073.x

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
34. ↵
    1. Jost L

    . 2006. Entropy and diversity. OIKOS. 113(2):363-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14714.x

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
35. ↵
    1. Kammen C

    . 2008. Ithaca: A brief history. Charleston (SC, USA): The History Press. 128 p.
36. ↵
    1. Karden O,
    2. Gozdyra P,
    3. Misic B,
    4. Moola F,
    5. Palmer LJ,
    6. Paus T,
    7. Berman MG

    . 2015. Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Scientific Reports. 5(11610):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11610

    OpenUrl
37. ↵
    1. Kargar M,
    2. Suresh R,
    3. Legrand M,
    4. Jutras P,
    5. Clark OG,
    6. Prasher SO

    . 2017. Reduction in water stress for tree saplings using hydrogels in soil. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection. 5:27-39. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2017.51002

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. Kendal D,
    2. Dobbs C,
    3. Lohr VI

    . 2014. Global patterns of diversity in the urban forest: Is there evidence to support the 10/20/30 rule? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 13:411-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.04.004

    OpenUrl
39. ↵
    1. Kenney WA,
    2. van Wassenaer PJE,
    3. Satel AL

    . 2011. Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 37(3):108-117.

    OpenUrl
40. ↵
    1. Koch FH,
    2. Ambrose MJ,
    3. Yemshanov D,
    4. Wiseman PE,
    5. Cowett FD

    . 2018. Modeling urban distributions of host trees for invasive forest insects in the eastern and central USA: A three-step approach using field inventory data. Forest Ecology and Management. 417(15):222-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.03.004

    OpenUrl
41. ↵
    1. Kurtz DM

    . 1883. Ithaca and its resources. Ithaca (NY, USA): Journal Association Book and Job Print. 122 p.
42. ↵
    1. Laćan I,
    2. McBride JR

    . 2008. Pest vulnerability matrix (PMV): 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2008.06.002

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Landreth B

    . 1895. Tree planting. The New Jersey Forester. May 1:31.
44. ↵
    1. Larson KL,
    2. Hoffman J,
    3. Ripplinger J

    . 2017. Legacy effects and landscape choices in a desert city. Landscape and Urban Planning. 165:22-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.04.014

    OpenUrl
45. ↵
    1. Lockwood B,
    2. Berland A

    . 2019. Socioeconomic factors associated with increasing street tree density and diversity in central Indianapolis. Cities and the Environment (CATE). 12(1): Article 6. [Accessed 8 June 2020]. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol12/iss1/6

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Maco SE,
    2. McPherson EG

    . 2003. A practical approach to assessing structure, function, and value of street tree populations in small communities. Journal of Arboriculture. 29(2):84-97.

    OpenUrl
47. ↵
    1. McPherson EG,
    2. Peper PJ

    . 2012. Urban tree growth modeling. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 38(5):172-180.

    OpenUrl
48. ↵
    1. McPherson EG,
    2. Rowntree RA

    . 1989. Using structural measures to compare twenty-two U.S. street tree populations. Landscape Journal. 8:13-23. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.8.1.13

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
49. ↵
    1. McPherson EG,
    2. Simpson JR,
    3. Peper PJ,
    4. Gardner SL,
    5. Vargas KE,
    6. Xiao Q

    . 2007. Northeast community tree guide: Benefits, costs, and strategic planting. Albany (CA, USA): US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report No. PSW-GTR-202. [Accessed 10 February 2020]. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/28759
50. ↵
    1. McPherson EG,
    2. van Doorn N,
    3. de Goode J

    . 2016. Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 17:104-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.013

    OpenUrl
51. ↵
    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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0286-3

    OpenUrlCrossRef
52. ↵
    1. Murrill WA

    . 1902. Shade trees. Bulletin 205, September 1902. Ithaca (NY, USA): Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Botanical Division.
53. ↵
    1. Nielsen CN,
    2. Bühler O,
    3. Kristoffersen P

    . 2007. Soil water dynamics and growth of street and park trees. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 33(4):231-245.

