Research ArticleArticles

A Comprehensive Framework for Understanding Urban Forests as Social-Ecological Systems

Jess Vogt
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) November 2024, 50 (6) 427-469; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2024.021

Literature Cited

  1. ↵
    1. Adams CE,
    2. Lindsey KJ.
    2009. Urban green spaces. In: Urban wildlife management. 2nd Ed. Boca Raton (FL, USA): CRC Press. p. 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781439882191
    1. Adger WN.
    2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16(3):268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    American National Standards Institute. 2023. ANSI A300. Londonderry (NH, USA): Tree Care Industry Association, Inc. 152 p. https://treecareindustryassociation.org/business-support/ansi-a300-standards
  4. ↵
    1. Anderies JM,
    2. Janssen MA,
    3. Ostrom E.
    2004. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology & Society. 9(1):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00610-090118
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Bigelow LM Jr,
    2. Fahey RT,
    3. Grabosky J,
    4. Hallett RA,
    5. Henning JG,
    6. Johnson ML,
    7. Roman LA.
    2024. Predictors of street tree survival in Philadelphia: Tree traits, biophysical environment, and socioeconomic context. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 94:128284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128284
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Binder CR,
    2. Hinkel J,
    3. Bots PWG,
    4. Pahl-Wostl C
    2013. Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology & Society. 18(4):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Bond J.
    2013. Tree inventories. 2nd Ed. Best management practices. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 35 p.
  8. ↵
    1. Brandt L,
    2. Derby Lewis A,
    3. Fahey R,
    4. Scott L,
    5. Darling L,
    6. Swanston C.
    2016. A framework for adapting urban forests to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy. 66:393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Buijs A,
    2. Hansen R,
    3. Van der Jagt S,
    4. Ambrose-Oji B,
    5. Elands B,
    6. Lorance Rall E,
    7. Mattijssen T,
    8. Pauleit S,
    9. Runhaar H,
    10. Stahl Olafsson A,
    11. Møller MS.
    2019. Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: Upscaling active citizenship from a local government perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 40:53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.011
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Buijs AE,
    2. Mattijssen TJM,
    3. Van der Jagt APN,
    4. Ambrose-Oji B,
    5. Andersson E,
    6. Elands BHM,
    7. Steen Møller M.
    2016. Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: Fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 22:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Burghardt KT,
    2. Avolio ML,
    3. Locke DH,
    4. Grove JM,
    5. Sonti NF,
    6. Swan CM.
    2022. Current street tree communities reflect race-based housing policy and modern attempts to remedy environmental injustice. Ecology. 104(2):e3881. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3881
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Cash DW,
    2. Adger WN,
    3. Berkes F,
    4. Garden P,
    5. Lebel L,
    6. Olsson P,
    7. Pritchard L,
    8. Young O.
    2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology & Society. 11(2):8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01759-110208
    OpenUrl
    1. Chambers-Ostler A,
    2. Walker H,
    3. Doick KJ.
    2024. The role of the private tree in bringing diversity and resilience to the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 91:127973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127973
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    City of Chicago. 2023. Chicago urban forest management plan. Chicago (IL, USA): Department of Streets and Sanitation (Bureau of Forestry). [Accessed 2024 February 6]. https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/streets/provdrs/forestry/svcs/chicago-urban-forest-management-plan-.html
  15. ↵
    1. Clark JR,
    2. Matheny NP.
    1998. A model of urban forest sustainability: Application to cities in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture. 24(2):112–120. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1998.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Clark JR,
    2. Matheny N.
    2010. The research foundation to tree pruning: A review of the literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 36(3):110–120. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2010.015
    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(1):17–30. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1997.003
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Cole DH,
    2. Epstein G,
    3. McGinnis MD.
    2019. The utility of combining the IAD and SES frameworks. International Journal of the Commons. 13(1):244–275. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.864
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Conway TM,
    2. Yip V
    2016. Assessing residents’ reactions to urban forest disservices: A case study of a major storm event. Landscape and Urban Planning. 153:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.landurbplan.2016.04.016
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Costanza R,
    2. d’Arge R,
    3. de Groot R,
    4. Farber S,
    5. Grasso M,
    6. Hannon B,
    7. Limburg K,
    8. Naeem S,
    9. O’Neill RV,
    10. Paruelo J,
    11. Raskin RG,
    12. Sutton P,
    13. van den Belt M.
    1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Cox M.
