IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v88y2019ics0264837719304326.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Planning the urban forest: Adding microclimate simulation to the planner’s toolkit

Author

Listed:
  • Petri, Aaron C.
  • Wilson, Bev
  • Koeser, Andrew

Abstract

While cities across the United States are developing urban forest plans to capitalize on a myriad of ecosystem services provided by trees, the tools that are used to support this planning do not necessarily meet the needs and achieve the desired results of these municipal initiatives. This paper highlights the disconnect between how planners and academics are approaching the task of planning and managing the urban forest for climate change adaptation. Although planners tend to focus on maximizing canopy coverage, academics utilize microclimate simulation to evaluate the impact of different interventions on heat island mitigation. We argue that while the i-Tree suite is the most commonly used tool and is immensely helpful for urban forest planners, cities and communities concerned with heat island mitigation should also leverage microclimate simulation tools to better understand the likely impacts of a plan. This study provides a general critique of the i-Tree tool for planning and illustrates how, when used with a microclimate simulation tool, the siting of street trees can have a greater impact on heat island mitigation. The focus here is on the community-scale impact of trees and a microclimate simulation model of a neighborhood in Chicago, Illinois where tree canopy coverage is less than 10% and consistently declining is presented. We find that when microclimate is considered during the tree siting process, trees have a greater impact on surface and air temperatures during the summer. Reduced ground surface temperatures of around 3 ℃ to 7.5 ℃ were achieved around 13:00 (1:00 pm), whereas the impact of trees from shading had the greatest impact (0.75 ℃ to 7.75 ℃) on nearby buildings in the mid-afternoon (15:00 to 17:00 h).

Suggested Citation

  • Petri, Aaron C. & Wilson, Bev & Koeser, Andrew, 2019. "Planning the urban forest: Adding microclimate simulation to the planner’s toolkit," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0264837719304326
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719304326
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104117?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. V. Masson & Colette Marchadier & Luc Adolphe & Rahim Aguejdad & P. Avner & Marc Bonhomme & Geneviève Bretagne & X. Briottet & B. Bueno & Cécile de Munck & O. Doukari & Stéphane Hallegatte & Julia Hida, 2014. "Adapting cities to climate change: A systemic modelling approach," Post-Print hal-01136215, HAL.
    3. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew K. Koeser & Richard J. Hauer & Deborah R. Hilbert & Robert J. Northrop & Hunter Thorn & Drew C. McLean & Allyson B. Salisbury, 2022. "The Tripping Point–Minimum Planting Widths for Small-Stature Trees in Dense Urban Developments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-7, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Mörtberg, Ulla & Goldenberg, Romain & Kalantari, Zahra & Kordas, Olga & Deal, Brian & Balfors, Berit & Cvetkovic, Vladimir, 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services in the assessment of urban energy trajectories – A study of the Stockholm Region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 338-349.
    3. Rafał Blazy & Hanna Hrehorowicz-Gaber & Alicja Hrehorowicz-Nowak & Arkadiusz Płachta, 2021. "The Synergy of Ecosystems of Blue and Green Infrastructure and Its Services in the Metropolitan Area—Chances and Dangers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Jane Turpie & Gwyneth Letley & Robynne Chyrstal & Stefan Corbella & Derek Stretch, 2017. "A Spatial Valuation of the Natural and Semi-Natural Open Space Areas in eThekwini Municipality," World Bank Publications - Reports 26765, The World Bank Group.
    5. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    6. Martina Artmann & Olaf Bastian & Karsten Grunewald, 2017. "Using the Concepts of Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services to Specify Leitbilder for Compact and Green Cities—The Example of the Landscape Plan of Dresden (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-26, February.
    7. Jung A Lee & Jinhyung Chon & Changwoo Ahn, 2014. "Planning Landscape Corridors in Ecological Infrastructure Using Least-Cost Path Methods Based on the Value of Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-22, October.
    8. Christopher B. Riley & Kayla I. Perry & Kerry Ard & Mary M. Gardiner, 2018. "Asset or Liability? Ecological and Sociological Tradeoffs of Urban Spontaneous Vegetation on Vacant Land in Shrinking Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Jin Han Park & Dong Kun Lee & Chan Park & Ho Gul Kim & Tae Yong Jung & Songyi Kim, 2017. "Park Accessibility Impacts Housing Prices in Seoul," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-14, January.
    10. Zhichao Li & Tianqu Shao, 2019. "An Improved Ecological Services Valuation Model in Land Use Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Sutton, Paul C. & Anderson, Sharolyn J., 2016. "Holistic valuation of urban ecosystem services in New York City's Central Park," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 87-91.
    12. Shah, Arpit & Garg, Amit, 2017. "Urban commons service generation, delivery, and management: A conceptual framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 280-287.
    13. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    14. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    15. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    16. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    17. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    18. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    19. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    20. Daams, Michiel N. & Sijtsma, Frans J. & Veneri, Paolo, 2019. "Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: A case study using Amsterdam house prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0264837719304326. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.