    OpenUrl
54. ↵
    1. North EA,
    2. D’Amato AW,
    3. Russell MB

    . 2018. Performance metrics for street and park trees in urban forests. Journal of Forestry. 116(6):547-554. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvy049

    OpenUrl
55. ↵
    1. Ning Z,
    2. Nowak D,
    3. Watson G

    1. Nowak DJ

    . 2017. Urban forest sustainability in the United States. In: Ning Z, Nowak D, Watson G, editors. Urban forest sustainability. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. [Accessed 12 June 2020]. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/55771
56. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Appleton N,
    3. Ellis A,
    4. Greenfield E

    . 2017. Residential building energy conservation and avoided power plant emissions by urban and community trees in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 21:58-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.12.004

    OpenUrl
57. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Crane DE,
    3. Stevens JC,
    4. Hoehn RE,
    5. Walton JT,
    6. Bond J

    . 2008. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 34(6):347-358.

    OpenUrl
58. 1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Hoehn RE,
    3. Bodine AR,
    4. Greenfield EJ,
    5. O’Neil-Dunne J

    . 2016. Urban forest structure, ecosystem services and change in Syracuse, NY. Urban Ecosystems. 19(4):1455-1477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0326-z

    OpenUrl
59. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Maco S,
    3. Binkley M

    . 2018. i-Tree: Global tools to assess tree benefits and risks to improve forest management. Arboricultural Consultant. 51(4):10-13.

    OpenUrl
60. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. O’Connor PR

    . 2001. Syracuse urban forest master plan: Guiding the city’s forest resource into the 21st century. Newtown Square (PA, USA): US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. General Technical Report No. NE-287. 50 p. [Accessed 17 July 2020]. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/5932
61. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Rowntree RA

    . 1990. History and range of Norway maple. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 16(11):291-296.

    OpenUrl
62. ↵
    1. NRCC (Northeast Regional Climate Center)

    . 2020. The Ithaca Climate Page. Ithaca (NY, USA): NRCC. [Accessed 6 June 2020]. http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/wxstation/ithaca/normal.html
63. ↵
    1. Ordóñez C,
    2. Duinker PN

    . 2012. Ecological integrity in urban forests. Urban Ecosystems. 15:863-877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0235-6

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
64. ↵
    1. Parker GA

    . 1907. Street tree inventory: Method of assigning values to trees. Municipal Journal and Engineer. 22(1):335-337.

    OpenUrl
65. ↵
    1. Raupp MJ,
    2. Cumming AB,
    3. Raupp EC

    . 2006. Street tree diversity in eastern North America and its potential for tree loss to exotic borers. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 32(6):297-304.

    OpenUrl
66. ↵
    1. Richards NA

    . 1979. Modeling survival and consequent replacement needs in a street tree population. Journal of Arboriculture. 5(11):251-255.

    OpenUrl
67. ↵
    1. Richards NA

    . 1983. Diversity and stability in a street tree population. Urban Ecology. 7:159-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4009(83)90034-7

    OpenUrl
68. ↵
    1. Riley CB,
    2. Herms DA,
    3. Gardiner MM

    . 2018. Exotic trees contribute to urban forest diversity and ecosystem services in innercity Cleveland, OH. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 29:367-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.01.004

    OpenUrl
69. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Battles JJ,
    3. McBride JR

    . 2014. The balance of planting and mortality in a street tree population. Urban Ecosystems. 17:387-404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0320-5

    OpenUrl
70. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. McPherson EG,
    3. Scharenbroch BC,
    4. Bartens J

    . 2013. Identifying common practices and challenges for local urban tree monitoring programs across the United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 39(6):292-299.

    OpenUrl
71. ↵
    1. Rowntree RA

    . 1998. Urban forest ecology: Conceptual points of departure. Journal of Arboriculture. 24(2):62-71.

    OpenUrl
72. ↵
    1. Santamour FS, Jr.

    . 1990. Trees for urban planting: Diversity, uniformity, and common sense. Proceedings 7th Conference Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance (METRIA). 7:57-65.

    OpenUrl
73. ↵
    1. Shackleton C

    . 2016. Do indigenous street trees promote more biodiversity than alien ones? Evidence using mistletoes and birds in South Africa. Forests. 7:1-9. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7070134

    OpenUrl
74. ↵
    1. Shannon CE

    . 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal. 27:379-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

    OpenUrl
75. ↵
    1. Silvera Seamans G

    . 2013. Mainstreaming the environmental benefits of street trees. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 12(1):2-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.08.004

    OpenUrl
76. ↵
    1. Simpson EH

    . 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature. 163:688. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0
77. ↵
    1. Sjöman H,
    2. Hirons AD,
    3. Bassuk NL

    . 2018. Improving confidence in tree species selection for challenging urban sites: A role for leaf turgor loss. Urban Ecosystems. 21:1171-1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0791-5