    2014. Understanding large social-ecological systems: Introducing the SESMAD project. International Journal of the Commons. 8(2):265–276. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.406
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Cox M,
    2. Gurney GG,
    3. Anderies JM,
    4. Coleman E,
    5. Darling E,
    6. Epstein G,
    7. Frey UJ,
    8. Nenadovic M,
    9. Schlager E,
    10. Villamayor-Tomas S.
    2021. Lessons learned from synthetic research projects based on the Ostrom Workshop frameworks. Ecology & Society. 26(1):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12092-260117
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Cox M,
    2. Villamayor-Tomas S,
    3. Ban NC,
    4. Epstein G,
    5. Evans L,
    6. Fleischman F,
    7. Nenadovic M,
    8. Lopez GAG,
    9. van Laerhoven F,
    10. Meek C,
    11. Ibarra IP,
    12. Schoon M.
    2020. From concepts to comparisons: A resource for diagnosis and measurement in social-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy. 107:211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.009
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Deslatte A,
    2. Szmigiel-Rawska K,
    3. Tavares AF,
    4. Ślawska J,
    5. Karsznia I,
    6. Łukomska J.
    2022. Land use institutions and social-ecological systems: A spatial analysis of local landscape changes in Poland. Land Use Policy. 114:105937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105937
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Donovan GH,
    2. Prestemon JP,
    3. Butry DT,
    4. Kaminski AR,
    5. Monleon VJ.
    2021. The politics of urban trees: Tree planting is associated with gentrification in Portland, Oregon. Forest Policy and Economics. 124:102387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102387
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Eisenman TS,
    2. Churkina G,
    3. Jariwala SP,
    4. Kumar P,
    5. Lovasi GS,
    6. Pataki DE,
    7. Weinberger KR,
    8. Whitlow TH.
    2019. Urban trees, air quality, and asthma: An interdisciplinary review. Landscape and Urban Planning. 187:47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.010
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Epstein G,
    2. Vogt JM,
    3. Mincey SK,
    4. Cox M,
    5. Fischer B.
    2013. Missing ecology: Integrating ecological perspectives with the social-ecological system framework. International Journal of the Commons. 7(2):432–453. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.371
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Escobedo FJ,
    2. Giannico V,
    3. Jim CY,
    4. Sanesi G,
    5. Lafortezza R.
    2019. Urban forests, ecosystem services, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions: Nexus or evolving metaphors? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 37:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.011
    OpenUrl
    1. Esperon-Rodriguez M,
    2. Tjoelker MG,
    3. Lenoir J,
    4. Baumgartner JB,
    5. Beaumont LJ,
    6. Nipperess DA,
    7. Power SA,
    8. Richard B,
    9. Rymer PD,
    10. Gallagher RV.
    2022. Climate change increases global risk to urban forests. Nature Climate Change. 12:950–955. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01465-8
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Fang X,
    2. Li J,
    3. Ma Q.
    2023. Integrating green infrastructure, ecosystem services and nature-based solutions for urban sustainability: A comprehensive literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society. 98:104843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104843
    OpenUrl
    1. Felipe-Lucia MR,
    2. Martín-López B,
    3. Lavorel S,
    4. Berraquero-Díaz L,
    5. Escalera-Reyes J,
    6. Comín FA.
    2015. Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PLoS ONE. 10(7):e0132232. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132232
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Fischer AP.
    2018. Forest landscapes as social-ecological systems and implications for management. Landscape and Urban Planning. 177:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.001
    OpenUrl
    1. Folke C.
    2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change. 16(3):253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. Freeman-Day S,
    2. Fischer BC.
    2022. Indiana University’s woodland campus: A case study of urban forest patch sustainability. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 48(2):74–94. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2022.007
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Galle NJ,
    2. Halpern D,
    3. Nitoslawski S,
    4. Duarte F,
    5. Ratti C,
    6. Pilla F.
    2021. Mapping the diversity of street tree inventories across eight cities internationally using open data. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 61:127099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127099
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Geron NA,
    2. Martin DG,
    3. Rogan J,
    4. Healy M.
    2023. Residents’ roles as environmental policy actors using an urban governance framework: A case study of a tree planting program. Cities. 135:104201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104201
    OpenUrl
    1. Gerring J.
    2004. What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review. 98(2):341–354. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001182
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Gilman E.
    2001. Effect of nursery production method, irrigation, and inoculation with mycorrhizae-forming fungi on establishment of Quercus virginiana. Journal of Arboriculture. 27(1):30–39. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2001.005
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Gilman EF,
    2. Beeson RC Jr.
    1996. Production method affects tree establishment in the landscape. Journal of Environmental Horticulture. 14(2):81–87. https://doi.org/10.24266/0738-2898-14.2.81
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Hauer R,
    2. Peterson WD.
    2016a. Municipal tree care and management in the United States: A 2014 urban and community forestry census of tree activities. Stevens Point (WI, USA): College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Report No. 16-1. 71 p. https://www3.uwsp.edu/cnr/Documents/MTCUS%20-%20Forestry/Municipal%202014%20Report%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
  41. ↵
    1. Hauer R,
    2. Peterson W.
    2016b. Building and growing professionals for trees: Arboricultural standards and credentials. Arborist News. 25(1):42–46.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Hauer R,
    2. Peterson W.
    2016c. Municipal forestry budgets and employee compensation. Arborist News. 25(5):58–61.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Hilbert DR,
    2. Roman LA,
    3. Koeser AK,
    4. Vogt J,
    5. van Doorn NS.
    2019. Urban tree mortality: A literature review. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 45(5):167–200. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2019.015
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Holling CS.
    1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecolology, Evolution, and Systematics. 4:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Holling CS.
    1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs. 62(4): 447–502. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937313
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Holling CS.
    2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems. 4:390–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  47. ↵
    1. Huff ES,
    2. Johnson ML,
    3. Roman LA,
    4. Sonti NF,
    5. Pregitzer CC,
    6. Campbell LK,
    7. McMillen H.
    2020. A literature review of resilience in urban forestry. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 46(3):185–196. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2020.014
    OpenUrl
    1. Janowiak MK,
    2. Brandt LA,
    3. Wolf KL,
    4. Brady M,
    5. Darling L,
    6. Derby Lewis A,
    7. Fahey RT,
    8. Giesting K,
    9. Hall E,
    10. Henry M,
    11. Hughes M,
    12. Miesbauer JW,
    13. Marcinkowski K,
    14. Ontl T,
    15. Rutledge A,
    16. Scott L,
    17. Swanston CW.
    2021. Climate adaptation actions for urban forests and human health. Madison (WI, USA): USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report No. NRS-203. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-203
  49. ↵
    1. Johnson G,
    2. Hauer R,
    3. Peterson W,
    4. Karcher D,
    5. Gulick J.
    2016. Financing the urban forest: Volunteers as a source of revenue and program support. Arborist News. 25(4):20–25.
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Johnson LR,
    2. Johnson ML,
    3. Aronson MFJ,
    4. Campbell LK,
    5. Carr ME,
    6. Clarke M,
    7. D’Amico V,
    8. Darling L,
    9. Erker T,
    10. Fahey RT,
    11. King KL,
    12. Lautar K,
    13. Locke DH,
    14. MOrzillo AT,
    15. Pincetl S,
    16. Rhodes L,
    17. Schmit JP,
    18. Scott L,
    19. Sonti NF.
    2021. Conceptualizing social-ecological drivers of change in urban forest patches. Urban Ecosystems. 24:633–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00977-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  51. ↵
    1. Johnson ML,
    2. Novem Auyeung DS,
    3. Sonti NF,
    4. Pregitzer CC,
    5. McMillen HL,
    6. Hallett R,
    7. Campbell LK,
    8. Forgione HM,
    9. Kim M,
    10. Charlop-Powers S,
    11. Svendsen ES.
    2019. Social-ecological research in urban natural areas: An emergent process for integration. Urban Ecosystems. 22:77–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0763-9
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. Kadam P,
    2. Dwivedi P
    2021. Developing a certification system for urban forests in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 62:127178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127178
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Kenney WA,
    2. van Wassenaer PJE,
    3. Satel AL.
    2011. Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 37(3):108–117. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2011.015
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Konijnendijk CC,
    2. Nesbitt L,
    3. Wirtz Z.
    2021. Urban forest governance in the face of pulse disturbances—Canadian experiences. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 47(6):267–283. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2021.023
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    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(3-4):93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2005.11.003
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Kozlowski TT,
    2. Pallardy SG.
    1997. Growth control in woody plants. San Diego (CA, USA): Academic Press, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-424210-4.X5000-1
  57. ↵
    1. Landry F,
    2. Dupras J,
    3. Messier C.
    2020. Convergence of urban forest and socio-economic indicators of resilience: A study of environmental inequality in four major cities in eastern Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning. 202:103856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103856
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    1. Lawrence A,
    2. De Vreese R,
    3. Johnston M,
    4. Konijnendijk van cen Bosch CC,
    5. Sanesi G.
    2013. Urban forest governance: Towards a framework for comparing approaches. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 12(4):464–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.05.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  59. ↵
    1. Leff M.
    2016. The sustainable urban forest guide: A step-by-step approach. Kent (OH, USA): Davey Institute. [Accessed 2024 February 23]. https://urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/ttresources/the-sustainable-urban-forest-guide-a-step-by-step-approach
    1. Levin SA.
    2000. Fragile dominion: Complexity and the commons. 1st Ed. New York (NY, USA): Basic Books. 272 p.
  61. ↵
    1. Lilly SJ,
    2. Gilman EF,
    3. Smiley ET.
    2019. Pruning. 3rd Ed. Best management practices. Atlanta (GA, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 63 p.
  62. ↵
    1. Liu J,
    2. Dietz T,
    3. Carpenter SR,
    4. Folke C,
    5. Alberti M,
    6. Redman CL,
    7. Schneider SH,
    8. Ostrom E,
    9. Pell AN,
    10. Lubchenco J,
    11. Taylor WW,
    12. Ouyang Z,
    13. Deadman P,
    14. Kratz T,
    15. Provencher W.
    2007. Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio. 36(8):639–649. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[639:chans]2.0.co;2
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Lorenzo K.
    2024. The community in CommuniTree: The effects of social context and ecological conditions on tree planting survival in northwest Indiana. M.S. Environmental Science. Chicago (IL, USA): DePaul University.
  64. ↵
    1. McGinnis MD,
    2. Ostrom E.
    2014. Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology & Society. 19(2):30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    1. Wright D
    1. Meadows DH.
    2008. Thinking in systems: A primer. Wright D, editor. White River Junction (VT, USA): Chelsea Green Publishing. 240 p.
  66. ↵
    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 . 16:553–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0286-3
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    1. Mincey SK,
    2. Vogt JM.
    2014. Watering strategy, collective action, and neighborhood-planted trees: A case study of Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 40(2):84–95. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2014.010
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. Muñoz-Erickson TA.
    2014. Co-production of knowledge-action systems in urban sustainable governance: The KASA approach. Environmental Science & Policy. 37:182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.09.014
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. Myers G,
    2. Mullenbach LE,
    3. Jolley JA,
    4. Cutts BB,
    5. Larson LR.
    2023. Advancing social equity in urban tree planting: Lessons learned from an integrative review of the literature. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 89:128116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128116
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    1. Nagendra H,
    2. Ostrom E.
    2014. Applying the social-ecological system framework to the diagnosis of urban lake commons in Bangalore, India. Ecology & Society. 19(2):67. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06582-190267
    OpenUrl
  71. ↵
    1. Nguyen VD,
    2. Roman LA,
    3. Locke DH,
    4. Mincey SK,
    5. Sanders JR,
    6. Smith Fichman E,
    7. Duran-Mitchell M,
    8. Tobing SL.
    2017. Branching out to residential lands: Missions and strategies of five tree distribution programs in the U.S. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 22:24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.01.007
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. O’Connor CB,
    2. Levin PS.
    2023. Mental models for assessing impacts of stormwater on urban social-ecological systems. Urban Science. 7(1):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci7010014
    OpenUrl
  73. ↵
    1. Oleyar MD,
    2. Greve AI,
    3. Withey JC,
    4. Bjorn AM.
    2008. An integrated approach to evaluating urban forest functionality. Urban Ecosystems. 11:289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-008-0068-5
    OpenUrl
  74. ↵
    1. Onghena P,
    2. Maes B,
    3. Heyvaert M.
    2019. Mixed methods single case research: State of the art and future directions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 13(4):461–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818789530
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. Ordóñez C.
    2019. Polycentric governance in nature-based solutions: Insights from Melbourne urban forest managers. Landscape Architecture Frontiers. 7(3):46–61. https://doi.org/10.15302/J-LAF-1-020001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Ordóñez C,
    2. Threlfall CG,
    3. Kendal D,
    4. Hochuli DF,
    5. Davern M,
    6. Fuller RA,
    7. van der Ree R,
    8. Livesley SJ.
    2019. Urban forest governance and decision-making: A systematic review and synthesis of the perspectives of municipal managers. Landscape and Urban Planning. 189:166–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.020
    OpenUrl
  77. ↵
    1. Ordóñez C,
    2. Threlfall CG,
    3. Livesley SJ,
    4. Kendal D,
    5. Fuller RA,
    6. Davern M,
    7. van der Ree R,
    8. Hochuli DF.
    2020. Decision-making of municipal urban forest managers through the lens of governance. Environmental Science & Policy. 104:136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.11.008
    OpenUrl
  78. ↵
    1. Ostrom E.
    1986. An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice. 48:3–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00239556
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  79. ↵
    1. Ostrom E.
    2005a. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton (NJ, USA): Princeton University Press. 376 p.
  80. ↵
    1. Ostrom E.
    2005b. Zooming in and linking action situations. In: Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton (NJ, USA): Princeton University Press. p. 32–68.
  81. ↵
    1. Ostrom E.
    2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104(39): 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104
    OpenUrl
  82. ↵
    1. Ostrom E.
    2008. The challenge of common-pool resources. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 50(4):8–21. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.50.4.8-21
    OpenUrl
  83. ↵
    1. Ostrom E.
    2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science. 325(5939):419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
    OpenUrl
  84. ↵
    1. Ostrom E.
    2010. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review. 100(3):641–672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641
    OpenUrl
  85. ↵
    1. Ostrom E,
    2. Cox M.
    2010. Moving beyond panaceas: A multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation. 37(4):451–463. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000834
    OpenUrl
  86. ↵
    1. Ostrom V,
    2. Tiebout CM,
    3. Warren R.
    1961. The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review. 55(4):831–842. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952530
    OpenUrl
  87. ↵
    1. Pallardy SG.
    2008. Physiology of woody plants. 3rd Ed. San Diego (CA, USA): Academic Press, Inc. 464 p.
  88. ↵
    1. Partelow S.
    2018. A review of the social-ecological systems framework: Applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Ecology & Society. 23(4):36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10594-230436
    OpenUrl
  89. ↵
    1. Perrotti D,
    2. Hyde K,
    3. Otero Peña D.
    2020. Can water systems foster commoning practices? Analysing leverages for self-organization in urban water commons as social-ecological systems. Sustainability Science. 15:781–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00782-1
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    1. Peterson W,
    2. Hauer R.
    2016. Getting the work done in the urban forest: Community staff, volunteers, and contractors. Arborist News. 25(6):34–38.
    OpenUrl
  91. ↵
    1. Pirnat J,
    2. Hladnik D.
    2016. Connectivity as a tool in the prioritization and protection of sub-urban forest patches in landscape conservation planning. Landscape and Urban Planning. 153:129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.013
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  92. ↵
    1. Reed MS,
    2. Merkle BG,
    3. Cook EJ,
    4. Hafferty C,
    5. Hejnowicz AP,
    6. Holliman R,
    7. Marder ID,
    8. Pool U,
    9. Raymond CM,
    10. Wallen KE,
    11. Whyte D,
    12. Ballesteros M,
    13. Bhanbhro S,
    14. Borota S,
    15. Brennan ML,
    16. Carmen E,
    17. Conway EA,
    18. Everett R,
    19. Armstrong-Gibbs F,
    20. Jensen E,
    21. Koren G,
    22. Lockett J,
    23. Obani P,
    24. O’Connor S,
    25. Prange L,
    26. Mason J,
    27. Robinson S,
    28. Shukla P,
    29. Tarrant A,
    30. Marchetti A,
    31. Stroobant M.
    2024. Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01496-4
  93. ↵
    1. Richardson K,
    2. Steffen W,
    3. Lucht W,
    4. Bendtsen J,
    5. Cornell SE,
    6. Donges JF,
    7. Drüke M,
    8. Fetzer I,
    9. Bala G,
    10. Von Bloh W,
    11. Feulner G,
    12. Fiedler S,
    13. Gerten D,
    14. Gleeson T,
    15. Hofmann M,
    16. Huiskamp W,
    17. Kummu M,
    18. Mohan C,
    19. Nogués-Bravo D,
    20. Petri S,
    21. Porkka M,
    22. Rahmstorf S,
    23. Schaphoff S,
    24. Thonicke K,
    25. Tobian A,
    26. Virkki V,
    27. Wang-Erlandsson L,
    28. Weber L,
    29. Rockström J.
    2023. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances. 9(37):eadh2458. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. Rockström J,
    2. Steffen W,
    3. Noone K,
    4. Persson Å,
    5. Chapin FS III,
    6. Lambin EF,
    7. Lenton TM,
    8. Scheffer M,
    9. Folke C,
    10. Schellnhuber HJ,
    11. Nykvist B,
    12. de Wit CA,
    13. Hughes T,
    14. van der Leeuw S,
    15. Rodhe H,
    16. Sörlin S,
    17. Snyder PK,
    18. Costanza R,
    19. Svedin U,
    20. Falkenmark M,
    21. Karlberg L,
    22. Corell RW,
    23. Fabry VJ,
    24. Hansen J,
    25. Walker B,
    26. Liverman D,
    27. Richardson K,
    28. Crutzen P,
    29. Foley JA.
    2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. 461:472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Battles JJ,
    3. McBride JR.
    2016. Urban tree mortality: A primer on demographic approaches. Newtown Square (PA, USA): USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report No. NRS-158. 24 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-158
  96. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Catton IJ,
    3. Greenfield EJ,
    4. Pearsall H,
    5. Eisenman TS,
    6. Henning JG.
    2021a. Linking urban tree cover change and local history in a post-industrial city. Land. 10(4):403. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10040403
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Conway TM,
    3. Eisenman TS,
    4. Koeser AK,
    5. Ordóñez Barona C,
    6. Locke DH,
    7. Jenerette GD,
    8. Östberg J,
    9. Vogt J.
    2021b. Beyond ‘trees are good’: Disservices, management costs, and tradeoffs in urban forestry. Ambio. 50:615–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01396-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  98. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Fristensky JP,
    3. Eisenman TS,
    4. Greenfield EJ,
    5. Lundgren RE,
    6. Cerwinka CE,
    7. Hewitt DA,
    8. Welsh CC.
    2017. Growing canopy on a college campus: Understanding urban forest change through archival records and aerial photography. Environmental Management. 60:1042–1061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0934-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  99. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Pearsall H,
    3. Eisenman TS,
    4. Conway TM,
    5. Fahey RT,
    6. Landry S,
    7. Vogt J,
    8. van Doorn NS,
    9. Grove JM,
    10. Locke DH,
    11. Bardekjian AC,
    12. Battles JJ,
    13. Cadenasso ML,
    14. Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC,
    15. Avolio M,
    16. Berland A,
    17. Darrel Jenerette G,
    18. Mincey SK,
    19. Pataki DE,
    20. Staudhammer C.
    2018. Human and biophysical legacies shape contemporary urban forests: A literature synthesis. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 31:157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  100. ↵
    1. Roman L,
    2. Pearsall H,
    3. Vaolio M,
    4. Bardekjian A,
    5. Battles J,
    6. Boyer D,
    7. Cadenasso M,
    8. Conway T,
    9. Davis C,
    10. Eisenman T,
    11. Fahey R,
    12. Grove JM,
    13. Jenerette D,
    14. Konijnendijk C,
    15. Krasny M,
    16. Landry S,
    17. Locke DH,
    18. Maher J,
    19. Mincey S,
    20. Pataki D,
    21. Perkins H,
    22. Staudhammer C,
    23. Van Doorn N,
    24. Vogt J,
    25. Wilson M,
    26. York A.
    2015. Growing the urban forest: Catalyzing integrative approaches to spatial and temporal dynamics of urban forests [team synthesis project]. College Park (MD, USA): The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC), University of Maryland. https://www.sesync.org/research/growing-urban-forest
  101. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Scatena FN.
    2011. Street tree survival rates: Metaanalysis of previous studies and application to a field survey in Philadelphia, PA, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 10(4):269–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.05.008
    OpenUrl
  102. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. van Doorn NS,
    3. McPherson EG,
    4. Scharenbroch BC,
    5. Henning JG,
    6. Östberg JPA,
    7. Mueller LS,
    8. Koeser AK,
    9. Mills JR,
    10. Hallett RA,
    11. Sanders JE,
    12. Battles JJ,
    13. Boyer DJ,
    14. Fristensky JP,
    15. Mincey SK,
    16. Peper PJ,
    17. Vogt J.
    2020. Urban tree monitoring: A field guide. Madison (WI, USA): USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report No. NRS-194. 48 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-194
  103. ↵
    1. Rudd H,
    2. Vala J,
    3. Schaefer V
    2002. Importance of backyard habitat in a comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy: A connectivity analysis of urban green spaces. Restoration Ecology. 10(2):368–375. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.2002.02041.x
    OpenUrl
  104. ↵
    1. Scharenbroch BC.
    2009. A meta-analysis of studies published in Arboriculture & Urban Forestry relating to organic materials and impacts on soil, tree, and environmental properties. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 35(5):221–231. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2009.036
    OpenUrl
  105. ↵
    1. Schmitt-Harsh ML,
    2. Mincey SK.
    2020. Operationalizing the social-ecological system framework to assess residential forest structure: A case study in Bloomington, Indiana. Ecology & Society. 25(2):14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11564-250214
    OpenUrl
    1. Shackleton CM,
    2. Ruwanza S,
    3. Sinasson Sanni GK,
    4. Bennett S,
    5. De Lacy P,
    6. Modipa R,
    7. Mtati N,
    8. Sachikonye M,
    9. Thondhlana G.
    2016. Unpacking Pandora’s Box: Understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems. 19:587–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database (SESMAD). 2014. Hanover (NH, USA): Dartmouth. https://sesmad.dartmouth.edu
  108. ↵
    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
  109. ↵
    1. Steffen W,
    2. Richardson K,
    3. Rockström J,
    4. Cornell SE,
    5. Fetzer I,
    6. Bennett EM,
    7. Biggs R,
    8. Carpenter SR,
    9. De Vries W,
    10. De Wit CA,
    11. Folke C,
    12. Gerten D,
    13. Heinke J,
    14. Mace GM,
    15. Persson LM,
    16. Ramanathan V,
    17. Reyers B,
    18. Sörlin S.
    2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science. 347(6223):1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
    OpenUrl
    1. Swanston CW,
    2. Janowiak MK,
    3. Brandt LA,
    4. Butler PR,
    5. Handler SD,
    6. Shannon PD,
    7. Derby Lewis A,
    8. Hall K,
    9. Fahey RT,
    10. Scott L,
    11. Kerber A,
    12. Miesbauer JW,
    13. Darling L,
    14. Parker L,
    15. St. Pierre M.
    2016. Forest adaptation resources: Climate change tools and approaches for land managers. 2nd Ed. Newtown Square (PA, USA): USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report No. NRS-GTR-87-2. 161 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-87-2
  111. ↵
    1. Tashakkori A,
    2. Johnson RB,
    3. Teddlie C.
    2020. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks (CA, USA): SAGE Publications, Inc. 472 p.
  112. ↵
    1. Turner BL II,
    2. Kasperson RE,
    3. Matson PA,
    4. McCarthy JJ,
    5. Corell RW,
    6. Christensen L,
    7. Eckley N,
    8. Kasperson JX,
    9. Luers A,
    10. Martello ML,
    11. Polsky C,
    12. Pulsipher A,
    13. Schiller A.
    2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100(14):8074–8079. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231335100
    OpenUrl
  113. ↵
    1. Tzoulas K,
    2. Galan J,
    3. Venn S,
    4. Dennis M,
    5. Pedroli B,
    6. Mishra H,
    7. Haase D,
    8. Pauleit S,
    9. Niemelä J,
    10. James P
    2021. A conceptual model of the social-ecological system of nature-based solutions in urban environments. Ambio. 50:335–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01380-2
    OpenUrl
  114. ↵
    1. Unnikrishnan H,
    2. Katharina Gerullis M,
    3. Cox M,
    4. Nagendra H.
    2023. Unpacking dynamics of diverse nested resource systems through a diagnostic approach. Sustainability Science. 18:153180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01268-y
    OpenUrl
  115. USDA. 2023. USDA invests $1 billion for nearly 400 projects to expand access to trees and green spaces in communities and neighborhoods nationwide through Investing in America agenda [press release]. Washington (DC, USA): USDA Forest Service. https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/news-room/releases/usda-invests-1-billion-nearly-400-projects-expand-access-trees-and
  116. ↵
    1. van Doorn NS,
    2. Roman LA,
    3. McPherson EG,
    4. Scharenbroch BC,
    5. Henning JG,
    6. Östberg JPA,
    7. Mueller LS,
    8. Koeser AK,
    9. Mills JR,
    10. Hallett RA,
    11. Sanders JE,
    12. Battles J,
    13. Boyer DJ,
    14. Fristensky JP,
    15. Mincey SK,
    16. Peper PJ,
    17. Vogt JM.
    2020. Urban tree monitoring: A resource guide. Albany (CA, USA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report No. PSW-GTR-266. 132 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/PSW-GTR-266
  117. ↵
    Vibrant Cities Lab. 2023. USDA Forest Service, American Forests, and the National Association of Regional Councils. https://vibrantcitieslab.com
  118. ↵
    1. Vogt J.
    2018. “Ships that pass in the night”: Does scholarship on the social benefits of urban greening have a disciplinary crosstalk problem? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 32:195–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.010
    OpenUrl
  119. ↵
    1. Goldstein MI,
    2. DellaSala DA
    1. Vogt J.
    2020a. Urban forests: Biophysical features and benefits. In: Goldstein MI, DellaSala DA, editors. Encyclopedia of the world s biomes. Amsterdam (Netherlands): Elsevier, p. 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12404-2
  120. ↵
    1. Goldstein MI,
    2. DellaSala DA
    1. Vogt J.
    2020b. Urban forests as social-ecological systems. In: Goldstein MI, DellaSala DA, editors. Encyclopedia of the worlds biomes. Amsterdam (Netherlands): Elsevier, p. 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.12405-4
    1. Vogt J,
    2. Abood M.
    2021. The motivations, desired outcomes, and visions of partner organizations to Collective Impact tree planting: A transdisciplinary case study of CommuniTree in Northwest Indiana, U.S. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 65:127311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127311
    OpenUrl
    1. Vogt JM,
    2. Epstein GB,
    3. Mincey SK,
    4. Fischer BC,
    5. McCord P
    2015a. Putting the “E” in SES: Unpacking the ecology in the Ostrom social-ecological system framework. Ecology & Society. 20(1):55. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07239-200155
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  123. ↵
    1. Vogt JM,
    2. Fischer BC.
    2014. A protocol for citizen science monitoring of recently-planted urban trees. Cities and the Environment. 7(2):4. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7/iss2/4
    OpenUrl
  124. ↵
    1. Vogt J,
    2. Fischer BC,
    3. Hauer RJ.
    2016. Urban forestry and arboriculture as interdisciplinary environmental science: Importance and incorporation of other disciplines. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. 6:371–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0309-x
    OpenUrl
  125. ↵
    1. Vogt J,
    2. Hauer RJ,
    3. Fischer BC.
    2015b. The costs of maintaining and not maintaining the urban forest: A review of the urban forestry and arboriculture literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 41(6):293–323. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2015.027
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  126. ↵
    1. Vogt JM,
    2. Watkins SL,
    3. Mincey SK,
    4. Patterson MS,
    5. Fischer BC.
    2015c. Explaining planted-tree survival and growth in urban neighborhoods: A social-ecological approach to studying recently-planted trees in Indianapolis. Landscape and Urban Planning. 136:130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.11.021
    OpenUrl
  127. ↵
    1. Vogt J,
    2. Watkins SL,
    3. Widney S,
    4. Fischer B.
    2015d. The need to standardize at-planting data. Arborist News. 24(6):26–31.
    OpenUrl
  128. ↵
    1. Walker LR
    1. Walker LR,
    2. Willig MR.
    1999. An introduction to terrestrial disturbances. In: Walker LR, editor. Ecosystems of disturbed ground. 1st Ed. Vol. 16. New York (NY, USA): Elsevier Science. p. 1–16.
    OpenUrl
  129. ↵
    1. Watson G.
    2014. Tree planting. 2nd Ed. Best management practices. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 40 p.
  130. ↵
    1. Watson GW,
    2. Himelick EB.
    2005. Tree planting. Best management practices. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 41 p.
  131. ↵
    1. Watson WT.
    2005. Influence of tree size on transplant establishment and growth. HortTechnology. 15(1):118–122. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.15.1.0118
    OpenUrl
  132. ↵
    1. Wiseman PE,
    2. Raupp MJ.
    2016. Integrated pest management. 2nd Ed. Best management practices. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 36 p.
    1. Wolf-Jacobs A,
    2. Wilson JP,
    3. Margulies E.
    2023. Promoting self-determination, minimizing green gentrification, and maximizing community benefits in urban forestry expansion: A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 84:127933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127933
    OpenUrl
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
A Comprehensive Framework for Understanding Urban Forests as Social-Ecological Systems
Jess Vogt
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 2024, 50 (6) 427-469; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2024.021
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords