Research Note

Understanding the role of urban tree

management on ecosystem services
K a t h r yn L. Hand and K ieron J . Doic k June 2019

Urban forests provide ecosystem services that contribute to human health, liveability and sustainability. The management
of trees influences the delivery of these ecosystem services and thus helps determine the total benefit provided by an
urban forest. This Research Note summarises two Research Reports that assessed the delivery of regulating ecosystem
services by 30 tree species common to the urban environment in the UK. The importance of characteristics such as
tree size, stature and condition on ecosystem services delivery are examined, and how these vary across different
species. Using academic, industry, central and local government sources, the implications of management practices
for ecosystem services delivery by individual trees are discussed, as well as the cumulative impact of the whole urban
forest. This is achieved by considering key drivers and vital practices in the four key stages of urban tree management,
namely, species selection, planting and establishment, maintenance, and removal. The findings illustrate that management
practices influence ecosystem services delivery by urban forests through selection of the trees planted, how trees are
maintained, and when and for what reasons trees are removed. Healthy large trees are shown to provide the greatest
quantities of ecosystem services per tree, emphasising the importance of urban forest management that values and
protects these trees. However, constraints and challenges can inhibit the proactive management of urban trees.

FRRN039 1
Introduction between 6 and 12 m (Hand, Doick and Moss, 2019a,b). Note
that it is the species that is defined for stature and not the tree,
Urban forest is defined as ‘all the trees in the urban realm – and that this definition is also independent of age. The two
in public and private spaces, along linear routes and waterways reports featured 30 species common to UK towns and cities
and in amenity areas’ (Urban Forestry and Woodlands Advisory and investigated how ecosystem services delivery changed with
Committees Network, 2016). Urban forests contribute to green increasing size, and how this varied among trees of different
infrastructure and the wider urban ecosystem, and they provide species and conditions. The main findings from both reports
a range of ecosystem services that help alleviate problems follow below.
associated with urbanisation (Davies et al., 2017a). For example,
they make urban spaces healthier by removing air pollutants Size
and by creating greener spaces that encourage recreation,
socialising and relaxation (Davies et al., 2017a). They also Figure 1 presents the changes in ecosystem services delivery
contribute to liveability by maintaining links to local culture, with increase in trunk diameter for large, medium and small
history and nature, and to urban sustainability by reducing stature trees. The graphs show that ecosystem services
stormwater run-off and sequestering carbon. Many of the delivery estimated for these urban trees was strongly linked
benefits provided by urban trees contribute to national and to tree size. Specifically, for carbon storage (total carbon
local policy objectives, such as improving public health and stored), avoided stormwater run-off and air pollution removal,
well-being, and contributing to climate adaptation and ecosystem services delivery grew steadily with increased trunk
mitigation. Consequently, planting is increasingly encouraged, diameter. For carbon sequestration, the rate of uptake
for example by the creation of a Northern Forest (HM increased to a peak and then started to decline, in agreement
Government, 2018a). with research showing that growth rates slow down as trees
pass maturity (White, 1998; Nowak and Crane, 2002).
The quantity of regulating ecosystem services delivered by an Ecosystem services delivery was also found to increase with
individual tree, such as carbon storage, rainfall interception and increasing tree stature (Figure 1). This trend is insignificant
air pollution removal, is determined by characteristics including when trees are small; however, above a trunk diameter of 60
size, stature and condition (Davies et al., 2017a; Hand, Doick cm the trend is significant across the modelled range of
and Moss, 2019a,b), meaning that some trees provide greater ecosystem services (Hand, Doick and Moss, 2019a,b) (Figure 1).
quantities of ecosystem services than others. The content that Trees that were capable of growing to a greater trunk diameter
follows discusses how management of urban trees can impact had a larger woody biomass and stored a greater mass of
these characteristics, thus enhancing or constraining ecosystem carbon than smaller trees. Similarly, rainfall and air pollution
services delivery by the urban forest. In doing so, this Research interception increased with the greater tree canopy size and
Note aims to inform urban forestry decision-making to achieve total leaf area associated with greater size (Hand, Doick and
greater benefits from urban trees. Moss, 2019a,b).

