Elsevier

Urban Ecology

Volume 8, Issues 1–2, September 1984, Pages 55-67
Urban Ecology

Forest canopy cover and land use in four Eastern United States cities

https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4009(84)90006-8Get rights and content

Abstract

Four cities in the eastern United States were divided into ten land-use classes and measured for canopy cover with black-and-white, monoscopic aerial photographs. Mean citywide canopy cover is 24–37%, with a range of 5–60% for the mean canopy coverage of ten land uses. Available space for growing trees is 55–66% of the sample cities' area; the percentage of that space filled with canopy is 37–57%. The dominant land-use class, one- and two-family residential covering an average of 46% of the cities' area, shows little variation in both canopy cover and canopy stocking within the sample and, where available growing space increases, so does canopy stocking. Vacant land is second in areal coverage (14% of cities' area), and varies only moderately in canopy cover and stocking when the values in this class are divided into abandoned and undeveloped land. Regularities in the spatial distribution of canopy, among the sample cities, occur as a result of the location and extent of land use.

References (8)

  • R.G. Bailey

    Descriptions of ecoregions of the United States

  • A.W. Küchler

    Potential natural vegetation of the coterminous United States

  • K.D. Moessner

    A crown density scale for photo interpreters

    J. For.

    (1947)
  • R.M. Northam

    Urban Geography

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (42)

  • Canopy of advantage: Who benefits most from city trees?

    2018, Journal of Environmental Management
    Citation Excerpt :

    With the emergence of urban forestry as a substantive discipline over the last several decades (see Konijnendijk et al., 2006), there has been rapid expansion in the quantity and focus of scholarship relating to city trees. Initially concentrating on definitions and determinants of urban forest structure (Rowntree, 1984; Sanders, 1984; Talarchek, 1990), the research emphasis quickly expanded to include the identification and quantification of a wide range of perceived ecological, social, and environmental urban forest benefits (Dwyer et al., 1992; McPherson, 1992; McPherson et al., 1997). With a considerable area of North American urban forest loss projected from continuing urbanization (Nowak and Walton, 2005), the focus on the quantification of tree benefits was an important step in moving an understanding of the importance of urban vegetation outside the academic sphere and into public focus to inform policy decisions, especially at the municipal level.

  • The neighbourhood approach to urban forest management: The case of Halifax, Canada

    2013, Landscape and Urban Planning
    Citation Excerpt :

    A frequently used attribute for stratification in urban forest planning is land use. Land use is highly influential on urban forest form (Rowntree, 1984). As such, urban forest actions would be implemented at the level of, for example, single-family residential, commercial, or institutional land uses, as was done in the Seattle urban forest management plan (City of Seattle, 2007).

  • A study of Bangalore urban forest

    2000, Landscape and Urban Planning
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text