Characteristics of the Human Community (H). Second-, third-, and fourth-tier variables relating to (H), one of the five core first-tier factors in the UFSES framework. Abbreviations in the “Other UF frameworks” column correspond to shorthand citation keys for frameworks described in Table 2. Notes for Table 3 through Table 9 appear in Appendix D. UFSES (urban forest social-ecological system); UF (urban forest).
| Number | Second-tier variable | Third-a and fourth-tierb variable(s) | Description and possible values | Other UF frameworks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Size and density | At a system (e.g., entire city) or subsystem (e.g., neighborhood, block face) level. | GOV1 | |
| H1-1 | Size of communitya | Overall number of people living in the area of interest, or the overall geographic size in terms of area of land (or land and water if significant water resources are present and impactful). | ||
| H1-2 | Population densitya | Density of people living in the community (# of people per unit area, # of households per unit area, # of dwelling units per unit area). | VULN | |
| H2 | Socio-demographics | Composite characteristics of people within a particular geography (community, neighborhood, etc.)(Note 29). | GOV1, LEG, MORT, NBS | |
| H2-1 | Race/ethnicitya | Distribution of racial and/or ethnic identities of individuals living within a geographic area into locally relevant categories. | SES1 | |
| H2-1a | Language spokenb | First language or language spoken at home by individuals/households. | ||
| H2-2 | Age of peoplea | Mean or median age of community, or a distribution of ages (Note 30). | ||
| H2-3 | Gendera | Distribution of individuals into categories of Male, Female, and Other (Note 30). | ||
| H2-4 | Incomea | Mean or median of individuals per capita or per household; the most commonly used metric in the USA is that collected by the Census Bureau (median household income). | SES1, VULN | |
| H2-5 | Education levelsa | Distribution of individuals into locally relevant categories based on level of education (e.g., less than 8th grade, less than high school, high school graduate or GED, some college, etc.); could use the median level of education as a single metric. | SES1, VULN | |
| H2-6 | Unemployment ratesa | Proportion of the working-age population (18+, or other locally relevant cut-off age) who does not have a job. | SES1 | |
| H2-7 | Homeownership/owner occupancy ratea | Proportion of households owning their home or proportion of homes in the geographic area that are owner occupied; especially important for neighborhoods with large percentages of single-family homes. | SES1, VULN, MORT | |
| H2-8 | Housing/building vacancy ratea | Proportion of buildings, homes, and/or businesses that are vacant and unoccupied. | SES1 | |
| H2-X | Other demographic or socio-economic factorsa | E.g., family structure, residence time in neighborhood, home value. | SES1, VULN | |
| H2-#V | Variability (homogeneity or heterogeneity) in socio-demographicsa | How much variability there is for any of the relevant socio-demographic factors analyzed; could be expressed as a variance or standard deviation of the mean, 95% confidence intervals for population-level estimates, or as a set of minimum, maximum, or other percentiles (25th, 75th, etc.). | ||
| H2-#T | Change in socio-demographicsa | Rate of change in any of the socio-demographic factors can be captured (e.g., H2-1T could be used to express the change in the percentage of a community identifying as nonwhite between decadal censuses; H2-6T could capture the % decrease in the unemployment rate in the past 2 years). | LEG, MORT | |
| H3 | Legacies of historical periods | Within community legacies of colonial history, redlining areas, industrial and postindustrial changes in land use, shifting socio-economic and demographic composition of communities, etc.; relevance of these factors vary within the urban forest system of interest (Note 31). | GOV1, LEG | |
| H4 | Community capacity | Indicators of capacity might include: social capital (bonding, bridging, linking) and other resources of individuals and community/neighborhood groups influencing the urban forest; practical experience in managing trees, gardens, or other natural resources, or taking care of public space; neighborhood ties, social cohesion, trust, reciprocity, etc.; what relevant variables are indicative of community capacity may vary widely across and even within communities; community-defined capacity may be different endogenously defined (by the community itself) than exogenously defined (by researchers, outsiders). | ||
| H5 | Evidence of tree care | Evidence of the community caring (or not caring) for trees/greenspace, including presence of care indicators (e.g., watering bags/irrigation systems, seating areas, bird feeders, yard art near the tree[s]/tree space) or evidence of a lack of care (e.g., trash, vandalism in or near the tree[s]/tree space). | SES1, VULN, MORT | |
| H6 | List of stakeholders | List of relevant stakeholders; might be individuals, groups, and/or types of groups as appropriate to the system of interest; includes parties performing operational-level maintenance as well as those engaged in other planning and policy type activities; stakeholders are defined as “actors who influence, interact, and benefit from urban forests” (Vogt and Abood 2021) and might be an individual (e.g., the mayor), a group (e.g., municipal tree crew members), an organization (a nonprofit organization, a private tree care company), or a type of individual (e.g., homeowners); interactions of stakeholders with the trees in the urban forest may be formal/official (e.g., municipal tree care activities) or informal (homeowners benefiting from temperature regulating effects of shade trees)(Note 32). | GOV1, MOS, GOV2 | |
| H6-1 | Core stakeholders (leaders, entrepreneurs, bridging groups)a | If applicable, identify those stakeholders who are most deeply and/or broadly connected to urban forestry efforts throughout the system of interest or stakeholders who are local leaders in urban forestry or who otherwise have an outsized influence on the system; core stakeholders could be the formal members of a steering committee, advisory body, or just those who are informally influential. | ||
| H6-2 | Stakeholder network structurea | Network structure refers to the connections between stakeholder groups or individuals; could refer to networks with respect to a particular aspect of the system such as knowledge sharing or decision making, or to more general network structure; could identify particular kinds of stakeholders such as boundary actors or bridging organizations, etc. (Note 33). | ||
| H7 | Level of expertise/training of stakeholders/stewards | Experience, training, certifications, and/or education of individuals within stakeholder groups; includes the frequency, intensity, formality of professional development activities for paid professionals, retraining requirements for volunteers, compliance/licensing re-up requirements, etc.; professional certifications and licenses, especially for paid staff or contractors (e.g., Certified Arborists®, Board Certified Master Arborists®, TRAQ or other qualifications, Certified Foresters); level of training/volunteer certifications of community volunteers (e.g., Master Gardener, “tree steward” certifications, etc.); formal education in relevant fields (arboriculture, forestry, horticulture, but also, community organizing, etc.). | SES1 | |
| H7-1 | Level of expertise: Municipal staffa | LEG | ||
| H7-2 | Level of expertise: Nonprofit staffa | LEG | ||
| H7-3 | Level of expertise: Private sectora | |||
| H7-4 | Level of expertise: Volunteersa | |||
| H7-X | Level of expertise: Other stewardsa | |||
| H8 | Stakeholder collaboration, cooperation, & conflict resolution | Degree of collaboration, cooperation, and conflict (and conflict resolution) between stakeholders; includes cooperation between public agencies managing trees, support or lack of support from private, nonprofit, and philanthropic organizations, and the green industry; involvement of the general public; bridging or convening groups and collaborative/regional initiatives, etc. | SUS, MOS, GOV2 | |
| H9 | Stakeholder characteristics: Municipal | Characteristics of the relevant municipal/local government authority(ies)(city, village, town, hamlet, county, etc.) that impact the urban forest (Note 34). | MORT, GOV2 | |
| H9-1 | Municipal department(s) or division(s)a | Particular department(s)/division(s) responsible for care of public trees and/or with ordinance enforcement responsibilities for trees on private and public property. | ||
| H9-2 | Municipal human resourcesa | Number of staff (individuals, full-time equivalencies), work hours, contracted staff, staff with particular credentials, etc. | SUS, GOV2 | |
| H9-3 | Municipal budget/fiscal resourcesa | Budget of the department responsible for tree management (e.g., annual municipal tree budget; contract value); or proportion of the total municipal budget dedicated to the care and management of trees. | SUS, GOV1 | |
| H9-X | Other municipal characteristicsa | Any other relevant factors related to the municipal authority and its urban forest management (e.g., if a municipality has made a specific tree planting goal, the mission of this initiative could be relevant). | ||
| H10 | Stakeholder characteristics: Nonprofit | Characteristics of any local, regional, or national-level nonprofit organizations (including philanthropic organizations, formal/informal community/neighborhood groups/associations) that impact the urban forest of interest. | SUS, MORT, GOV2 | |
| H10-1 | Nonprofit missiona | Overall mission/goal of the nonprofit organization(s)(or program[s]) that impacts the urban forest)(Note 35). | MOS | |
| H10-2 | Nonprofit human resourcesa | Number of nonprofit staff (individuals, full-time equivalencies), work hours, level of expertise/education/training, etc. | GOV1, GOV2 | |
| H10-3 | Nonprofit budget/fiscal resourcesa | Budget of the authority responsible for tree management (e.g., annual municipal tree budget; contract value). | ||
| H10-X | Other nonprofit characteristicsa | Any other relevant factors related to a nonprofit organization and its urban forest management. | ||
| H11 | Stakeholder characteristics: Private sector | Characteristics or capacity in the private sector that regularly impact the urban forest, including the involvement of large institutional land holders such as colleges/universities, hospitals, business parks, industrial properties, etc. (e.g., number of local tree care companies, dollar value of local green industry [if available], prevalence/quality of institutional urban forest management plans/practices). | SUS, GOV1, GOV2 | |
| H12 | Stakeholder characteristics: Other | Characteristics of additional authorities not specified in H9 through H11. | GOV2 | |
| H13 | Community adaptive capacity & learning | Demonstrated or anticipated capacity for adapting to change or learning from past experiences; might be indicated by access to fiscal and other kinds of capital (natural, built, human, social, cultural, political) that often enable adaptation; level of stakeholder buy-in to proposed changes (Note 36). | VULN | |