Species
Ecosystem services delivery
by urban trees Ecosystem services delivery varies among species. Table 1
ranks 30 common urban tree species by ecosystem services
The ecosystem services delivery of urban trees can be assessed provision, as modelled by Hand, Doick and Moss (2019a,b).
using tools such as i-Tree Eco (www.itreetools.org), which In general, the larger stature species ranked higher than the
estimates carbon storage and sequestration, avoided smaller stature species, although exceptions do occur. For
stormwater run-off and air pollution removal. Drawing upon example, Scots pine (a large stature species) ranks below many
data collated from 10 i-Tree Eco studies in the UK, two medium stature species for the four ecosystem services under
Forestry Commission Research Reports detailed the delivery of consideration. Furthermore, some species (for example, downy
these ecosystem services for (1) large stature tree species, birch) perform well for one ecosystem service but not for
defined as a species in which a healthy, isolated 20-year-old another (Table 1). Characteristics linked to differences in
specimen growing in good soil conditions typically attains a ecosystem services delivery include:
height of greater than 12 m (Stokes et al., 2005; RHS, 2016;
Hand, Doick and Moss, 2019a,b); and (2) small and medium • broadleaf or conifer trees, evergreen and/or deciduous,
stature tree species, defined as species in which a healthy, for example, interception of airborne pollutants and rainfall
isolated 20-year-old specimen growing in good soil conditions by deciduous trees decrease when leafless (Xiao and
typically attains a height of (small) less than 6 m or (medium) McPherson, 2002; Clapp et al, 2014);

2
 Figure 1  Comparison of ecosystem services provision by small, medium and large stature trees within 20 cm bands of trunk diameter
(after Hand, Doick and Moss, 2019a,b). Ecosystem services shown are: (a) carbon storage, (b) carbon sequestration, (c) avoided run-off and (d)
air pollution removal.
6000 100

Carbon sequestration per tree (kg/yr)

a b
5000
80
Carbon storage (kg)

4000
60
3000
40
2000

20
1000

0 0
0–20 20–40 40–60 60–80 80–100 100–120 120–140 140–160 0–20 20–40 40–60 60–80 80–100 100–120 120–140 140–160
Trunk diameter (cm) Trunk diameter (cm)

6 2.5
c d
5
2
Pollution removal (kg/yr)
Avoided run-off (m3/yr)

4
1.5
3
1
2

0.5
1

0 0
0–20 20–40 40–60 60–80 80–100 100–120 120–140 140–160 0–20 20–40 40–60 60–80 80–100 100–120 120–140 140–160
Trunk diameter (cm) Trunk diameter (cm)

Small Medium Large

Note: Estimates shown are ± 1 standard error of the mean. Here, large error bars are a consequence of a small sample size. Hand, Doick and Moss (2019a,b) did not feature any small stature
trees with a diameter >80 cm, or any medium stature trees with a diameter of >120 cm, as expected for the definitions used to define the stature groups.

• bark and leaf physiology, for example, trees with rough or Condition
flaky bark, or rough or hairy leaf surfaces trap and retain
more air pollutants than tree species with smooth bark Trees in poor condition provide lower ecosystem services
and leaves (Chen et al., 2017); delivery. Poor condition impedes growth, slowing carbon
• branch structure and crown density, for example, trees with sequestration (Nowak et al., 2008), and may also lead to
multi-layered branching and denser canopies intercept canopy dieback, reducing the capacity to intercept
more rainfall than tree species with an open canopy precipitation and airborne pollutants (Alonso et al., 2011;
(Xiao and McPherson, 2002; Nisbet, 2005). Xiao and McPherson, 2002).

The difference in ecosystem services delivery between the

first and last ranked species was considerable. For example, as
trees matured, oak species provided >70 times more carbon
storage compared with plum species, and annually sequestered
10-fold more carbon compared with elder. London plane
delivered >20 times more avoided run-off and air pollution
removal than elder.

3
Table 1  Tree species ranked by their ecosystem services delivery as mature trees, in descending order.

Rank Carbon storage Gross carbon sequestration Avoided run-off Pollution removal
per tree per tree per tree per tree