    OpenUrl
78. ↵
    1. Sjöman H,
    2. Morgenroth J,
    3. Sjöman JD,
    4. Sæbø A,
    5. Kowarik I

    . 2016. Diversification of the urban forest—Can we afford to exclude exotic tree species? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 18:237-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.011

    OpenUrl
79. ↵
    1. Smith IA,
    2. Dearborn VK,
    3. Hutyra LR

    . 2019. Live fast, die young: Accelerated growth, mortality, and turnover in street trees. PLoS ONE. 14(5):e0215846. [Accessed 8 June 2020]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215846

    OpenUrlCrossRef
80. ↵
    1. Solotaroff W

    . 1911. Shade trees in towns and cities. New York (NY, USA): John Wiley & Sons. 287 p.
81. ↵
    1. Sreetheran M,
    2. Adnan M,
    3. Khairil Azuar AK

    . 2011. Street tree inventory and tree risk assessment of selected major roads in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 37(5):226-235.

    OpenUrl
82. ↵
    1. Steenberg JWN,
    2. Millward AA,
    3. Nowak DJ,
    4. Robinson PJ

    . 2017. A conceptual framework of urban forest ecosystem vulnerability. Environmental Reviews. 25(1):115-126. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2016-0022

    OpenUrl
83. ↵
    1. Sun WQ

    . 1992. Quantifying species diversity of streetside trees in our cities. Journal of Arboriculture. 18(2):91-93.

    OpenUrl
84. ↵
    1. Sydnor TD,
    2. Subburayalu SK

    . 2011. Should we consider expected environmental benefits when planting larger or smaller tree species? Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 37(4):167-172.

    OpenUrl
85. ↵
    1. Tang Y,
    2. Chen A,
    3. Zhao S

    . 2016. Carbon storage and sequestration of urban street trees in Beijing, China. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 4:53. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00053
86. ↵
    1. Tate RL

    . 1985. Uses of street tree inventory data. Journal of Arboriculture. 11(7):210-213.

    OpenUrl
87. ↵
    1. Thomsen P,
    2. Bühler O,
    3. Kristoffersen P

    . 2016. Diversity of street tree populations in larger Danish municipalities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 15:200-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.006

    OpenUrl
88. ↵
    1. Tubby KV,
    2. Webber JF

    . 2010. Pests and diseases threatening urban trees under a changing climate. Forestry. 83(4):451-459. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpq027

    OpenUrlCrossRef
89. ↵
    1. United States Census Bureau

    . 2018. QuickFacts, Ithaca city, New York. Washington (DC, USA): U.S. Department of Commerce. [Accessed 16 January 2020]. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ithacacitynewyork
90. ↵
    1. USARS (United States Agricultural Research Service)

    . 1990. USDA plant hardiness zone map. Washington (DC, USA): Agricultural Research Service. USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1475. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.67926
91. ↵
    1. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)

    . 2012. USDA plant hardiness zone map. Washington (DC, USA): USDA Agricultural Research Service. [Accessed 6 June 2020]. https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb
92. ↵
    1. Vogt J

    . 2020. Urban forests: Biophysical features and benefits. Encyclopedia of the World’s Biomes. 5:48-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12404-2

    OpenUrl
93. ↵
    1. Webb SL,
    2. Dwyer M,
    3. Kaunzinger CK,
    4. Wyckoff PH

    . 2000. The myth of the resilient forest: Case study of the invasive Norway maple (Acer platanoides). Rhodora. 102(911):332-354.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
94. ↵
    1. Welch JM

    . 1994. Street and park trees of Boston: A comparison of urban forest structure. Landscape & Urban Planning. 29(2-3):131-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)90023-X

    OpenUrl
95. ↵
    1. Wilson WH

    . 1989. The city beautiful movement. Baltimore (MD, USA): Johns Hopkins University Press. 365 p.
96. ↵
    1. Yang J

    . 2009. Assessing the impact of climate change on urban tree species selection: A case study in Philadelphia. Journal of Forestry. 107(7):364-372. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/107.7.364

    OpenUrl
97. ↵
    1. Yang J,
    2. Zhou J,
    3. Ke Y,
    4. Xiao J

    . 2012. Assessing the structure and stability of street trees in Lhasa, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 11(4):432-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.07.002

    OpenUrl
98. ↵
    1. Young RF

    . 2013. Mainstreaming urban ecosystem services: A national survey of municipal foresters. Urban Ecosystems. 16(4):703-722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0287-2

    OpenUrl