Citation | Location (City and state) | Sample type(s) and sample size (no) | Time t (yrs) | Significant factors |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gilbertson and Bradshaw (1985)° | England, multiple communities | N/A (10,000) | N/A “newly planted” | Human – Larger town size (−), new town (+) |
Hickman et al. (1995)RI | Lodi, CA | Park trees (695) | 7 | Biophysical – Decline (−), trunk vigor (+), lean (−); higher risk rating for soil (/), wind (/), root (/), and butt (/) Human – Irrigation frequency (/) |
Nowak (1986)RI | Syracuse, NY | Street trees (1454) | 7 | Biophysical – Total sample: Acer saccharum (−), Acer platanoides (+), strip width (/) Human – Total sample: curbing (/), type of utility wires (/), adjacent land use (/) |
Syracuse and | Street trees (1160) | 9 | Biophysical – Total sample: crown closure on 3 sides (+); Acer platanoides: decline class 1.0 (+), class 2-5 (−) Human – All maples: pruning (−); Acer platanoides: 1976 ground disturbance (−) | |
Nowak et al. (1990)C | Oakland/Berkeley, CA | Street trees (480) | 2 | Human – Apartments (−), public greenspace (−), single family residence (+), subway station (+), unemployment rate (−) |
Miller and Miller (1991)C | WI Milwaukee, redeveloped Milwaukee, not redeveloped Stevens Point Waukesha | Street trees (311) (692) (368) (677) | 4-6 4-6 4-9 4 | Biophysical – Taxa (varied), planted in fall season (+) (Waukesha only) Human – Redeveloped area (−) vs. non-redeveloped area (+) |
Hauer et al. (1994)RI | Milwaukee, WI Construction damage No construction damage | Street trees (432) (413) | 10 | Human – Construction (−) |
Duryea et al. (1996)° | Trees on streets and in yards after storm (18,200) | N/A | Biophysical – Taxa (varies), nativity (+), size within species group (varies) Human – Pruning (varies) | |
Nowak et al. (2004)RI | Baltimore, MD | Trees within various land use classes (1396) | 2 | Biophysical – Morus alba, Ailanthus altissima, Cornus florida, Acer negudo (−), dbh class of 0-7.6 cm (−) and 30.6-45.7 cm (+), tree condition of poor, critical, or dying (−), tree condition of excellent (−) Human – Transportation (−), low-med. residential (+) |
Thompson et al. (2004)C | IA, 21 communities | Trees in streets, parks, schoolyards(932) | 2-6 | Biophysical – Taxa (/) Human – Quadrant (/), community size (/), project site location (/) |
Jim (2005)RI | Hong Kong, China | Heritage trees in parks and roadsides (380) | 10 | Biophysical – Public greenspace habitat2 (−), roadside (−) Human – Open space (−), government (−), institutional (−), community (−) |
Duryea et al. (2007)O | FL, various cities | Trees on streets and in yards after storm (18,200) | N/A | Biophysical – Taxa (varies), nativity (/), wood density (+), crown density (+), decurrent growth form (+), growing in cluster (+) |
Boyce (2010)C,RI | New York City, NY | Street trees in pits With stewardship Without stewardship | ≤ 4 (mixed-aged cohort) > 4 (repeated inventory) | Human – Stewardship (+) |
Lu et al. (2010)C | New York, NY | Street trees Total (13,405) 3-6 yrs. cohort (2417) 6-8 yrs. cohort (5053) 8-9 yrs. cohort (5935) | 3-9 3-6 6-8 8-9 | Biophysical – Taxa: Pyrus calleryana (+) Human – Industrial (−), open space (−), vacant (−), one-and two-family residential (+), stewardship index (+), low traffic area (+), tree pit enhancement (+) |
Staudhammer et al. (2011)RI | Houston, TX | Trees within various land use classes1 (305) | 8 | Biophysical – Tree density (−), hurricane (−), developed open space (−), developed high-density (−) |
Jack-Scott (2012)C | Philadelphia, PA | Community planted trees | ~1-5 | Biophysical – Taxa: P. Virginiana and Platanus × acerifolia (+), C. canadensis (−) Human – Street traffic intensity (−) |
Lawrence et al. (2012)RI | Gainesville, FL | Various land use classes (754) | 3-4 | Biophysical – Tree density (−), Quercus nigra and Q. laurifolia (−) Human – Institutional (−), commercial (+) |
Jack-Scott et al. (2013)RI | New Haven, CT | Community planted trees (1393) | 4-16 | Biophysical – Tree age (−) Human – Percent homeownership (varies), group experience (+), group longevity (+), group size (varies), group type (varies) |