1 Oak spp. Oak spp. London plane London plane

2 London plane English elm English elm English elm

3 English yew English yew Oak spp. Oak spp.

4 Beech London plane English yew Wych elm

5 Sycamore Beech Wych elm Beech

6 Ash Sycamore Beech English yew

7 English elm Holm oak Lime spp. Lime spp.

8 Holm oak Ash Sycamore Sycamore

9 Wych elm Wych elm Norway maple Norway maple

10 Norway maple Silver birch Ash Ash

11 Lime spp. Sweet cherry Holm oak Holm oak

12 Hornbeam Lime spp. Sweet cherry Sweet cherry

13 Silver birch Norway maple Hornbeam Hornbeam

14 Scots pine Hornbeam Silver birch Scots pine

15 Sweet cherry Scots pine Scots pine Silver birch

16 Lawson’s cypress Alder Lawson’s cypress Lawson’s cypress

17 Alder Rowan Field maple Field maple

18 Downy birch Field maple Holly Leyland cypress

19 Field maple Lawson’s cypress Leyland cypress Holly

20 Leyland cypress Hawthorn Bird cherry Goat willow

21 Hawthorn Downy birch Goat willow Bird cherry

22 Goat willow Apple spp. Rowan Rowan

23 Apple spp. Leyland cypress Alder Alder

24 Holly Goat willow Hawthorn Hawthorn

25 Rowan Holly Hazel Hazel

26 Hazel Callery pear Apple spp. Apple spp.

27 Callery pear Hazel Downy birch Downy birch

28 Bird cherry Bird cherry Callery pear Callery pear

29 Elder Plum spp. Plum spp. Plum spp.

30 Plum spp. Elder Elder Elder

Small Medium Large

Note: In the absence of field records for mature English elm, rankings were based on simulated tree data. A comparison of simulated trees and field surveyed trees revealed an overestimation of
ecosystem services provision by the simulated trees, therefore, the ranking of English elm should be treated with caution (Hand, Doick and Moss, 2019a).

4
Urban tree management Box 1 – Species selection criteria for urban tree planting

In this section, literature from academic, industry, central and

local government sources on four key stages of urban tree Urban Tree Manual (Forestry Commission England, 2018)
management is reviewed to reveal the drivers and the role of selection criteria:
management practices on stature, attainable size and the
condition of urban trees. The review of local authority (LA)
• Tree suitability: site category, substrate availability
and other site constraints, tree characteristics and
policies from England, Scotland and Wales only considered growth requirements;
those introduced after 2000. The implications of these
management practices for ecosystem services delivery by
• Ecosystem services delivery: visual amenity, shading,
air pollution removal and carbon sequestration;
individual trees are considered and the cumulative impact on
ecosystem services delivery by the whole urban forest is
• Ecosystem disservices: nuisance associated with
some species, including high pollen production,
discussed. The four stages of management are species selection, fruit and leaf fall, or raised roots;
planting and establishment, maintenance, and removal.
• Climate change resilience: tolerance to the
changing climate and to future climate extremes,
Species selection including unseasonal frosts and periods of
extended drought, and susceptibility to exotic
Several factors must be considered if a tree is to establish, be pests and diseases.
healthy, grow to its full potential, and provide optimal benefit
for the location. The Urban Tree Manual (Forestry Commission Most common LA preferences in tree species selection:
England, 2018) outlines selection criteria that can be used to
define the tolerances and qualities that a species or cultivar • Native species: to support biodiversity
must meet to provide the optimal tree for a given location. (e.g. Camden London Borough Council, 2015;
These selection criteria are grouped under four headings: tree Fareham Borough Council, 2012);
suitability, ecosystem services delivery, ecosystem disservices • Species diversity/forest resilience: to increase
and climate change resilience (Box 1). resilience (e.g. New Forest District Council, 2014;
Durham County Council, 2014);
Tree species preferences, as stated in the reviewed LA policies, • Large stature trees: to increase the benefits that
are similarly concentrated around four main themes: preference society receives from trees (e.g. Ealing London Borough
for native species, diversity for forest resilience, preference for Council, 2013; Nottingham City Council, 2012);
large trees, and ensuring the right tree is planted in the right • Right tree, right place: to ensure appropriate species
place (Box 1). Some LA tree policies focused on a single selection and hence tree survival, considering tree
preference only, such as Newport City Council (2015) or and local environment characteristics (e.g. Camden
Braintree District Council (2016). Others included a range of London Borough Council, 2015; Newport City
preferences guiding species selection, for example, Waltham Council, 2015).
Forest London Borough Council (2017) and Dundee City
Council (2009). A few identified criteria were less frequently
listed, such as threatened or rare species (Braintree District
Council, 2016), broadleaf species and trees with high amenity Stating a range of criteria that should be considered in species
value (Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, 2013). selection promotes the multi-functional roles that trees can play
in the urban environment.
Despite these stated preferences of LAs, a trend of preferentially
planting smaller stature tree species has been observed Planting and establishment
(Forestry Commission Working Group, n.d.). This has been
attributed to attempts to minimise the risk and potential costs Once the right tree species (or cultivar) is selected for a location,
arising from damage to property or injury to the public (London good practice in planting and establishment is required to
Assembly, 2007; Britt and Johnston, 2008; Forestry Commission ensure survival and healthy growth and thus ecosystem services
Working Group, n.d.). Indeed, risk aversion in urban tree delivery. The first few years after planting are the most crucial:
management, which includes species selection, has been young trees must adjust to the new conditions, and in urban
reported to constrain benefit delivery by an urban forest (van environments this typically means coping with limited soil
der Jagt and Lawrence, 2015; Davies et al., 2017b). moisture, soil compaction and air pollution, each of which
presents challenges to survival (Hirons and Percival, 2012).

