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

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
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

Quantitative Tools for the Prediction of Pavement Damages Associated with Urban Trees

Louis S.H. Lee
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) July 2022, 48 (4) 217-232; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2022.016
Louis S.H. Lee
Louis S.H. Lee (corresponding author), Department of Environment Faculty of Design and Environment, Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong, 133 Shing Tai Road, Chai Wan, Hong Kong, China, +852-3890-8287,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Illustration of dendrometric and habitat factors measured in this study. Except for open soil area which was measured in square metres, all dimensional variables were measured in metres.

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

    Presence of (a) protruding root and (b) protruding flare indicated by yellow arrows. The protruding parts were visually detectable by woody tissues reaching the border between the open soil area and paving materials.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Descriptive statistics of (a) dendrometric variables and (b) habitat variables of 14 tree species. Diameter at breast height, trunk flare diameter, and tree height were abbreviated as DBH, TFD, and H.

    DBH (m)TFD (m)H (m)Lean (degree)
    MeanMedianSDMeanMedianSDMeanMedianSDMeanMedianSD
    (a)Aleurites moluccanus0.285def0.2700.0890.632c0.4860.43010.33cde9.942.826.2abcd5.43.8
    Archontophoenix alexandrae0.124ab0.1160.0330.254ab0.2270.0745.15a4.012.703.0a2.22.3
    Bombax ceiba0.329ef0.3140.1110.653c0.5480.33610.06bcd9.493.094.3ab4.03.2
    Casuarina equisetifolia0.254de0.2610.1080.636c0.6020.33813.45f13.134.949.0def7.86.2
    Cinnamomum burmannii0.218cd0.2250.0740.648c0.6010.3408.39b8.242.5510.2ef9.75.9
    Delonix regia0.337f0.3390.1040.956d0.8810.5739.75bcd9.342.937.7cde6.35.8
    Ficus altissima0.754h0.6650.4362.504f2.4680.74110.83de10.282.476.5bcd5.05.8
    Ficus microcarpa0.467g0.4340.1821.797e1.7180.52311.94ef11.503.6210.8ef8.48.7
    Lagerstroemia speciosa0.129ab0.1300.0510.224a0.2090.1115.34a5.261.466.1abcd4.94.8
    Melaleuca cajuputi0.205bcd0.2110.1100.449bc0.3890.3538.91bc8.733.196.3abcd5.24.8
    Michelia × alba0.163bc0.1700.0800.223a0.2170.0978.31b8.223.4812.1f9.510.8
    Photinia serratifolia0.073a0.0640.0370.128a0.1000.0875.02a4.431.624.5abc3.34.5
    Spathodea campanulata0.250de0.2290.1080.501c0.4130.3018.95bc8.583.257.6cde6.55.8
    Xanthostemon chrysanthus0.068a0.0620.0240.124a0.1110.0494.81a4.750.824.0ab3.33.1
    Pavement widtd (m)Open soil area (m2)Setback (m)Pavement material
    MeanMedianSDMeanMedianSDMeanMedianSDBrickConcreteTotal
    (b)Aleurites moluccanus3.467ab3.3001.2861.312cde1.0301.0560.376a0.2400.324502979
    Archontophoenix alexandrae5.967d3.6803.7700.601ab0.5200.3111.100abc0.8851.01454458
    Bombax ceiba4.007abc2.9702.1401.323cde1.3820.6701.047abc0.5051.79471172
    Casuarina equisetifolia9.168f9.5552.0121.590de1.5630.2972.864e2.1351.7411180118
    Cinnamomum burmannii5.090cd5.2452.0101.120bcd1.0810.5521.998d1.2931.627581068
    Delonix regia5.082cd4.0101.9851.689e1.1601.2901.907d1.9201.196611374
    Ficus altissima7.277e7.1101.3735.859g5.9372.6383.894f4.1701.27758159
    Ficus microcarpa4.516bc3.5352.5713.042f2.7811.5221.487bcd0.5332.0997452126
    Lagerstroemia speciosa5.115cd4.2602.1820.486a0.3720.4391.951d1.2501.618324375
    Melaleuca cajuputi4.057abc3.4652.1580.859abc0.6650.6220.845abc0.6280.9387250122
    Michelia × alba3.530ab3.4800.1830.854abc0.8740.1602.127de2.1900.27903131
    Photinia serratifolia4.524bc3.6402.0190.834abc0.7910.3081.610cd1.0681.404411556
    Spathodea campanulata3.177a2.7801.3050.649ab0.4640.4090.709ab0.5650.539603898
    Xanthostemon chrysanthus4.589bc4.1551.4820.842abc0.8140.3261.353bcd0.9631.164521264
    • Lower-case letters indicate results of Games-Howell comparisons using species as a fixed factor. Mean values were ranked in ascending alphabetical order. Values with the same letter indicate statistical homogeneity in their distributions.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Species-specific prediction models of trunk flare diameter (TFD) using diameter at breast height (DBH) with (a) all trees under each individual species and (b) only trees with protruding roots and/or flares.