Koeser et al. (2013)C | Milwaukee, WI | Street trees, 0-10 yrs. (793) No construction (391) Construction (402) 11-25 yrs. (895) No construction (686) Construction (219) | 10 16 | Biophysical – Taxa: Gleditsia triacanthos (+), Acer saccharum (−), trunk diameter (−), planting space width (+), tree condition (+) Human – Adjacent to construction (−) |
Lima et al. (2013)RI | San Juan, Puerto Rico | Various land use classes (244) | 9 | Biophysical – Species nativity (varies), grass cover (+), species height, dbh, and CLE value (+), street tree (−), forested plots (+) Human – Higher income neighborhoods (+), higher neighborhood population (−) |
Koeser et al. (2014)C | FL, various cities | Trees in parking lots, highways, streets, lawns, parks (2354) | 2-5 | Biophysical – Nursery stock: irrigated container-grown trees (+), taxa (varies) Human – In-ground irrigation (+) |
Roman et al. (2014a)RI | Oakland, VA | Street trees (995) | 5 | Biophysical – Larger tree dbh (+), better foliage health rating (+) (for smallest size class), planted in sidewalk cut-out (vs. strip) (+) |
Roman et al. (2014b)C | Sacramento, CA | Single-family residential yard trees (370) | 5 | Biophysical – Species water use demand (−), planted in front yard (+), planted in rainy season (+), mature tree size (−), days since planting (−) Human – Homeowner stability (+), maintenance rating (+), number of trees delivered (−), neighborhood income (varies), neighborhood educ. attainment (+) |
Ko et al. (2015a)C | Sacramento, CA | Lawn trees (317) | 22 | Biophysical – Planted in backyard (−), small mature tree size (−), planted in rainy season (−) Human – Highest and lowest net property values (−), unstable homeownership (−), number of trees delivered (−) |
Vogt et al. (2015a)C | Indianapolis, IN | Community planted street trees (1345) | 3-6 | Biophysical – Number of trees planted in project (−), fall planting season (−), percent impervious surface (−), planting year (+), nursery 3 (varies) Human – Median household income ($1000) (+), percent renter occupied homes (+), percent moved in last 5 years (+), watering strategy (varies), watering strategy × fall planting (−) |
Conway (2016)° | Mississauga, Canada | Survey of residents | N/A | Human – Neighborhood (/), length of residency (/), ownership status (/), university education (/), resident age (/), income (/), ethnicity (/) |
Martin et al. (2016)RI | San Francisco, CA | Street trees on right-of-way | 17-22 | Biophysical – Tree health (/), tree age (/), microclimate (/) |
Boukili et al. (2017)RI | Cambridge, MA | Street trees (592) | 3 | Biophysical – A. platanoides, A. rubrum, and T. cordata (+), initial tree diameter (/), percent permeable surface (/), growing season solar insolation (/) Human – Street segment (/) |
Morgenroth et al. (2017)° | Christchurch, New Zealand | Mixed land use classes (1209) | n/a | Biophysical – Small trees (−), small trees closer than 0.7 m to demolished building (−), large trees closer than 20 m to driveway (−) |
Steenberg et al. (2017)RI | Toronto, Canada | Yard, street, public ROW (806) | 6-7 | Human – Presence and number of building permits (−), multi-unit housing (street-level scale) (−) |
van Doom and McPherson (2018)RI | Claremont, CA | Street trees, 21 species (community-level) (732) | 14 | Biophysical – Tree size (/), tree condition (/), growing space (/) Human – Presence of overhead utility lines (+), sidewalk damage (/) |
↵1Staudhammer et al. (2011) conceptualize “developed open space” and “developed high-density” as “land use” categories, but for the purposes of consistency here, we consider these to be biophysical descriptions of the site (i.e., “Site characteristics” in Table 3 in the main text).
↵2Jim (2005) uses “public greenspace” to describe the planting habitat, which is biophysical in nature. Others (e.g., Nowak et al. 1990) use this term to describe a human-related land use category. We acknowledge discrepancies between terminologies and how authors used them, but chose to keep the wording for factors and their categorization the same as the original publication in order to best summarize the literature.