5
In addition, transportation to the planting site, pit design, Some went further, describing inspection and pruning
planting technique and maintenance during the establishment programmes (e.g. Ipswich Borough Council, 2010) and
period can impact on the chances of tree survival and long- approaches to managing pests and diseases (e.g. Wrexham
term healthy growth (Trees and Design Action Group, 2012; County Borough Council, 2016). Nearly all LA policies stated
Johnston and Hirons, 2014). that they would prune trees to manage health and safety risks.
However, most of them stated that they would not normally
Britt and Johnston (2008) reported mortality rates of around prune trees for reasons constituting a ‘nuisance’, such as access
20% for newly planted trees in English LAs, possibly resulting to light, disruption of television signals, or fruit fall onto
from only an average of 65% of newly planted trees receiving footpaths, but would for reasons regarding access to pathways
post-planting care. Despite this, there is little governance at and highways, as well as sightlines for CCTV and street signs
national or local level on tree planting and establishment (e.g. Harrow London Borough Council, 2015; Canterbury City
beyond powers allowing LAs to plant trees (Dandy, 2010). Council, 2017). Many stated that the British Standard Institutes
Many LA tree policies did not contain protocols for tree guidance (2010) on tree work (BS 3998) must be adhered to,
planting and establishment. While best practice guidance is and for some, where subsidence was a concern, the London
available, for example, BS 3936 and BS 8545 (British Standards Tree Officers Association’s guidance (2008a, 2008b) on
Institute, 1992, 2014; National Joint Utilities Group 2007), the assessing and mitigating risk from subsidence was referenced
reviewed policies rarely state whether there is a requirement for (e.g. Nottingham City Council. 2012; Bromley London Borough
LAs, contractors and developers to follow them. Some LAs Council, 2016). Only a handful of policies included a role in
provided supplementary planning guidance with protocols on providing advice to private tree owners to prevent poor quality
tree planting for developers and planning applicants (e.g. or unnecessary tree pruning (e.g. Redcar and Cleveland
Lichfield District Council, 2016), while others required funding Borough Council, 2013).
to cover the costs of maintaining newly planted trees in
developments (e.g. Lancaster City Council, 2010). Tree maintenance work may be systematic, that is, planned as
part of a programme of tree work, or reactive, that is, carried
The costs associated with tree losses can be significant when out as required (Johnston and Hirons, 2014). A number of LAs
the value of unrealised ecosystem services benefit delivery is were working towards planned cycles of tree inspection and
added to the replacement costs (Widney et al., 2016). High maintenance (e.g. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council,
levels of mortality in planting schemes can also make attaining 2013; Harrow London Borough Council, 2015). Some tree work
urban canopy cover targets a difficulty (McPherson et al., 2011). will always be reactive, for example, in response to emergency
However, reducing mortality rates by only a few percent can issues such as storm damage. However, reviews of LA tree
significantly improve long-term total ecosystem services management indicated that a high proportion of all tree
delivery (McPherson et al., 2011; Morani et al., 2011) and need maintenance is reactive, which can leave the maintenance
not be expensive. In the USA, Roman et al. (2015) showed that needs of other trees neglected (Britt and Johnston, 2008; van
engaging with local residents to support tree establishment der Jagt and Lawrence, 2015).
resulted in improved tree survival. Residents were involved in
watering the trees and some were trained in formative pruning Tree pruning, in particular, has been criticised in some areas as
to encourage tree growth that suited the surrounding being overly aggressive, for example, removing large portions of
environment (Roman et al., 2015). Such public stewardship tree canopy or pruning trees too frequently (London Assembly,
not only enhances tree health and survival, but helps deliver 2007, 2011). The removal of canopy reduces the ecosystem
additional benefits such as connecting people with nature. services provision by trees, can reduce growth rates, and leads
Formative pruning also reduces the need for substantial to pruning wounds vulnerable to infection. Such approaches
remedial action when the tree is larger and more expensive are attributed to LAs attempting to minimise damage to
to prune (Ryder and Moore, 2013). buildings or injury to persons and subsequent liability claims
(London Assembly, 2011). The risk of such claims has been
Maintenance identified as one of the main threats to LA urban tree
programmes (Britt and Johnston, 2008). Furthermore, reduced
Once a tree is established, the necessary maintenance activities budgets have caused some LAs to reduce the frequency of
decline in frequency and instead centre on inspection, pruning, pruning cycles (London Tree Officers Association, 2016),
and managing pests and diseases (Koeser et al., 2013; Vogt resulting in more severe prunes when trees are visited (London
et al., 2015). The LA policies reviewed varied in the level of Assembly, 2011) and less time to provide maintenance of the
detail provided on tree maintenance. Most described the highest quality (London Tree Officers Association, 2016).
factors determining whether they will (or will not) prune trees.

6
To enable a proactive approach to tree management, LAs have amenity value of trees: its powers were limited to protecting
been encouraged to make greater portions of their tree work trees with high public visibility, which were of large size and
systematic (Greater London Authority, 2005; London Tree under some threat of removal (Dandy, 2010). However, this left
Officers Association, 2008a). Systematic approaches enable a LA trees vulnerable where their importance fell outside one of
to demonstrate that they are fulfilling their duty of care required these categories. More recently, TPO designation has been
under the Occupiers Liability Act (1957, 1984)(UK Parliament, supported for trees that contribute to amenity, plus other
1957 and 1984), including the use of a risk-based inspection benefits including, for example, mitigating the impacts of
register. The systematic approach can be a cost-effective use of climate change (e.g. Cambridge City Council, 2016). Trees in
resources (Nottingham City Council, 2012) by helping to development areas can also be protected by placing conditions
identify issues early when they are least expensive to address, on planning permissions. However, these were less frequently
reducing the likelihood of an issue progressing to a point where mentioned than the use of TPOs; those that did reference their
tree removal is required, and helping to avert the declines in use included Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (2010) and
tree health which can follow when tree maintenance is delayed Cannock Chase District Council (2013).
(Vogt et al., 2015). For example, the London Tree Officers
Association (LTOA) advocated cyclical (i.e. systematic) pruning Large and mature trees appear to be particularly at risk of
regimes to mitigate subsidence liability. Subsidence liability removal. They can pose a significant risk to people or property
became a major issue when it became an insured risk in the (Randrup et al., 2001) and have greater management costs
1970s, and this frequently created pressure for nearby trees to because of more labour-intensive maintenance (Vogt et al.,
be removed, even although other factors may have been 2015). However, precisely estimating the likelihood of a tree
responsible (Institute of Structural Engineers, 2000). The LTOA causing significant damage is extremely difficult, and concerns
state that more trees in subsidence risk areas can be retained by over the severity of the event invariably dominate the risk
pruning trees systematically. This approach has succeeded in assessment (Britt and Johnston, 2008). This concern, plus the
halving the numbers of trees felled for subsidence claims within predominance of large trees in some towns and cities, has
some LAs (London Tree Officers Association, 2008a). While the resulted in significant losses of large and mature trees in
retained trees have less canopy area, removed trees may not be certain urban areas (London Assembly, 2007; Natural
replaced, or are more likely to be replaced with a smaller tree Resources Wales, 2016).
with comparatively lower ecosystem services delivery.
Furthermore, retaining large trees means that pruning can be There has been increasing recognition in national policy
reduced, allowing trees to enlarge their canopies; and (e.g. the National Planning Policy Framework. HM Government,
ecosystem services provision would be enhanced should there 2018b) of the greater ecosystem services value of large and
be changes in technical solutions for subsidence, greater mature trees, particularly those identified as ‘veteran’ trees.
demand for the climate change benefits of trees and/or Such recognition may lead to the introduction of policies that
greater tolerance of minor nuisance from trees. support tree retention, and has already led to national calls
for the risks posed by trees to be robustly evidenced and
Removal objectively evaluated against the benefits they provide
(National Tree Safety Group, 2011). At the local level, policies
The main driver for removal tends to be health and safety often referred to the importance of large and mature trees, for
concerns; other reasons include subsidence claims, example, Braintree District Council (2016) and Harrow London
development pressures, the installation of services and Borough Council (2015). Occasionally this was translated into
demand for improved access (London Assembly, 2007; targets for the identification and protection of mature large
Dandy, 2010). The UK policy affords more powers for tree stature trees (e.g. Nottingham City Council, 2012).
removal than tree planting or management (Dandy, 2010).
The main powers to protect trees in private ownership from The impact of removal of large trees on ecosystem services
removal are in the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) delivery is two-fold: the immediate loss in delivery of ecosystem
(UK Parliament, 1990), which allows LAs to designate a tree services by the tree to be removed, and the time-lag caused by
with a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), thus protecting it from the planting, establishment and maturing of the replacement
pruning or removal without consent. For trees in public tree. Retention of existing large and mature trees can therefore
ownership, LAs’ own policies on tree preservation and be just as important as new tree planting in maintaining
removal provide protection. ecosystem services benefits. Capturing and reporting the
benefits that urban trees provide to society has been shown to
Most of the LA tree policies discussed TPOs to some extent. be a powerful method to justify improved tree management
After conception, TPO designation was awarded to protect the (Hall et al., 2018). Cost-benefit analyses have also demonstrated

7
significantly greater benefits over the lifetime of a tree from CHAN, K. M., GUERRY, A. D., BALVANERA, P., KLAIN, S.,
planting large rather than small stature trees (Armour et al., SATTERFIELD, T., BASURTO, X., BOSTROM, A.,
2012). Furthermore, use of the Capital Asset Value of Amenity CHUENPAGDEE, R., GOULD, R., HALPERN, B. S. and
Trees (CAVAT) valuation tool has helped to establish urban trees HANNAHS, N. (2012). Where are cultural and social in
as assets requiring long-term systematic management (Doick ecosystem services? A framework for constructive
et al., 2018). Consideration of tree benefits that are not easily engagement. BioScience 62(8), 744–756.
quantified or valued, such as cultural ecosystem services CHEN, L., LIU, C., ZHANG, L., ZOU, R. and ZHANG, Z. (2017).
(Chan et al., 2012), as well as the regulating ecosystem services Variation in Tree Species Ability to Capture and Retain
provided by urban trees summarised here, lend further Airborne Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Scientific Reports
justification for management that aims to maximise tree 7(1), 3206.
longevity, size and health, and therefore increases the CLAPP, J. C., RYAN, H. D. P., HARPER, R. W., & BLONIARZ, D. V.
ecosystem services provided by an urban forest. (2014). Rationale for the increased use of conifers as
functional green infrastructure: A literature review and
synthesis. Arboricultural Journal, 36, 1–18.
References DANDY, N. (2010). The social and cultural values, and
governance, of street trees. Forest Research, Roslin.
ALONSO, R., VIVANCO, M. G., GONZALEZ-FERNANDEZ, I., DAVIES, H. J., DOICK, K., HANDLEY, P., O’BRIEN, L. and
BERMEJO, V., PALOMINO, I., GARRIDO, J. L., ELVIRA, S., WILSON, J. (2017a). Delivery of ecosystem services by urban
SALVADOR, P. and ARTINANO, B. (2011). Modelling the forests. Forestry Commission Research Note. Forestry
influence of peri-urban trees in the air quality of Madrid Commission, Edinburgh.
region (Spain). Environmental Pollution 159(8–9), 2138–2147. DAVIES, H. J., DOICK, K. J., HUDSON, M. D. and
ARMOUR, T., JOB, M. and CANAVAN, R. (2012). The benefits of SCHRECKENBERG, K. (2017b). Challenges for tree officers to
large species trees in urban landscapes: A costing, design and enhance the provision of regulating ecosystem services from
management guide (No. C712). CIRIA, London. urban forests. Environmental Research 156, 97–107.
BASINGSTOKE and DEANE BOROUGH COUNCIL (2012). Tree DOICK, K. J., NEILAN, C., JONES, G., ALLISON, A.,
Policy. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Basingstoke. MCDERMOTT, I., TIPPING, A. and HAW, R. (2018). CAVAT
BRAINTREE DISTRICT COUNCIL (2016). Tree Strategy. (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees): valuing amenity
Braintree District Council, Braintree. trees as public assets. Arboricultural Journal 40(2), 67–91
BRITT, C. and JOHNSTON, M. (2008). Trees in Towns II. A new DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL (2009). Dundee Tree and Urban
survey of urban trees in England and their condition and Forestry Policy. Dundee City Council.
management. Department for Communities and Local DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (2014). Tree Management Policy.
Government, London. Durham County Council.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTE (1992). BS 3936. Nursery Stock EALING LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2013). Tree Strategy
– Part 1: Specification for trees and shrubs. British Standards 2013 to 2018. Ealing London Borough Council.
Institution, London. FAREHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (2012). Tree Strategy 2012–
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTE (2010). BS 3998. Tree work 2017. Fareham Borough Council.
– Recommendations. British Standards Institution, London. FORESTRY COMMISSION ENGLAND (2018). Urban Tree
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTE (2014). BS 8545. Trees: from Manual: The Right Tree in the Right Place for a Resilient
nursery to independence in the landscape – Recommendations. Future. Forestry Commission England, Bristol.
British Standards Institution, London. FORESTRY COMMISSION WORKING GROUP (n.d.). The Barriers
BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2016). Tree and Drivers to Planting and Retaining Urban Trees Working
Management Strategy. 2016–2020. Bromley London Draft for Discussion. [Internet] Forestry Commission Working
Borough Council. Group. [https://www.ltoa.org.uk/news/187-the-barriers-
CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL (2016). Citywide Tree Strategy and-drivers-to-tree-planting-and-retention-in-urban-areas].
2016–2026. Cambridge City Council. Accessed April 2017.
CAMDEN LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2015). Camden’s GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY (2005). Connecting Londoners
Council’s Tree Policy for Council Owned Trees. Camden with trees and woodlands. A tree and woodland framework for
London Borough Council. London. Greater London Authority.
CANNOCK CHASE DISTRICT COUNCIL (2013). Urban Forestry HALL, C., O’BRIEN, L., HAND, K. and RAUM, S. (2018).
Strategy 2013–2018. Cannock Chase District Council, Cannock. Evaluation of i-Tree Eco surveys in Great Britain. Impacts and
CANTERBURY CITY COUNCIL (2017). Tree Management Policy. key lessons: The views of stakeholders. Forest Research, Farnham.
Canterbury City Council.

8
HAND, K. L., DOICK, K. J. and MOSS, J. L. (2019a). Modelling MCPHERSON, E. G., SIMPSON, J. R., XIAO, Q., & WU, C. (2011).
the Delivery of Regulating Ecosystem Services for Large Million trees Los Angeles canopy cover and benefit
Stature Trees in the Urban Environment with i-Tree Eco. assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(1), 40–50.
Forestry Commission Research Report. Forestry MORANI, A., NOWAK, D. J., HIRABAYASHI, S. and
Commission, Edinburgh. CALFAPIETRA, C. (2011). How to select the best tree
HAND, K. L., DOICK, K. J. and MOSS, J. L. (2019b). Modelling planting locations to enhance air pollution removal in the
the Delivery of Regulating Ecosystem Services for Small and MillionTreesNYC initiative. Environmental Pollution 159(5),
Medium Stature Trees in the Urban Environment with i-Tree 1040–1047.
Eco. Forestry Commission Research Report. Forestry NATIONAL JOINT UTILITIES GROUP (2007). Guidelines for
Commission, Edinburgh. the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus
HARROW LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2015). Tree Strategy in Proximity to Trees. National Joint Utilities Group 4, London.
2015–2018. Harrow London Borough Council. NATIONAL TREE SAFETY GROUP (2011). Common sense risk
HIRONS, A. D., and PERCIVAL, G. C. (2012). Fundamentals of management of trees. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
tree establishment: a review. In: Trees, people and the built NATURAL RESOURCES WALES (2016). Tree Cover in Wales’
environment. Proceedings of the Urban Trees Research Towns and Cities. [Internet]. Natural Resources Wales, Cardiff.
Conference (Birmingham, 2011). Forestry Commission [https://naturalresources.wales]. Accessed in June 2017.
Research Report. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. pp. 51−62. NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME BOROUGH COUNCIL (2013).
HM GOVERNMENT (2018a). A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan Urban Forest Strategy. Newcastle-Under-Lyme borough
to Improve the Environment. Defra, London. Council.
HM GOVERNMENT (2018b). National Planning Policy NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL (2014). Corporate Tree
Framework. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Strategy. New Forest District Council, Lyndhurst.
Government, London. NEWPORT CITY COUNCIL (2015). Newport City Council Tree
INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (2000). Subsidence Policy for NCC Owned and Managed Trees and Woodlands.
of low-rise buildings. Second Edition. Institution of Structural Newport City Council.
Engineers, London. NISBET, T. (2005). Water Use by Trees. Forestry Commission
IPSWICH BOROUGH COUNCIL (2010). Tree Management Policy. Information Note. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
Ipswich Borough Council. NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (2012). Urban Forest Strategy
JOHNSTON, M. and HIRONS, A. (2014). Urban Trees in 2012 to 2020 and Annexes 1 to 6. Nottingham City Council.
Horticulture: Plants for people and places. In: G. R. Dixon NOWAK, D. J. and CRANE, D. E. (2002). Carbon storage and
and D. E. Aldous, eds. Horticulture: Plants for People and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental
Places: Environmental Horticulture, volume 2. Springer Pollution 116, 381–389.
Science and Business Media, Dordrecht. NOWAK, D. J., CRANE, D. E., STEVENS, J. C., HOEHN, R. E.,
KOESER, A., HAUER, R., NORRIS, K. and KROUSE, R. (2013). WALTON, J. T., & BOND, J. (2008). A Ground-Based Method
Factors influencing long-term street tree survival in Milwaukee, of Assessing Urban Forest Structure and Ecosystem Services.
WI, USA. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 12(4), 562–568. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 34(6), 347–358.
LANCASTER CITY COUNCIL (2010). Tree Policy. Lancaster RANDRUP, T. B., MCPHERSON, E. G., & COSTELLO, L. R. (2001).
City Council. A review of tree root conflicts with sidewalks, curbs, and
LICHFIELD DISTRICT COUNCIL (2005). Trees and Development. roads. Urban Ecosystem, 5(1998), 209–225.
Supplementary Planning Document. Lichfield District REDCAR AND CLEVELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL (2013).
Council, Lichfield. Our Trees and Woodland Strategy 2013–2018. Redcar and
LONDON ASSEMBLY (2007). Chainsaw massacre. A review of Cleveland Borough Council.
London’s street trees. London Assembly. ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY (2016). Find a plant.
LONDON ASSEMBLY (2011). Branching Out The future for [Internet]. Royal Horticultural Society, London. [www.rhs.org.
London’s street trees. London Assembly. uk/Plants/]. Accessed January 2019.
LONDON TREE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (2008a). A Risk ROMAN, L. A., WALKER, L. A., MARTINEAU, C. M., MUFFLY, D.
Limitation Strategy for Tree Root Claims. London Tree J., MACQUEEN, S. A. and HARRIS, W. (2015). Stewardship
Officers Association. matters: Case studies in establishment success of urban
LONDON TREE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (2008b). Joint trees. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 14(4), 1174–1182.
Mitigation Protocol. London Tree Officers Association. RYDER, C. M. and MOORE, G. M. (2013). The arboricultural and
LONDON TREE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (2016). Tree economic benefits of formative pruning street trees.
management in London Boroughs. London Tree Officers Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 39(1), 17–24.
Association.

9
SOLIHULL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL (2010). WIDNEY, S., FISCHER, B. C. and VOGT, J. (2016). Tree mortality
Urban Tree Strategy 2010–2015. Solihull Metropolitan undercuts ability of tree-planting programs to provide
Borough Council. benefits: Results of a three-city study. Forests 7(3), 65.
STOKES, J., WHITE, J., MILES, A. and PATCH, D. (2005). Trees in WREXHAM COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL (2016). Wrexham
your ground. The Tree Council, London. Tree and Woodland Strategy 2016–2026. Wrexham County
TREES AND DESIGN ACTION GROUP (2012). Trees in the Borough Council.
Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers. Trees and Design XIAO, Q. and MCPHERSON, E. G. (2002). Rainfall interception
Action Group. by Santa Monica’s municipal urban forest. Urban Ecosystems
UK PARLIAMENT (1957). Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1957. UK 6(4), 291–302.
Parliament, London.
UK PARLIAMENT (1984). Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1984. UK
Parliament, London.
UK PARLIAMENT (1990). Town and Country Planning Act,
1990. UK Parliament, London.
URBAN FORESTRY AND WOODLANDS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE’S NETWORK (2016). Introducing England’s
urban forests: Definition, distribution, composition and benefits.
Urban Forestry and Woodlands Advisory Committees
Network, England.
VAN DER JAGT, A. and LAWRENCE, A. (2015). Trees and
Woods in Scottish Towns: The role of Local Authorities.
Forest Research, Roslin.
VOGT, J. M., WATKINS, S. L., MINCEY, S. K., PATTERSON, M. S.
and FISCHER, B. C. (2015). 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.
WALTHAM FOREST LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2017).
Waltham Forest Tree Strategy 2017–2022. Waltham Forest
London Borough Council.
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL (2011). Trees and the Public
Realm – a tree strategy for Westminster. Supplementary
Planning Document. Westminster City Council, London.
WHITE, B. Y. J. (1998). Estimating the Age of Large and Veteran
Trees in Britain. Forestry Commission Information Note.
Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Enquiries relating to this research should be addressed to: For more information and to view and download Forest
Research publications, visit:
Dr Kieron Doick
www.forestresearch.gov.uk/publications
Forest Research
Alice Holt Lodge We will consider all requests to make the content of our
Wrecclesham, Farnham publications available in alternative formats. Please send any
FRRN039/PURE/WWW/JUN19

Surrey GU10 4LH such requests to [email protected]

+44 (0)300 067 5641 You may re-use this information (not including logos or material that is
copyright of a third party) free of charge in any format or medium, under
the terms of the Open Government Licence. Contact the Information Policy
[email protected] Team at The National Archives ([email protected]) or go to:
www.forestresearch.gov.uk www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

ISBN: 978-1-83915-000-5 © CROWN COPYRIGHT

10