    InterceptRegression coefficient of DBH
    R2b0SEb1SECILOWCIup
    (a) All trees under each individual speciesA. moluccanus0.563−0.4060.1083.6450.3612.9254.365
    A. alexandrae0.8040.0050.0172.0040.1311.7422.266
    B. ceiba0.626−0.1360.0762.3990.2191.9622.836
    C. equisetifolia0.781−0.0660.0372.7660.1352.4983.304
    C. burmannii0.644−0.1600.0773.7150.3363.0444.386
    D. regia0.655−0.5590.1344.4950.3813.7365.254
    F. altissima0.3661.7170.1551.0440.1780.6871.400
    F. micro carpa0.5180.8290.0892.0760.1781.7232.429
    L. speciosa0.5900.0090.0221.6620.1601.3431.982
    M. cajuputi0.667−0.0900.0392.6320.1692.2982.966
    M. × alba0.7920.0480.0181.0760.1000.8711.282
    P. serratifolia0.686−0.1500.0141.9440.1771.5892.298
    S. campanulata0.738−0.1000.0392.4050.1452.1172.693
    X. chrysanthus0.3330.0430.0151.1930.2090.7751.611
    (b) Only trees with protruding roots and/or flaresA. moluccanus0.422−0.0780.2463.2510.7031.8094.693
    B. ceiba0.550−0.0990.1382.5080.3641.7713.245
    C. equisetifolia0.6840.2240.0972.2220.2741.6622.782
    C. burmannii0.510−0.0850.1333.5650.5332.4894.642
    D. regia0.655−0.4420.1824.4640.4863.4845.444
    F. altissima0.3481.7920.1530.9680.1740.6191.317
    F. microcarpa0.5160.8460.0902.0530.7211.6992.408
    M. cajuputi0.3990.0310.1412.6010.4791.6353.567
    S. campanulata0.4410.0280.1852.3050.5061.2603.351
    • The proportion of explained variance (R2) of simple linear regression, intercept (b0) and regression coefficient of DBH (b1), and its standard errors (SE) were provided. The lower and upper boundary values of confidence intervals (CILOW, CIUP) were computed for more conservative estimation. Significant values of R2 and b1 with P < 0.05 were italicised and underlined for easier comparison. Five species, namely A. alexandrae, L. speciosa, M. × alba, P. serratifolia, and X. chrysanthus, were excluded in (b) due to insufficient sample size.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Descriptive statistics of the length of protruding parts in 3 scenarios.

    Protruding rootsProtruding flaresProtruding roots and/or flares
    MeanMedianSDBrickConcreteTotalMeanMedianSDBrickConcreteTotalMeanMedianSDBrickConcreteTotal
    A. moluccanus0.5210.4890.153515200.7360.7230.28968140.6260.5550.249101929
    A. alexandrae0.1440.144N/A1010.1780.1780.0182020.1670.1650.024303
    B. ceiba0.6300.5740.236280280.5890.6260.208211220.6280.5840.23738139
    C. equisetifolia0.5860.5780.1488080.5300.4900.199160160.5640.5360.19219019
    C. burmannii0.6160.6230.232283310.5370.5480.147203230.6270.6280.19638543
    D. regia0.8670.7080.495243270.7940.6130.471298370.8700.6890.50037845
    F. altissima1.3341.2270.522471481.2901.2070.425501511.4191.3060.47256157
    F. microcarpa1.1370.9891.1024226681.0601.0420.3874119601.2251.0990.999482977
    L. speciosa0.6140.4950.3420550.3690.2920.2523470.4680.4140.3373710
    M. cajuputi0.6670.5900.325126180.6070.5720.29765110.6660.6030.304141024
    M. × albaN/AN/AN/A000N/AN/AN/A000N/AN/AN/A000
    P. serratifolia0.6580.6580.0421120.3500.350N/A1010.5550.6280.180213
    S. campanulata0.4840.4060.1735490.5190.4690.31759140.5270.4560.29771017
    X. chrysanthus0.6310.631N/A101N/AN/AN/A0000.6310.631N/A101
    Total0.8960.7250.739202642660.8540.7480.454200582580.8990.7370.68027691367
    • The 3 scenarios were namely protruding roots, protruding flares, and protruding roots and/or flares. The statistics were computed using only trees with protruding parts. For each scenario, if more than 1 protruding part was present on a tree, the length of the longest protrusion was considered. The count of pavement materials around the tree pits with protrusion was provided. Due to the lack of protrusion or small sample size, incomputable statistics were denoted by “N/A” for A. alexandrae, M. × alba, P. serratifolia, and X. chrysanthus.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Binary logistic regression results predicting the occurrence of (a) protruding roots, (b) protruding flares, and (c) protruding roots and/or flares. Diameter at breast height and tree height were abbreviated as DBH and H.

    Model statisticsEffects on odds ratio
    X2R2Yes%No%InterceptDBHHLeanPavement widthOpen soil areaSetbackPavemen material (brick)
    (a) Protruding roots onlyA. moluccanus22.430.36555.089.80.3361.0811.0560.9041.1010.3192.0830.064
    B. ceiba15.580.26439.386.401.0061.0220.9790.3743.7497.102∞
    C. equisetifolia15.530.24715.499.0∞1.1460.9730.9170.92301.242N/A
    C. burmannii33.440.51974.283.800.9631.4711.2771.43510.7000.8500.534
    D. regia14.980.25140.787.20.1051.0480.8281.1050.7471.7071.0467.128
    F. altissima11.880.29593.827.3∞1.0111.1631.1690.4230.7772.0070
    F. microcarpa5.010.061100.003.4010.9980.9361.0141.1441.1621.0580.724
    M. cajuputi26.830.28739.494.40.0111.0861.0490.9841.0951.4861.3521.840
    S. campanulata42.850.61673.396.401.2411.0060.9241.4242.9590.9970.089
    All trees273.840.31438.394.20.0641.0491.0141.0280.9341.2691.1100.958
    (b) Protruding flares onlyA. moluccanus38.630.63764.396.901.1580.9481.1120.27832.930165.6005.516
    B. ceiba16.530.29031.888.0∞1.0860.9210.8960.5982.1701.4560
    C. equisetifolia35.550.40941.794.701.2620.9270.9601.00139.1100.966N/A
    C. burmannii12.880.23952.286.70.1961.1301.0180.9420.7660.3571.4751.471
    D. regia17.710.28464.964.90.0471.0781.0670.9900.7211.3451.1742.901
    F. altissima10.680.302100.037.5∞1.0201.4640.9501.3260.9490.7080
    F. microcarpa27.650.31295.028.00.0321.0511.0830.9801.0311.5240.9267.659
    M. cajuputi25.110.29612.595.90.0071.1370.9881.0181.1010.7130.9522.061
    S. campanulata39.960.51852.494.80.0021.0751.1771.0801.00112.8000.9010.111
    All trees468.800.49353.894.00.0151.1021.0001.0080.97212871.0561.222
    (c) Protruding roots and/or flaresA. molp6uccanus36.930.51169.090.00.0131.1201.0190.9990.8581.64612.1300.227
    B. ceiba24.740.38966.772.7∞1.0081.1190.8990.1887.54023.0800
    C. equisetifolia36.110.38541.995.4012240.9380.9350.91044.0201.074N/A
    C. burmannii24.530.41481.464.00.0061.0531.3871.0710.6026.9871.8911.876
    D. regia12.730.21477.831.00.2911.0300.9871.0090.6421.9541.3115.918
    F. altissima17.471.000100.0100.0∞1.829∞0.56500.0080∞
    F. microcarpa15.370.570100.033.3∞0.9880.7960.742051.100∞∞
    M. cajuputi42.880.40659.183.30.0071.1111.1070.9811.0331.4881.2832.457
    S. campanulata55.910.63469.293.101.0881.3461.0721.11820.4801.0360.056
    All trees540.10.52369.887.90.0341.1140.9801.0030.9161.7581.1320.956
    • The rates of correct prediction of the presence (Yes%) and absence (No%) of protrusion were provided. Species-specific effects of DBH in centimetres, H, lean angle, pavement width, open soil area, setback, and pavement material on the odds ratio of the occurrence of the 3 scenarios were reported. “N/A” indicated a lack of variation. Significant model statistics and predictors with P < 0.05 were italicised and underlined. For comparison, the pseudo-R2 values were supplied. A. alexandrae, L. speciosa, M. × alba, P. serratifolia, and X. chrysanthus were excluded due to small sample size.

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Multiple regression results for predicting the length of (a) protruding roots, (b) protruding flares, and (c) protruding roots and/or flares. Diameter at breast height and tree height were abbreviated as DBH and H.

    R2InterceptDBHHLean anglePavement widthOpen soil areaSetbackPavement material
    (a) Protruding roots onlyA. moluccanus0.2030.711−0.038−0.0020.004−0.0220.091−0.454−0.003
    B. ceiba0.285−0.039−0.7820.0600.0410.0430.018−0.0500
    C. equisetifolia0.1920.451−0.8820.0260.0060.013−0.0480N/A
    C. burmannii0.6680.5190.684−0.0170.002−0.0950.2920.102−0.018
    D. regia0.639−0.0120.422−0.018−0.020−0.0430.1680.0860.713
    F. altissima0.3381.069−0.0840.017−0.004−0.1660.0990.267−0.223
    F. microcarpa0.017−0.0320.7300−0.0050.0320.119−0.0530.321
    M. cajuputi0.6240.1320.3730.0080.0070.0100.2460.069−0.076
    S. campanulata0.5020.849−0.750−0.010−0.003−0.0200.428−0.054−0.206
    All trees0.2070.2190.0240.0070−0.0090.1650.0060.158
    (b) Protruding flares onlyA. moluccanus0.1270.239−1.425−0.009−0.0040.3060.157−0.6230.006
    B. ceiba0.1240.627−0.6020.0020.002−0.0660.2760.116−0.116
    C. equisetifolia0.4490.4050.516−0.0290.015−0.0240.1950.076N/A
    C. burmannii0.1640.3860.6750.0020.0040.043−0.224−0.0810.111
    D. regia0.5900.3470.026−0.0160.003−0.0460.2340.0340.205
    F. altissima0.2942.290−0.0050.001−0.009−0.1150.0780.101−0.952
    F. microcarpa0.4790.3200.511−0.0080.0040.0070.142−0.0270.080
    M. cajuputi0.7590.014−1.193−0.0130.016−0.0070.4920.0950.292
    S. campanulata0.756−0.595−0.8350.0300.0190.0370.416−0.0200.222
    All trees0.5770.3060.05100.007−0.0140.1540.0010.092
    (c) Protruding roots and/or flaresA. moluccanus0.3980.660−0.7450.0060.0040.0160.169−0.427−0.013
    B. ceiba0.1670.428−0.0100.0090.028−0.0620.1580.063−0.053
    C. equisetifolia0.1960.1340.312−0.0080.013−0.0020.1480.050N/A
    C. burmannii0.4750.2370.5360.0010.003−0.0070.207−0.0160.024
    D. regia0.6330.3971.072−0.0530.007−0.0660.2200.0680.286
    F. altissima0.3591.509−0.0510.008−0.010−0.1580.1030.208−0.311
    F. microcarpa0.098−0.2071.110−0.0010.0010.0350.130−0.0640.327
    M. cajuputi0.6620.1260.432−0.0020.0090.0100.2660.071−0.019
    S. campanulata0.630−0.319−0.3640.0130.0150.0120.446−0.0150.127
    All trees0.3110.1850.1640.0030.008−0.0140.1720.0020.159
    • In each scenario, if more than 1 protrusion was detected on a tree, only the longest protruding parts were considered. Species-specific regression coefficients of the predictors, namely DBH, H, lean angle, pavement width, open soil area, setback, and pavement material, were presented. If significant, the adjusted R2 and regression coefficient values were italicised and underlined. “N/A” indicated a lack of variation. A. alexandrae, L. speciosa, M. × alba, P. serratifolia, and X. chrysanthus were excluded due to small sample size.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 48 (4)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 48, Issue 4
July 2022
  • 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.
Quantitative Tools for the Prediction of Pavement Damages Associated with Urban Trees
(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
Quantitative Tools for the Prediction of Pavement Damages Associated with Urban Trees
Louis S.H. Lee
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2022, 48 (4) 217-232; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2022.016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Quantitative Tools for the Prediction of Pavement Damages Associated with Urban Trees
Louis S.H. Lee
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2022, 48 (4) 217-232; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2022.016
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • 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

  • Hardscape of Soil Surface Surrounding Urban Trees Alters Stem Carbon Dioxide Efflux
  • Literature Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems and LIDAR with Application to Distribution Utility Vegetation Management
  • Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Pavement Damage
  • Protruding Roots
  • tree care
  • Tree Pit
  • Trunk Flare
  • Urban Green Infrastructure

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire