Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Research Paper

Long-term effects and development of a tree preservation program on tree T

condition, survival, and growth
Richard J. Hauera, , Andrew K. Koeserb, Stephani Parbsa, Jim Kringerc, Randy Krousec,
⁎

Ken Ottmanc, Robert W. Millera, David Sivyerc, Nilesh Timilsinaa, Les P. Wernera
a
College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 800 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, WI 54481, United States
b
University of Florida, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, 14625 CR 672, Wimauma, FL 33598, United States
c
City of Milwaukee, 841 N. Broadway, Milwaukee, WI 53202, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: A long-term research study in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA investigated how construction (i.e., repairs to streets,
Long-term research curbs, and sidewalks) affected tree condition, survival, and growth compared to control trees outside con-
Street trees & construction struction zones and effects of a tree preservation program on reducing construction impacts. This study is di-
Tree condition rating vided into three periods: (1) a limited implementation period (1979–1989) prior to a formal tree preservation
Tree growth & longevity
program, (2) an intermediate implementation period (1989–2005) during the development and refinement of a
Tree preservation
Urban forest
tree preservation program, and (3) a full implementation period (2005–2018) after comprehensive execution of
the tree preservation program. During the initial limited preservation period, baseline measurements from 1989
showed trees in construction zones died at a higher annual rate (4.1% actual) and had a lower tree condition
rating (5.7% actual) in the limited implementation period (1979–1989) as compared to the other two periods.
During the intermediate implementation period (i.e. program under development), construction activities re-
sulted in a reduced effect on tree condition (2.4% actual) as measured in 2005. Tree survival and condition in the
full implementation period were similar between trees associated with construction zones and non-impacted
control trees measured in 2018. Results demonstrate the effect of a tree preservation program on promoting
healthy trees in construction zones. Significant findings also show the importance of growing space with trees
farther away from curbs and sidewalks having a higher tree condition and survival rate in all three periods.
Findings from this study can encourage city-wide-preservation programs elsewhere to protect public street trees
from construction.

1. Introduction (e.g., climate, material and installation quality, exposure to elements,

Street trees are one of several urban infrastructure elements such as
buildings, roads, sidewalks, curbs, belowground utilities (e.g., elec-
trical, gas, telecommunications, sewer and water), and aboveground
utilities (Coder, 1998; Gibson, 2017; McPherson, Costello, & Burger,
2001; Sydnor et al., 2000). Trees grown near streets, curbs, and side-
walks are routinely proximal to construction activities during the in-
stallation and repair of these components (Day, Dickinson, Wiseman, &
Harris, 2010; Jim, 2003; McPherson et al., 2001; Morell, 1992). The
design lifespan of infrastructure varies broadly with paved roads lasting
10–20 years, sidewalks lasting 20–25 years, and water mains and sewer
pipes lasting 50–100 years (Gibson, 2017).
The service life of infrastructure may differ from the functional
lifespans noted above. The repair frequency depends upon many factors
soils, and tree roots) acting upon the infrastructure (Costello,
McPherson, Burger, & Dodge, 2000). Miller and Hauer (1995) found 3%
of street trees were annually associated with construction activities in
Milwaukee, WI USA. Assuming repairs occur evenly throughout the
city, one could expect that a street tree location will experience con-
struction on average once every 33 years. To put this into context, the
estimated median street-tree lifespan in Milwaukee, WI is 28.5 years
(Miller, Hauer, & Werner, 2015) – an estimate that is in line with the 19
to 28-year range of mean lifespan from Roman and Scatena (2011) in
their meta-analysis of 16 community studies throughout the United
States. As such, a street tree located near these infrastructure elements
is likely to be present for at least one construction event. Tree survival
data provides a discrete metric for assessing a tree’s response to dis-
turbance (Hilbert, Roman, Koeser, Vogt, & van Doorn, 2019; Roman,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rhauer@uwsp.edu (R.J. Hauer).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103670
Received 15 June 2019; Received in revised form 19 September 2019; Accepted 22 September 2019
Available online 10 October 2019
0169-2046/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R.J. Hauer, et al.
Battles, & McBride, 2016; Roman & Scatena, 2011). The annual mor-
tality rate, mean and median tree-life span, and tree-age mortality
statistics provide further insight for assessing tree longevity (Miller
et al., 2015; Roman et al., 2016).
Tree condition provides an estimate of tree health and insights into
future mortality. The visual observation of the roots, trunk, scaffold
branches, twigs, and foliage or buds is commonly used to evaluate tree
condition, with a 0 (dead) to 100% (excellent) scale typically used
(Bond, 2010; Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, 2000). Hauer
and Peterson (2016) found nearly 90% of municipal tree inventories in
the United States included tree condition as a parameter. Measurements
of tree stem diameter, total height, crown spread, live crown ratio (i.e.,
the proportion of total height that has foliage), and basal area (i.e., the
cross-sectional area occupied by tree stems) are also common metrics
collected to rate a tree’s current biometric properties, to assess change
over time, and estimate ecosystem services and economic value
(Morgenroth & Östberg, 2017; Nowak et al., 2008). Beyond the tree
itself, planting location is often characterized based on tree lawn width,
planting pit dimensions, soils (e.g., pH, bulk density, texture), presence
or absence of utilities, and climate (Miller et al., 2015).
Trees are ideally selected for site conditions, properly installed, and
maintained as needed to provide decades of service life (Coder, 1998;
Hirons & Sjöman, 2018; Miller et al., 2015; Mullaney, Lucke, &
Trueman, 2015; Sanders, Grabosky, & Cowie, 2013; Vogt, Hauer, &
Fischer, 2015). Likewise, the design and repair of streets, curbs, and
sidewalks ideally considers the biological structure and function of trees
to minimize construction damage and reduce future conflicts as trees
grow (Baines, 1994; Coder, 1998; Day et al., 2010; Randrup,
McPherson, & Costello, 2003; Vogt et al., 2015). Large stature trees
grown in proximity (e.g., 1.5–2 m) to a street and sidewalk may cause
infrastructure damage resulting in repair costs (Hauer, Miller, &
Ouimet, 1994; Kopinga, 1994; McPherson, 2000; McPherson & Peper,
1995, 1996; Östberg, Martinsson, Stål, & Fransson, 2012; Wagar &
Barker, 1983). Similarly, tree damage from direct conflicts (e.g., ex-
cavator damaging tree roots, stems, and/or branches) with construction
activities can result in reduced tree growth, survival, and condition,
which translates into decreased urban forest value and increased re-
moval and replanting costs (Hauer et al., 1994; Koeser, Hauer, Norris, &
Krouse, 2013; North, D'Amato, Russell, & Johnson, 2017; Watson,
1998).
Trees in construction zones may have increased mortality, reduced
tree condition, and reduced growth (Hauer et al., 1994; Koeser et al.,
2013, Miller, 1994; North et al., 2017; O’Herrin, Hauer, Vander Weit, &
Miller, 2016). Arboricultural standards in Australia, Hong Kong, United
Kingdom, United States, and other locations provide specifications to
reduce the effects of construction on trees to promote tree survival and
health (AISWCD, 2017; British Standards Institute, 2005; Development
Bureau, 2015; Matheny & Clark, 1998; Standards Australia, 2009; Tree
Care Industry Association, 2012). The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 5) Management of Trees and Shrubs During
Site Planning and the accompanying International Society of Arbor-
iculture (ISA) Trees and Construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs) are industry-accepted practices for maintaining existing trees in
the presence of construction (Fite & Smiley, 2016; Smiley & Fite, 2016;
Tree Care Industry Association, 2012). Reviewed every five years, A300
standards are used by 60% of reporting communities when contracting
tree care in the United States (Hauer & Peterson, 2016).
Tree preservation practices along streets have evolved over the past
three to four decades (Hauer et al., 1994; Matheny & Clark, 1998; Miller
& Hauer, 1995; Watson, 1998; Watson, Hewitt, Custic, & Lo, 2014a,
2014b). The street tree preservation program in Milwaukee, WI USA is
an example of this ongoing evolution (City of Milwaukee, 1996;
Esposito, 2005; Ottman, Genich, & Boeder, 1996; Urbain, 2004). The
tree preservation efforts progressed from a limited implementation
period in the mid-1980s to an intermediate implementation period in
the mid-1990s to mid-2000s. By the mid-2000s the program evolved to
2
Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670
its current state of a full implementation period as described in the
methods section of this paper. In addition to guidelines related to the
establishment of non-disturbed protection zones and the use of less
invasive construction techniques, contractors were required to use tree
protection BMPs. Enforcement of contractual standards and fines to
deter improper practice is an important part of minimizing damage to
trees in the Milwaukee program.
This study aims to test the outcome of a tree preservation program
on the condition, survival, and growth of street trees over a 39-year
period. The effects of the City of Milwaukee’s tree preservation policy
and management program were tested by comparing it to prior periods
before implementation of the program. To achieve this, the study
monitors a cohort of street tree sites first inventoried in 1979, with
follow-up assessments in 1989, 2005, and 2018. The research questions
central to this paper were: (1) do trees within a construction zone have
similar growth, survival, and condition contrasted against comparable
trees outside of these zones; (2) has a tree preservation program with
three distinct implementation periods resulted in different outcomes in
tree condition, survival, and growth; and (3) what other site and tree
parameters beyond construction activity predict growth, condition, and
longevity of street trees. We hypothesize no difference will occur be-
tween trees within construction zones and control areas in the full
implementation period. In contrast, we expect to observe a difference in
tree condition and survival during the periods prior to the current tree
preservation program (Hauer et al., 1994; Koeser et al., 2013). We
further hypothesize that tree lawn width, tree stem diameter, and past
tree condition will significantly predict tree survival and tree condition.
We also hypothesized that there will be species-specific survival and
response to construction.
2. Methods
The condition, survival, and growth of street trees within con-
struction zones and nearby control trees not subjected to construction
activities were evaluated. Trees were studied in three different periods
corresponding to the implementation of a tree preservation program; 1)
a limited implementation period from 1979 to 1989, 2) an intermediate
implementation period from 1989 to 2005, and 3) a full implementa-
tion period from 2005 to 2018.
2.1. Trees & construction program
The full implementation period involves a pre-construction tree
assessment to evaluate tree stem diameter, condition, species, and re-
quirements for tree protection as part of a developed construction plan
(Table 1). The plan guides pre-construction meetings with forestry staff,
city officials and construction contractors. Pre-construction tree
pruning occurs to provide clearance for construction equipment op-
erations. Additionally, changes in the full implementation period from
past construction practices include:
▪ Removal of curbs occurs with the goal of minimizing root damage,
especially structural roots growing against the curb (compared to
the limited implementation period that involved soil removal and
possible root damage at an approximate distance of 30 to 50 cm
behind the curb).
▪ Construction equipment was modified as needed to reduce tree
damage such as adding a 90-degree elbow on the exhaust pipe to
direct exhaust heat away from rather than upwards and towards tree
foliage.
▪ Slipform paver machines used to install curbs and gutters were
customized to require less distance on the tree side from the stan-
dard 28.0 cm to 4.5 cm of clearance now needed for curb installa-
tion. Thus, nearly 24.0 cm of the tree root zone is no longer affected
by construction.
▪ The width of streets was reduced by the distance needed for
R.J. Hauer, et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670

Table 1
Development of a tree preservation program for street trees in Milwaukee, WI and key program implementation periods.
Implementation period Key program elements

No Implemented Program ▪ No program in place

Before 1979 ▪ 400 trees fall during a 1978 windstorm due to root severance from sidewalk damage prevention program
▪ Trees and construction program (aka tree preservation program) envisioned
▪ Pre-program tree inventory in 1979 (Miller & Sylvester, 1979)
Limited Implemented Program (LIP) ▪ Initial development of program with hiring of forestry inspector in 1981 to develop program
1979–1989 ▪ Program being conceptualized, developed, and applied on a limited basis by end of this period
▪ Concept of fines for non-compliance conceived as an approach to prevent damage to trees by contractors
▪ Initial study to quantify the baseline effects of construction on tree survival and condition developed
▪ Study implemented with trees subjected to construction from 1981 through 1985 compared to control trees outside of
construction zones
▪ First assessment of the effects of construction on street trees conducted in 1989 and published (Hauer et al., 1994;
Miller & Hauer, 1995)
Intermediate Implemented Program (IIP) ▪ Program practices becoming formulated within street and sidewalk construction standards manual (City of Milwaukee,
1990–2004 1996)
▪ During this period trees and construction practices used in the 2005 to 2018 period become refined and commonly
implemented (Ottman et al., 1996)
▪ By the end of this period, trees and construction practices are common and fully in place as a regular part of preventing
damage to trees during construction (Urbain, 2004)
▪ Monitoring and fines for non-compliance continues with compliance becoming more regular
▪ Second assessment of the effects of construction on street trees published (Koeser et al., 2013)
Fully Implemented Program (FIP) ▪ A pre-construction tree assessment occurs with tree stem diameter, condition, species, and requirements for tree
2005–2018 protection developed by forestry inspector
▪ The developed tree preservation plan used to guide pre-construction meetings among forestry staff, city officials and
construction contractors
▪ Removal of streets, curbs, and sidewalk occurs with the goal of no damage to structural roots
▪ Construction equipment such as concrete paver machines (slipform) modified to minimize tree damage by reducing the
distance needed for equipment operation from 28.0 cm to 4.5 cm
▪ Street width narrowed to accommodate new reduced distance (e.g., 4.5 cm) of paver machine
▪ Sidewalk widths narrowed, summits over structural roots sidewalks used, and arcing around tree roots used as needed
▪ Monitoring and fines for non-compliance continues with compliance becoming common
▪ Follow-up arboricultural treatments used in cases of tree damage
▪ Third assessment of the effects of construction on street trees (This paper)

equipment clearance (e.g., 4.5 cm for the modified slipform paver
machine) to avoid damage to roots.
▪ Sidewalk widths were decreased, arcing a new sidewalk around
structural roots, and a raising (i.e., summit) the sidewalk over
structural roots were implemented to avoid root damage.
▪ Monitoring and enforcement actions through fines for non-com-
pliance provides a contractor an incentive to not damage tree roots,
stems, and canopies as a proactive part of the construction process.
For damaged trees, post-construction tree repair (e.g., pruning a
damaged branch) is part of the plan.
During the limited implementation period, the practices presented
above were being conceptualized, developed, and applied on a limited
basis by the end of the time period in 1989 (Hauer et al., 1994). Within
the intermediate implementation period, the practices listed above
were becoming formulated within street and sidewalk construction
standards (City of Milwaukee, 1996), were becoming more commonly
implemented over time (Ottman et al., 1996), and by the end of this
period in 2005 were commonplace as a regular part of preventing da-
mage to trees during a construction project (Urbain, 2004; Koeser et al.,
2013). Further, contractor compliance became a regular occurrence by
the late 1990/early 2000s due to fines for non-compliance (Urbain,
2004). Thus, the three study periods reflect the evolution of the pro-
gram from little done (limited), becoming more common (inter-
mediate), and most recently commonplace (fully) with implementation.
2.2. Study site
Street trees occurring within construction zones (construction) or
outside of construction zones (control) were studied to test the effects of
a tree preservation program in Milwaukee, WI USA (43.0389° N,
87.9065° W). The city adjoins Lake Michigan and experiences a humid
continental climate (Chen & Chen, 2013). Construction activities
included street repair (surface replacement and utilities when needed),
curb replacement, and/or sidewalk replacement, with one to all of these
occurring during a construction event. All trees were maintained by
municipal forestry staff and were located between a sidewalk and curb
in tree lawns that varied between 58 and 724 cm in width. Trees were
located primarily within residential neighborhoods of single and double
story homes. The study site has an extended history of urban tree
management beginning in 1918 (Miller et al., 2015) and the 989 tree
planting locations (Fig. 1) included in our monitoring efforts were first
inventoried in 1979 (Miller & Sylvester, 1979). Construction records
were maintained by the municipality and were verified with construc-
tion dates stamped in the concrete. Final verification of the construction
dataset was conducted by the Urban Forestry Specialist from the City of
Milwaukee assigned to the construction location.
A total of 989 planting sites that were locations with a tree or
currently vacant (not planted) were randomly selected and measured
across all three assessment periods (Fig. 1). A baseline inventory of
these locations in 1979 (prior to any construction activities) found 845
of these locations were planted and 144 were vacant. Of the 845 treed
sites inventoried in 1979, 432 had been subjected to construction ac-
tivities between 1981 and 1985. (Hauer et al., 1994). The remaining
413 locations served as controls. All locations were reassessed in 1989
and 670 surviving trees from the original cohort were relocated. Given
ongoing planting and tree replacement efforts, there were 942 planted
locations and 47 vacant sites in 1989. Of the 942 trees present in 1989,
256 were subject to construction between 1990 and 2004, while the
remaining 686 served as non-impacted controls. In 2005, 762 of the
942 trees from 1989 survived. Given replanting and replacement efforts
there were 883 sites with trees (91 vacant) in 2005. Fifteen locations
near Miller’s Plank Road that had previously been within the public
right-of-way had ownership transferred to a private entity by 2018 and
are no longer tapped for future assessments. When assessed for this
latest study, 187 trees had been subjected to construction activities

3
R.J. Hauer, et al.
Fig. 1. Tree population flowchart during three periods: 1979 to 1989 a limited implementation period (LIP), 1989 to 2005 an intermediate implementation period
(IIP), and 2005 to 2018 a full implementation period (FIP) for tree preservation. Each planting site is a street tree planting location with the possibility to be vacant
(no tree), lost (no longer assessible), or planted (tree present).
between 2005 and 2017. In 2018, 701 of the 883 trees assessed in 2005
survived (Fig. 1, Table 2). Only locations with trees at the start of one of
the three study periods (e.g., 1979, 1989, 2005) were part of the ana-
lysis during that study period. Trees planted during a study period were
not part of the analysis during that period but did become part of the
subsequent study period.
2.3. Field measurements and data development
Tree stem diameter (1.37 m above the ground surface, DBH), per-
cent tree condition, tree lawn width (distance between curb and side-
walk), tree species, home address, and applicable field comments were
recorded in May and June 2018, consistent with measurements in 1989
and 2005. Tree condition was visually rated using a five-point scale
(1 = poor and 5 = excellent) with equal weight given each to roots,
trunk, scaffold branches, and foliage. The total summed points for each
4
Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670
tree compared against the maximum of 20 possible points to generate
the 0 to 100 percent scale outlined by the Council of Tree and
Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) (Neely, 1988). This system was used in
the previous study periods, and in the current study (Hauer et al., 1994;
Koeser et al., 2013). One evaluator conducted all tree condition ratings
during the current study. This was consistent with past inventories in
1979, 1989, and 2005. Although a different evaluator was used during
each measurement year, the evaluator was trained by the authors of the
paper. Each evaluator was an undergraduate-trained forestry student.
The mean annual tree diameter growth increment (cm) was calculated
as the change in diameter during a study period for each tree divided by
the number of years between measurement periods and an overall mean
calculated from all trees. Likewise, the mean annual basal area incre-
ment was the change in cross-sectional stem area (cm2) at DBH for each
tree divided by the number of years between measurement periods and
a mean basal area calculated from all individual trees.
R.J. Hauer, et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670

Table 2
Variables tested for their effect on tree survival and tree condition used in initial and final regression models.1
Variable Definition for Tree Measurement Sample (n) Mean (SE)

Construction89 1 if in construction zone 1981–1985, else 0 334 N/A

Construction05 1 if in construction zone 1990–2004, else 0 191 N/A
Construction18 1 if in construction zone 2005–2017, else 0 162 N/A
LawnWidth89 Lawn width as measured in 1989 (cm) 670 234.95 (4.79)
LawnWidth05 Lawn width as measured in 2005 (cm) 762 226.21 (4.36)
LawnWidth18 Lawn width as measured in 2018 (cm) 701 228.78 (4.50)
TreeCond79 Tree condition (%) in 1979 845 75.05, (0.49)
TreeCond89 Tree condition (%) in 1989 670 73.88 (0.46)
TreeCond05 Tree condition (%) in 2005 762 74.72 (0.51)
TreeCond18 Tree condition (%) in 2018 701 69.42 (0.46)
TreeDiam79 Tree diameter (cm @1.37 m) in 1979 845 18.95 (0.59)
TreeDiam89 Tree diameter (cm @1.37 m) in 1989 670 30.05 (0.54)
TreeDiam05 Tree diameter (cm @1.37 m) in 2005 762 41.95 (0.49)
TreeDiam18 Tree diameter (cm @1.37 m) in 2018 701 48.58 (0.60)

Variable Definition of Measured Tree Species Sample (n) 2018 Survival (%)

Basswood05 1 if present in 2005, else 0 23 82.6

GreenAsh05 1 if present in 2005, else 0 228 91.2
Honeylocust05 1 if present in 2005, else 0 113 91.2
LLeafLinden05 1 if present in 2005, else 0 57 63.2
NorwayMaple05 1 if present in 2005, else 0 347 73.5
SilverMaple05 1 if present in 2005, else 0 15 53.3
SugarMaple05 1 if present in 2005, else 0 7 28.6
WhiteAsh05 1 if present in 2005, else 0 30 80.0
1
Data was collected from Milwaukee, WI, USA inventory and construction data sets that spanned from 1979 to 2018 – a time frame that occurred before,
during, and after the enactment of a comprehensive city-wide tree preservation program. Total planting sites (n = 989) could be planted, vacant, or lost during
any measurement period. See Hauer et al. (1994) and Koeser et al. (2013) for species-specific statistics for the 1989 and 2005 measurement periods.

2.4. Statistical analysis
Tree attributes (past condition, DBH, species) and site attributes
(tree lawn width, construction) were modeled as independent variables
on the dependent variables of current tree condition, tree survival, and
tree stem growth (Table 2, Appendix Table A-1). Each location in 2018
was recorded as either a surviving tree, replacement tree, or vacancy
since the last 2005 monitoring. Tree survival was determined by com-
paring the current (2018) tree species and DBH to the previous record
(2005). In the few cases that a determination of tree survival was not
intuitive (e.g., small diameter tree, < 15 cm, of same species) planting
records and/or consultation with Milwaukee forestry staff correctly
determined tree survivability. The same process was previously used for
the 2005 and 1989 measurement periods (Hauer et al., 1994; Koeser
et al., 2013).
A binary logistic regression model tested the effects of tree condition
(%) in 2005, tree lawn width (cm) in 2018, DBH (cm) in 2005, con-
struction binary variable, and tree species (only the eight most common
species (n > 15) were included) on the dependent variable tree sur-
vival for the full implementation period timeframe. Seven of the tree
species were compared against the eighth (reference) and each was
coded as a series of species binary variables and added to the maximal
(full) models (Table 2, Appendix Table A-1). Norway maple (Acer pla-
tanoides L.), silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.), white ash (Fraxinus
americana L.), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh), honeylocust
(Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis (L.) C. K Schneid), American bass-
wood (Tilia americana L.), and little leaf linden, (Tilia cordata Mill) were
tested against sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marshall) as the reference
level species. A. saccharum was selected since it was the poorest per-
forming species in past models (Koeser et al., 2013). Tree survival was
analyzed through the logistic regression model using the glm() function
in R (R Core Team, 2017). Initial model simplification was conducted
using a backward and forward stepwise elimination function based on
Akaike information criterion (AIC). Any remaining non-significant
terms were removed one-at-a-time, with the initial and reduced models
being compared using the anova() function in R (Crawley, 2013). All
decisions for statistical significance were made at the p ≤ 0.05 level.
The same approach was used for the limited and intermediate im-
plementation study periods.
Multiple linear regression models were used to detect attributes of the
study sites associated with present (2018) tree condition (dependent
variable) of surviving trees and test the a priori assumption of no effect of
construction on tree condition. Attributes (independent variables) in-
cluded 2005 tree diameter (cm), 2005 tree condition (%), 2018 tree lawn
width (cm), construction (binary 1 = yes, 0 = no), and the eight tree
species. This same model approach was used for the dependent tree
growth variables (e.g., DBH and basal area). A one-way analysis of var-
iance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences in tree condition between
trees later allocated to control and construction groups.
In model building, a p ≤ 0.25 significance level was adopted for
initial screening of variables and a p ≤ 0.05 significance level was used
when deciding what variables to retain for the final multiple regression
model in SPSS Version 25 (IBM Corporation, 2017). Assumptions of
normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity of model residuals were in-
spected using bivariate plots between independent and dependent
variables, as well as plots of the standardized residuals and standar-
dized predicted values from the final multiple regression model. Mul-
ticollinearity in models was tested using variance inflation factor (VIF)
statistics with a lack of multicollinearity interpreted as the VIF < 4
(Mertler & Vannatta, 2005; Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1990).
3. Results
3.1. Tree condition
Tree condition of construction and control trees varied by the three
periods in the study area. Prior to any construction occurring in the
study area, an initial 1979 inventory (baseline) demonstrated a com-
parable (F = 1.368, df = 1,843, p = 0.94) tree condition
(mean = 75.0%, SE = 0.5%) (Fig. 2). Tree condition was significantly
lower by 5.7% in construction zones during the limited implementation
period prior to implementation of the tree preservation program

5
 R.J. Hauer, et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670

100 Control Construction Fig. 2. Effects of construction on tree condition

measured in 1979 (pre-construction), 1989 a limited
90 p=0.04 implementation period (LIP), 2005 an intermediate
p=0.94 p<0.0001 p=0.24
implementation period (IIP), and 2018 a full im-
80 76.7 plementation period (FIP) for tree preservation (bars
75.0 75.1 75.3
72.9 are standard error; n = 845, 670, 762, 701 respec-
71.0
69.1 70.4 tively for 1979, 1989, 2005, and 2018).
70
Condition Rating (Percent)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1979 1989 2005 2018

Pre-construction (LIP) (IIP) (FIP)

(F = 36.424, df = 5,664, p < 0.0001, Adj R2 = 0.21) (Fig. 2, Table 3).
No effect (p = 0.556) of construction on tree condition was found in the
intermediate implementation period (F = 8.830, df = 5,756,
p < 0.0001, Adj R2 = 0.06) through trees that survived construction
(Table 4). The multiple regression model, which controlled for tree
lawn width, past DBH, past tree condition, and species also showed no
effect (p = 0.97) of construction on tree condition in the full im-
plementation period (Table 5). The results suggest a tree preservation
program effectively reduced the impact of street, curb, and/or sidewalk
repair on tree condition.
Over three measurement periods, four independent variables were
found to be continuously significant (p < 0.001) – predicting between
5 and 20% (based on adjusted R2) of the variability of the dependent
variable tree condition in the multiple regression models (Table 6). Tree
species were excluded from this modeling to allow for a more direct
comparison of these four variables. As reported above, construction was
significant for only the limited implementation period with a 5.7%
greater tree condition for trees outside of construction zones
(p < 0.001). As tree lawn width increased, tree condition increased
and varied over the three measurement periods between 0.007 and
0.014 for each cm (p < 0.001). Thus, a 300 cm tree lawn width (~10
feet) would add ~2.1% to 4.2% to the overall tree condition when
holding other factors constant. Past DBH had a negative effect on tree
condition across all three periods, ranging between −0.075 and
−0.104 per cm of DBH (p < 0.001). A tree with a 50 cm DBH (20 in),
all other variables held constant, would reduce tree condition by
~3.6% to 5.0% compared to a small tree ~2 cm DBH (0.75 in). Past tree
condition was also a consistent predictor across all three time-periods.

Table 3
Effect of construction, site attributes, and tree species on tree condition of surviving trees in 1989 in Milwaukee, WI, USA. Trees were subjected to construction
activities or were trees outside of construction zones that grew between 1979 and 1989 (a limited implementation period for tree preservation).
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients t-test Statistics Correlations
Model Variables B Std. Error Beta t-value Sig. Zero-order Partial

2
Initial full Model (R = 0.238 R2adj =
0.233, std. error of est. = 10.521, F(13,656) = 669, p < 0.0001)
(Intercept) 43.745 5.361 8.160 0.000
Construction89 −6.502 0.874 −0.273 −7.439 0.000 −0.239 −0.279
LawnWidth05 (cm) 0.013 0.004 0.130 3.589 0.000 0.105 0.139
TreeCond79 (%) 0.436 0.045 0.335 9.673 0.000 0.358 0.353
TreeDiam79 (cm) −0.045 0.035 −0.057 −1.282 0.200 −0.106 −0.050
American Elm79 −6.413 4.639 −0.100 −1.382 0.167 −0.144 −0.054
Basswood79 0.249 4.548 0.004 0.055 0.956 0.018 0.002
GreenAsh79 −1.714 4.070 −0.063 −0.421 0.674 0.052 −0.016
Honeylocust79 −0.101 4.158 −0.003 −0.024 0.981 0.027 −0.001
LLeafLinden79 0.752 4.311 0.015 0.175 0.862 0.019 0.007
NorwayMaple79 −2.940 4.054 −0.120 −0.725 0.469 0.056 −0.028
SilverMaple79 −6.750 4.971 −0.086 −1.358 0.175 −0.067 −0.053
SugarMaple79 −9.843 4.567 −0.150 −2.155 0.032 −0.109 −0.084
WhiteAsh79 −7.466 4.585 −0.114 −1.628 0.104 −0.054 −0.063

Final a priori Model (R2 = 0.215, R2adj = 0.209, std. error of est. = 10.613, F(5,664) = 669, p < 0.0001)
(Intercept) 41.928 3.549 11.814 0.000
Construction89 −5.770 0.842 −0.242 −6.856 0.000 −0.239 −0.257
LawnWidth05 (cm) 0.012 0.003 0.120 3.380 0.001 0.105 0.130
TreeCond79 (%) 0.437 0.045 0.336 9.687 0.000 0.358 0.352
TreeDiam79 (cm) −0.084 0.028 −0.106 −3.028 0.003 −0.106 −0.117
SugarMaple79 −7.823 2.263 −0.119 −3.457 0.001 −0.109 −0.133

6
R.J. Hauer, et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670

Table 4
Effect of construction, site attributes, and tree species on tree condition of surviving trees in 2005 in Milwaukee, WI, USA. Trees were subjected to construction
activities or were trees outside of construction zones that grew between 1989 and 2005 (an intermediate implementation period for tree preservation).
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients t-test Statistics Correlations
Model Variables B Std. Error Beta t-value Sig. Zero-order Partial

Initial Full Model (R2 = 0.069 R2adj = 0.053, std. error of est. = 13.861, F(13,748) = 761, p < 0.0001)
(Intercept) 70.995 5.147 13.792 0.000
Construction05 −0.672 1.142 −0.021 −0.589 0.556 0.008 −0.022
LawnWidth05 (cm) 0.018 0.004 0.072 1.915 0.056 0.059 0.070
TreeCond89 (%) 0.172 0.043 0.146 4.005 0.000 0.145 0.145
TreeDiam89 (cm) −0.160 0.046 −0.152 −3.496 0.001 −0.073 −0.127
American Elm89 0.708 6.661 0.005 0.106 0.915 0.016 0.004
Basswood89 2.825 5.248 0.032 0.538 0.590 0.093 0.020
Green Ash89 −5.554 4.302 −0.175 −1.291 0.197 0.072 −0.047
Honeylocust89 −4.770 4.404 −0.117 −1.083 0.279 0.057 −0.040
LLLinden89 −10.911 4.615 −0.193 −2.364 0.018 −0.070 −0.086
Norway Maple89 −9.129 4.261 −0.314 −2.142 0.032 −0.091 −0.078
Silver Maple89 −6.524 5.819 −0.064 −1.121 0.263 −0.060 −0.041
Sugar Maple89 −5.943 6.720 −0.040 −0.884 0.377 0.021 −0.032
White Ash89 −8.005 5.079 −0.098 −1.576 0.115 −0.036 −0.058

Final a priori Model (R2 = 0.055, R2adj = 0.049, std. error of est. = 13.889, F(5,756) = 761, p < 0.0001)
(Intercept) 65.889 3.276 20.110 0.000
LawnWidth05 (cm) 0.009 0.004 0.074 2.014 0.044 0.059 0.073
TreeCond89 (%) 0.166 0.042 0.141 3.947 0.000 0.145 0.142
TreeDiam89 (cm) −0.143 0.039 −0.136 −3.639 0.000 −0.073 −0.131
LLeafLinden89 −5.927 2.064 −0.105 −2.871 0.004 −0.070 −0.104
NorwayMaple89 −4.169 1.084 −0.144 −3.847 0.000 −0.091 −0.139

Table 5
Effect of construction, site attributes, and tree species on tree condition of surviving trees in 2018 in Milwaukee, WI, USA. Trees were subjected to construction
activities or were trees outside of construction zones that grew between 2005 and 2018 (a full implementation period for tree preservation).
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients t-test Statistics Correlations
Model Variables B Std. Error Beta t-value Sig. Zero-order Partial

2
Initial Full Model (R = 0.326 R2adj
= 0.314, std. error of est. = 10.217, F(12,688) = 700, p < 0.001)
(Constant) 41.909 3.805 11.016 0.000
Construction18 −0.044 0.987 −0.001 −0.044 0.965 0.045 −0.002
LawnWidth18 (cm) 0.017 0.004 0.161 4.703 0.000 0.129 0.176
TreeCond05 (%) 0.328 0.041 0.259 7.992 0.000 0.282 0.291
TreeDiam05 (cm) −0.192 0.027 −0.247 −7.066 0.000 −0.115 −0.260
Basswood05 5.596 2.893 0.074 1.934 0.053 −0.003 0.074
Green Ash05 13.770 1.766 0.510 7.796 0.000 0.411 0.285
Honeylocust05 4.632 1.910 0.133 2.425 0.016 −0.070 0.092
LLeafLinden05 6.389 2.335 0.114 2.737 0.006 0.014 0.104
NorwayMaple05 −0.295 1.697 −0.012 −0.174 0.862 −0.312 −0.007
SilverMaple05 8.399 4.139 0.072 2.029 0.043 −0.017 0.077
SugarMaple05 −10.685 7.392 −0.046 −1.446 0.149 −0.041 −0.055
WhiteAsh05 2.338 2.628 0.034 0.889 0.374 −0.058 0.034

Final a priori Model (R2 = 0.323, R2adj = 0.315, std. error of est. = 10.213, F(8,692) = 700, p < 0.0001)
(Intercept) 42.019 3.362 12.498 0.000
LawnWidth18 (cm) 0.016 0.003 0.153 4.621 0.000 0.129 0.173
TreeCond05 (%) 0.327 0.040 0.258 8.114 0.000 0.282 0.295
TreeDiam05 (cm) −0.129 0.016 −0.245 −7.194 0.000 −0.115 −0.264
Basswood05 5.707 2.453 0.075 2.327 0.020 −0.003 0.088
GreenAsh05 13.880 0.934 0.514 14.865 0.000 0.411 0.492
Honeylocust05 4.711 1.182 0.135 3.984 0.000 −0.070 0.150
LLeafLinden05 6.467 1.810 0.116 3.573 0.000 0.014 0.135
SilverMaple05 8.557 3.769 0.074 2.271 0.023 −0.017 0.086

Tree condition in the full implementation period would be a 3.3%
higher for each additional 10% condition rating in 2005.
The residual effects of construction from a previous program period
were examined for surviving trees in a more recent program period with
no significant effect found (data not shown) on trees during a current
measurement period. For example, construction that occurred during the
limited implementation period had no detected residual effect on tree
condition in the intermediate implementation period. Likewise, in the full
implementation period no residual effect of tree condition in the inter-
mediate implementation period was found (data not shown).
3.2. Tree survival
The effects of construction on tree survival varied over the three
measurements periods. During the recent full implementation period,
no effect (p = 0.81) of construction on tree mortality was found when
controlling for tree species, lawn width, prior DBH, and past tree con-
dition in the logistic model (Tables 7 and 8). Results from 2005 showed
a negative effect (p = 0.01) of construction on tree survival in the in-
termediate implementation period (Koeser et al., 2013). Trees in con-
struction zones had 4.1% greater mortality (p = 0.004) during the

7
R.J. Hauer, et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670

Table 6 Table 8
Comparison of four independent variables and coefficients on tree condition Final modela and logistic regression results of street tree survival between 2005
from three multiple regression models over three-time periods that varied in and 2018 for trees subjected to construction activities before 2018 or trees
implementation of a tree preservation program: 1979 to 1989 (limited im- outside of construction zones. Data was collected from a Milwaukee, WI, USA
plementation period), 1989 to 2005 (intermediate implementation period), inventory and construction data sets spanning from 2005 to 2017 – a time
2005 to 2018 (full implementation period) in Milwaukee, WI, USA. frame that occurred during a highly developed city-wide tree preservation
program. (n = 824).
Independent Variable (unit) 1979 to 1989 1989 to 2005 2005 to 2018
Variable Coefficient Standard P value Odds 95% CI 95%
Lawn Width1 (cm) 0.011 0.007 0.014 Error Ratio Lower CI
Construction2 (0 = no, 1 = yes) −5.723 ns4 ns4 Lower
Past Tree Condition3 (%) 0.44 0.17 0.33
Past Tree Diameter3 (cm) −0.075 −0.104 −0.097 (Intercept) −7.423 1.153 < 0.0001 0.001 0.00005 0.005
Model Summary LawnWidth18 0.008 0.003 0.0021 1.008 1.003 1.013
Sample Size (n) 670 762 701 TreeCond05 0.066 0.008 < 0.0001 1.068 1.053 1.085
Adjusted R2 0.20 0.03 0.10 Basswood05 2.879 1.037 0.0055 17.81 2.541 170.6
Model Significance (p-value) < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 GreenAsh05 4.480 0.934 < 0.0001 88.26 15.16 704.1
Honeylocust05 4.131 0.943 < 0.0001 62.24 10.49 503.9
1
Measurement taken at the start of a measurement period. LLeafLinden05 2.631 0.937 0.0050 13.89 2.364 111.1
2
Measurement taken during a measurement period. NorwayMaple05 2.996 0.895 0.0008 20.00 3.692 150.5
3
Measurement taken at the end of a measurement period. SilverMaple05 2.033 1.041 0.0507 7.640 1.054 71.89
4
ns = Not significant. WhiteAsh05 3.425 1.005 0.0007 30.72 4.616 275.1

a
Tree survival in the absence or presence of adjacent road construction
Table 7 activities was modeled using multiple logistic regression. Positive coefficients
Full modela and logistic regression results of street tree survival between 2005 indicate an increased likelihood of survival (S). Negative coefficients indicate
and 2018 for trees subjected to construction activities before 2018 or trees an increased likelihood of death (D). For example, a Fraxinus pennsylvanica
outside of construction zones. Data was collected from a Milwaukee, WI, USA (species green ash = 1) is 88 times more likely to have survived this period than
inventory and construction data sets spanning from 2005 to 2017 – a time an Acer saccharum (sugar maple base level). Additionally, for each percentage
frame that occurred during a highly developed city-wide tree preservation increase of tree condition at the start of this time period in 2005, a tree is 1.068
program. (n = 824). times more likely to survive. AIC: 674.02
Variable Coefficient Standard P value Odds 95% CI 95% CI
Error Ratio Lower Lower was the greatest in the limited development program (1.24 cm) and
decreased to intermediate implementation period (1.12 cm) and full
(Intercept) −7.289 1.184 < 0.0001 0.001 0.0001 0.0064
Construction18 −0.066 0.267 0.8060 0.937 0.560 1.600 implementation period (0.84 cm). No difference (data not shown) was
LawnWidth18 0.008 0.003 0.0018 1.008 1.003 1.014 found in annual basal area increment for all three periods when con-
TreeCond05 0.066 0.008 < 0.0001 1.068 1.053 1.085 trolling for other factors (e.g., tree lawn width, past DBH, species, past
TreeDiam05 −0.013 0.018 0.4726 0.987 0.953 1.022 tree condition, data not shown). Mean annual basal area increment was
Basswood05 2.960 1.044 0.0046 19.30 2.720 186.8
GreenAsh05 4.523 0.938 < 0.0001 92.15 15.68 740.7
4.36 cm2, 5.82 cm2, and 5.72 cm2 for the limited, intermediate, and full
Honeylocust05 4.166 0.947 < 0.0001 64.43 10.78 524.9 implementation periods respectively per tree. Even though annual stem
LLeafLinden05 2.668 0.941 0.0046 14.42 2.433 116.2 diameter growth increment declined over time, the annual basal area
NorwayMaple05 3.026 0.901 0.0008 20.62 3.765 156.5 increment was greatest and constant in the two most recent time per-
SilverMaple05 2.238 1.081 0.0383 9.380 1.195 94.21
iods. Finally, the mean tree diameters increased over time (Fig. 6).
WhiteAsh05 3.480 1.011 0.0006 32.47 4.825 293.9

a
Tree survival in the absence or presence of adjacent road construction
activities was modeled using multiple logistic regression. Positive coefficients
indicate an increased likelihood of survival (S). Negative coefficients indicate
an increased likelihood of death (D). For example, a Fraxinus pennsylvanica
(Species green ash = 1) is 92 times more likely to have survived this period
than an Acer saccharum (sugar maple base level). Additionally, for each per-
centage increase of tree condition at the start of this time period in 2005, a tree
is 1.068 times more likely to survive. AIC: 677.45
limited implementation period (Koeser et al., 2013). Odds ratios were
calculated to show an effect of site and tree attributes (Tables 7 and 8;
Figs. 3 and 4). Trees with a higher tree condition were more likely to
survive construction. Odds of trees survival increases as tree lawn width
increases. Green ash, honey locust, and white ash had respectively an
88, 62, and 31 times greater odds of survival than sugar maple in the
full implementation period.
4. Discussion
The study of construction impacts on street trees in Milwaukee
demonstrates how policy, management, and sustained monitoring fos-
tered increased retention of trees and tree condition (City of
Milwaukee, 1996; Hauer et al., 1994; Koeser et al., 2013; Ottman et al.,
1996). The trees and construction program was initiated after hundreds
of trees with damaged roots from construction toppled after a wind-
storm. Baseline tree data was collected before the program started and
through three subsequent periods as the program evolved. The time-
frame of this study also led to a more reasoned understanding of trees
and a program designed to reduce the impacts of construction on street
trees. Evaluation of a measurement period, without consideration of
other measurement periods and management actions, will likely lead to
incorrect or incomplete conclusions.

4.1. Species, condition, survival, and growth

3.3. Tree growth
No difference (p = 0.129) in annual growth rate in DBH was found,
when controlling for other factors (e.g., tree lawn width, past DBH,
species, past tree condition), between control and construction trees for
the full implementation period (Fig. 5). No difference was also detected
with the annual growth increment for surviving construction and con-
trol trees in the intermediate implementation period (p = 0.62) and
limited implementation period (p = 0.55). Annual DBH growth rate
In this study, we investigated if trees in construction zones have
similar growth, survival, and condition to trees outside of these areas.
We also asked if other site and tree parameters predicted the overall
tree growth, survival, and condition of street trees. This question is
important as approximately 6000 street trees (200,000 street tree po-
pulation) in Milwaukee could annually be affected by construction and
potentially damaged without a tree preservation program since con-
struction on average occurs once every 33 years at a location (Hauer

8
R.J. Hauer, et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670

Fig. 3. Effects of tree condition measured at the start of a study period on the odds of tree survival during three-time periods in Milwaukee, WI USA: 1979 to 1989 a
limited implementation period, 1989 to 2005 an intermediate implementation period, and 2005 to 2018 a full implementation period for tree preservation.

Fig. 4. Effects of tree lawn width on the odds of tree survival during three-time periods in Milwaukee, WI USA: in 1979 to 1989 a limited implementation period,
1989 to 2005 an intermediate implementation period, and 2005 to 2018 a full implementation period for tree preservation.

et al., 1994). We found no difference in survival and growth between
trees in construction zones or trees outside these areas during the full
implementation period, suggesting the current trees and construction
program in Milwaukee is effective at protecting trees. An initial 1989
study by Hauer et al. (1994) found that trees associated with con-
struction had lower survivability and reduced tree condition. A sub-
sequent follow-up study in 2005 found a tree preservation program in
an intermediate stage of development resulted in a reduced effect of
construction on tree survival and tree condition that was approximately
half the impact as discovered in 1989 (Hauer, 2009; Koeser et al.,
2013). Hauer et al. (1994) found that approximately 350 street trees
died prematurely from construction and another 5650 trees experi-
enced a 5.7% (0 to 100% scale) reduction in tree condition in Mil-
waukee. Decreased tree condition (e.g., tree health) makes trees more
susceptible to tree decline and will also reduce the financial value of the
tree population value as prescribed in the CTLA methodology (Council
of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, 2000; Miller et al., 2015). Thus, the
current street trees and construction program has diminished potential
effects with no difference between trees in construction zones and
control trees not associated with construction. Protection of trees pre-
vents mortality, maintains tree health, and should lead to greater eco-
system services and street tree value (Miller et al., 2015).
The study also found the survival of commonly grown tree species
varied. Koeser et al. (2013) found sugar maple trees had the highest
mortality of the species studied and were six times less likely to survive
than American elm (Ulmus americana L.). In this same Milwaukee study,
silver maple and honeylocust performed best with 14-times greater
odds of survival compared to American elm from 1989 to 2005.

9
R.J. Hauer, et al.
Similarly, green ash and white ash tree were 6-times more likely to
survive than American elm during this same time period (Koeser et al.,
2013). Given these findings, we used sugar maple as a baseline when
comparing species in this study. Results from species tolerance to street
tree settings are important for future planting and retention decisions.
Sugar maple performs poorly, or at least the genetic source historically
planted in Milwaukee performs poorly as a street tree. Despite con-
firmation of Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (emerald ash borer; EAB) in
Milwaukee in 2012, ash survived at higher rates than the baseline
species from their site tolerance. The observed survival and growth
rates support the current plan to protect existing ash species and tree
canopy through chemical control of EAB (Krouse, 2010; Sivyer, 2010;
VanNatta, Hauer, & Schuettpelz, 2012).
The current condition of trees is an important predictor for future
survival and tree health. This finding is consistent with Manion (1991)
and Clark and Matheny (1991) who presented models that explain
factors associated with tree declines and death. Abiotic factors such as
moisture stress, compacted soils, construction, and biotic organisms
may predispose a tree to reduced health and premature mortality. The
age or size of a tree is also a factor with young or smaller trees less
prone for predisposing factors than older or larger trees (Francis,
Parresol, & de Patino, 1996; Koeser et al., 2013). We found DBH had a
negative relationship with present tree condition on average. This effect
became more pronounced in future measurement periods, presumably a
function of larger trees more recently (2018) than in the past (1989).
This effect was also found in 2005 with tree mortality being nearly nine
times greater for a 100 cm (~40 in) DBH tree than a comparison 25 cm
(~10 in) DBH tree (Koeser et al., 2013).
Past tree condition was also an important predictor of future tree
condition and was consistent through all time periods. For trees in fair
or poor condition, the importance of avoiding disturbances is more
important to promote tree survival (Clark & Matheny, 1991). An odds
ratios analysis for tree condition provides a useful way to make man-
agement recommendations when tree health (tree condition) is con-
sidered for tree retention in construction zones. We used a 50% con-
dition rating (fair) tree as a comparison for the odds ratios of tree
survival since a tree of that condition would likely be one an urban
forest manager would consider for removal and replacement (Bond,
2010; Miller et al., 2015). A tree with a 70% (good) condition would be
nearly three times more likely to survive. A 90% (excellent) rated tree
would be over eight times more likely to survive compared to the 50%
rated tree (Fig. 3). Thus, condition rating can be used as a predictor of
10
Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670
Fig. 5. Mean per tree growth (annual stem diameter
increment and annual basal area increment at
1.37 m) during three-time periods in Milwaukee, WI
USA: 1979 to 1989 a limited implementation period,
1989 to 2005 an intermediate implementation
period, and 2005 to 2018 a full developed program
period for tree preservation (bars are standard error;
n = 670, 762, 701 respectively for 1979 to 1989,
1989 to 2005, and 2005 to 2018).
tolerance to construction and with decision making for trees to retain in
a construction zone.
This study also documents the growth of trees over an extended
time. Our study found the annual stem diameter increment declined
over time from 1.24 to 0.84 cm per year and the mean DBH increasing
over the study time period (Koeser et al., 2013). The current growth
rate is like the 0.83 cm annual DBH growth rate in Baltimore, MD USA
(Nowak, Kuroda, & Crane, 2004). Rather than a linear increase in tree
size, basal area or basal area increment provides another way to
monitor tree growth. North et al. (2017) used basal area increment to
assess the effects of site conditions and construction on trees and found
trees subjected to construction had a reduced basal area increment. We
found construction had no effect on basal area increment rather it has
remained constant over the past three decades. These periods also
correspond to the intermediate and full implementation periods and an
important historical foundation for the current findings. However, only
trees that survived between measurement periods were included in the
analysis and construction did result in increased tree mortality in the
limited and intermediate program periods. Thus, biomass would be
lower for trees in construction zones in the initial two study periods, but
likely not today since no difference was found in tree survival.
4.2. Historical foundation
The history of site and tree management efforts of the city were im-
portant factors that contributed to the success of this long-term study. In
response to Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi (Buisman) Melin &
Nannf.), the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service
sponsored numerous urban forestry demonstration projects in the late
1970s and early 1980s including a pilot tree inventory in Milwaukee in
1979 (Hauer, Casey-Widstrand, & Miller, 2008; Hauer & Johnson, 2008;
Miller & Schuman, 1981; Miller & Sylvester, 1979). The initial baseline
inventory from 1979 laid the foundation to test the effects of construc-
tion. Municipal records on construction projects by the City of Milwaukee
were critical to assign trees to control groups or a tree cohort associated
with construction (Hauer et al., 1994; Miller & Sylvester, 1979).
Prior to the implementation of its preservation program, the City of
Milwaukee was losing urban forest value and incurring greater man-
agement costs associated with construction-related tree removals. An
estimated reduction of $792,000 (1990 real USD) in urban forest value
from construction-induced- mortality (4.1%) and lower tree condition
(5.7%) was a significant outcome of the limited implementation period
R.J. Hauer, et al.
Fig. 6. Change in tree diameter distribution in Milwaukee, WI USA, 1979 to 2018. Data from 1979, 1989, and 2005 adapted from Koeser et al. (2013).
(Hauer et al., 1994; Miller & Hauer, 1995). Adjusted for inflation
(Consumer Price Index), the 1990 impact would be $1.5 million in
2018. Results from that study supported the implementation of a tree
preservation program (City of Milwaukee, 1996; Ottman et al., 1996).
The tree preservation program costs approximately $235,000 annually
in 2018, thus the program produces an estimated 6.4 benefit to cost
ratio (B/C) for the associated costs for pre-construction tree pruning
(equipment clearance) and two full-time staff foresters (salary, fringe
benefits, and overhead costs) to implement the program. The benefit
from the estimated retained urban forest value ($1.5 million) would be
lost if construction practices in the early 1980s continued today. For
decision-makers, the program produces at least six dollars for every
dollar invested. This nearly 40-year story demonstrates how science and
policy, when implemented through urban forestry management activ-
ities, can result in a healthier and longer-lived tree population with an
economically favorable outcome.
The City of Milwaukee implemented a program to prevent con-
struction damage to street trees several decades ago (City of Milwaukee,
11
Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670
1996). Through a combination of methods to minimize tree damage
through alternative construction practices, modification of construction
equipment, fines, preconstruction meetings, and monitoring during
construction, the program has reduced above and belowground damage
to street trees and improved their long-term health and survival
(Esposito, 2005; Ottman et al., 1996; Urbain, 2004). No one solution
fits all situations and all street and sidewalk construction plans must
comply with applicable local, state, and national standards for acces-
sibility (Costello et al., 2000; Dodge & Geiger, 2003; Fite & Smiley,
2016; Seattle Department of Transportation, 2015). Understanding the
tolerance of tree species to a given construction situation is also im-
portant when making retention or removal decisions (Koeser et al.,
2013).
4.3. Growing space and tree size
In this study, tree lawn width consistently and significantly pre-
dicted tree survival over three different measurement periods. The
R.J. Hauer, et al.
width of a tree lawn was positively related to tree condition. The result
is consistent with several studies that also found a positive relationship
with the distance between the curb and sidewalk (tree lawn width) and
tree growth, condition, and survival (Hauer et al., 1994; Koeser et al.,
2013; North et al., 2017; Scholz, Uzomah, & Al-Faraj, 2016). The
probability of tree survival through an odds ratios analysis provides a
way to comparatively assess management situations. Odds ratios from
the logistic regression analysis found a tree grown in a 3 m (10 foot)
wide tree lawn was approximately 2.5 times more likely to survive than
a tree grown in a smaller 0.6 m (2 foot) wide tree lawn (Fig. 4). The
findings from our study were not surprising and consistent with
Berrang, Karnosky, and Stanton (1985) who found trees growing in
larger tree lawns had a greater tree condition in New York City, USA.
Tree growth was greater in larger tree lawns in Minneapolis/Saint Paul,
MN USA (North et al., 2017). The larger the tree lawn or distance away
from infrastructure the lower the risk of damaging tree stems, roots, and
scaffold branches during construction and likewise the infrastructure
itself (Hauer et al., 1994; Scholz et al., 2016).
Maintaining a minimum distance of 1.5–2 m from a tree trunk at
maturity to the edge of a sidewalk or curbs/street is one solution as
found in a temperate climate to decrease damage to the hardscape
(Hauer et al., 1994; Johnson & North, 2016; Miller, 1994; North et al.,
2017; Scholz et al., 2016). This distance corresponds to the zone of
rapid taper for several temperate North American tree species (Perry,
1992). Halwatura, Jayawardena, and Somarathna (2013) found in
some tropical species that 4–11 m from the tree trunk might be needed
to avoid damage to buildings. Francis et al. (1996) also suggested
spacing large tropical trees at least 5 m or more away from structures to
avoid infrastructure damage. Buttress roots of tropical trees were cited
as a reason for these greater minimum spacing dimensions. Thus, de-
signing tree planting locations to avoid damage to infrastructure varies
by species, soils, and climate. This is more easily done when tree lawns
are first created. Retrofitting existing planting locations by arcing
sidewalks around planting trees is an additional option (Ottman et al.,
1996; Seattle Department of Transportation, 2015; Urban, 2008).
Findings from this study can also be used to prevent damage to trees
in non-street tree development areas. As remediation of construction
damage can be challenging and costly, BMPs for trees and construction
typically give guidelines for restricting the damage to tree stems and
branches, twigs and foliage, and root damage within a defined Tree
Protection Zone (TPZ). The TPZ varies given the standard used but
ultimately considers tree size and root area needed to sustain long-term
growth. While protecting as large an area as possible is always ideal
from a tree health perspective, development constraints necessitate the
definition of a critical root zone (CRZ) – the minimal root area that must
be protected to avoid damage to the tree (Smiley & Fite, 2016). The CRZ
minimum distance of 6 to 18x DBH to restrict construction activities
depends on a tree species susceptibility to construction (Smiley & Fite,
2016). Tree preservation BMP’s, standards, plans, and policies provide a
means to avoid tree damage and negate the potential effects of con-
struction (Miller et al., 2015).
4.4. Policy and ordinance
The development of regulatory and governance mechanisms
through law, policies, ordinances, standards, and fines for non-com-
pliance to follow required specifications should be part of construction
projects (Fite & Smiley, 2016; Matheny & Clark, 1998; Miller et al.,
2015). Along with specifying what needs to be done through written
specifications, understanding contractor knowledge, and perceptions of
construction near trees is vital to tree preservation programs (Despot &
Gerhold, 2003; O’Herrin et al., 2016). Contractor knowledge of correct
practices of construction near trees has increased over the past several
decades in a regional study of builders in nearby Central Wisconsin,
USA (O’Herrin et al., 2016). However, even though contractors gen-
erally understand the importance of avoiding damage to tree root
12
Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670
systems, the involvement of a qualified arborist was the least likely
activity to occur during construction practices in wooded lots. The
perception, knowledge, and importance of tree preservation approaches
by construction practitioners in street tree settings is not known, or at
least not found by the authors of this paper. Working with contractors
to develop modifications to construction practices was an important
part of the tree preservation program now in place and led to reducing
damage to tree root systems (Esposito, 2005; Ottman et al., 1996;
Urbain, 2004). Further, inspection and enforcement of tree preservation
requirements and fining those responsible for tree damage at a rate of
$40 per cm of DBH ($100 per inch) is an effective part of the program to
reduce contractor damage to tree stems, canopies, and root systems.
The current study also shows the importance of long-term urban
forestry research. The development and continuation of long-term re-
search studies in urban forests provide a mechanism to monitor change
or lack thereof and the potential to develop policy and test management
actions for an effect on trees (Driscoll et al., 2012). Long-term studies in
urban forestry are uncommon but important to depict longitudinal
change and contributions of trees and associated vegetation through air
pollution abatement, water quality improvement, energy conservation,
public health contributions, and other societal services (Bodnaruk et al.,
2017; Ko, Jun-Hak, McPherson, & Roman, 2015; Nowak et al., 2008;
Pataki et al., 2011; Roman, McPherson, Scharenbroch, & Bartens,
2013).
4.5. Study limitations
Tree condition is commonly evaluated visually, and a limitation is
internal wood conditions and below-ground root systems that were not
evaluated in this study may affect tree health (Bond, 2010). This visual
assessment is adequate for most situations and routinely used in urban
tree assessments (Klein, Koeser, Hauer, Hansen, & Escobedo, 2019).
Visual observations or the scope of work may necessitate a more ad-
vanced assessment of internal wood condition and below ground ob-
servations. In this study, the time-consuming nature of more advanced
assessment was deemed not important and any root system or internal
conditions not observed were likely a source of error associated with
both control and construction trees. Tree condition was evaluated by a
different person during each measurement period and inter-rater re-
liability is not known. Thus, potential differences in evaluator bias are
possible and any potential source is not known. This study also used the
CTLA tree condition evaluation system which uses both tree health and
tree structure to develop a tree condition rating and the terms used in
this system may vary from other tree rating systems (e.g., ISA Tree Risk
Assessment Qualification rating system). The effects of construction on
tree health were one of several factors that affect tree survival, condi-
tion, and growth in this study. The avoidance of past construction
practices has decreased the impact on annual tree mortality and tree
condition which explained about 10% of the variability when com-
paring the model R2 statistic from 1989 and in 2018. Other factors not
studied such as soil moisture content, soil bulk density, soil texture, soil
volume, tree genotypes, insects, pathogens, and cultural practices
would also likely increase model explanation of tree survival, condition,
and growth. The study sites were randomly selected within the City of
Milwaukee and believed to be reflective of the street tree population,
nonetheless, we cannot say with 100% certainty this sample represents
all street trees.
5. Conclusions
This study suggests you can have construction and protect trees too.
Given the nearly 40-year period and implementation of management
actions to reduce the effects of construction on trees, we conclude that a
tree preservation program can successfully be implemented to promote
survival and maintain the condition of street trees in a construction
zone. A street tree preservation program can be economically
R.J. Hauer, et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670

advantageous compared to no program with a B/C > 6 in the Acknowledgements

Milwaukee program. A construction damage prevention program or an
often similarly labeled tree preservation program requires a well-
thought-out process that involves all parties from the design and en-
gineering stages that include trees, monitoring and enforcement from
initial through the final stages of construction, and potentially follow-
up arboricultural treatments. This study demonstrates how the ob-
servation of a problem (e.g., tree construction and declines in tree
condition and survival) and implementation of management actions
through a tree preservation program led to a healthier and longer-lived
tree population associated with the repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs,
and other infrastructure. This would likely not occur without actions
taken to reduce the effects of construction on trees. Communities can
use findings from this study and program approaches to foster healthier
and more sustained street tree populations.
The authors thank anonymous reviewers for their suggestions with
the improvement of this paper. We thank the assistance of Jeff
Laufenberg (Urban Forestry Manager) and Kurt Klemstein (Urban
Forestry Crew Leader) for their logistical assistance with locating re-
cords and data collection. We are also grateful for the financial support
from the Undergraduate Research and Creative Activity Grant from the
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UWSP) Office of Research and
Sponsored Projects. We also thank the UWSP College of Natural
Resources for Financial Support and sponsorship with the publication of
this paper. Finally, we sincerely thank the TREE Fund, Wisconsin
Arborist Association, USDA – Forest Service, and the USDA McIntire-
Stennis Program for funding that was crucial for prior research asso-
ciated with this project and was vital to this current effort.

Appendix

Table A-1
Variables used in this study, the definition of the variable, and the measurement unit.
Variable Definition for Tree Measurement Unit

Construction89 Indicator that records if construction occurred between 1981 and 1985 Binary
Construction05 Indicator that records if construction occurred between 1990 and 2004 Binary
Construction18 Indicator that records if construction occurred between 2005 and 2017 Binary
LawnWidth89 Distance between curb and sidewalk measured in 1989 cm
LawnWidth05 Distance between curb and sidewalk measured in 2005 cm
LawnWidth18 Distance between curb and sidewalk measured in 2018 cm
TreeCond79 Overall condition of tree measured in 1979 %
TreeCond89 Overall condition of tree measured in 1989 %
TreeCond05 Overall condition of tree measured in 2005 %
TreeCond18 Overall condition of tree measured in 2018 %
TreeDiam79 Stem diameter measured at @ 1.37 m above the ground in 1979 cm
TreeDiam89 Stem diameter measured at @ 1.37 m above the ground in 1989 cm
TreeDiam05 Stem diameter measured at @ 1.37 m above the ground in 2005 cm
TreeDiam18 Stem diameter measured at @ 1.37 m above the ground in 2018 cm

Tree Species1 Definition of Measured Tree Species Unit

AmericanElmYY Indicator that American elm was present in 1979 or 1989 Binary
BasswoodYY Indicator that American basswood was present in 1979, 1989, or 2005 Binary
GreenAshYY Indicator that green ash was present in 1979, 1989, or 2005 Binary
HoneylocustYY Indicator that honeylocust was present in 1979, 1989, or 2005 Binary
LLeafLindenYY Indicator that little leaf linden was present in 1979, 1989, or 2005 Binary
NorwayMapleYY Indicator that Norway maple was present in 1979, 1989, or 2005 Binary
SilverMapleYY Indicator that silver maple was present in 1979, 1989, or 2005 Binary
SugarMapleYY Indicator that sugar maple was present in 1979, 1989, or 2005 Binary
WhiteAshYY Indicator that white ash was present in 1979, 1989, or 2005 Binary

1
The two digit code (YY) following the tree species in this study coincides with the measurement period: 79 = 1979, 89 = 1989,
05 = 2005, and 18 = 2018 (e.g., AmericanElm79 means this species was present in 1979 at the measured tree location).

References
AISWCD. (2017). Illinois urban manual practice standard tree protection – Augering
(each) code 991. Retrieved August 14, 2018 from http://www.aiswcd.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/TREE-PROTECTION-AUGERING-urbst991-8-30-17.pdf.
Baines, C. (1994). Trenching and street trees. Arboricultural Journal, 18, 231–236.
Berrang, P., Karnosky, K. F., & Stanton, B. J. (1985). Environmental factors affecting tree
health in New York City. Journal of Arboriculture, 11(6), 185–189.
Bodnaruk, E. W., Kroll, C. N., Yang, Y., Hirabayashi, S., Nowak, D. J., & Endreny, T. A.
(2017). Where to plant urban trees? A spatially explicit methodology to explore
ecosystem service tradeoffs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 457–467.
Bond, J. (2010). Tree condition: Health. Arborist News, 19(1), 34–38.
British Standards Institute. (2005). Trees in relation to construction — Recommendations.
London. Retrieved August 21, 2018 from https://www.lcgd.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2018/02/trees-in-relation-to-construction.pdf.
Chen, D., & Chen, H. W. (2013). Using the Köppen classification to quantify climate
variation and change: An example for 1901–2010. Environmental Development, 6,
69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2013.03.007.
City of Milwaukee (1996). Preventing construction damage to municipal trees. Milwaukee,
WI: Milwaukee Department of Public Works, Forestry Division.
Clark, J. R., & Matheny, N. (1991). Management of mature trees. Journal of Arboriculture,
17(7), 173–184.
Coder, K. D. (1998). Root growth control: Managing perceptions and realities. In D.
Neely, & G. Watson (Eds.). The landscape below the ground II Proceedings of a second
international workshop on tree root development in urban soils. Street tree decline and
construction damage (pp. 51–81). Champaign, IL: International Society of
Arboriculture.
Costello, L. R., McPherson, E. G., Burger, D. W., & Dodge, L. L. (2000). Strategies to reduce
infrastructure damage by tree roots. Proceedings of a Symposium for Researchers and
Practitioners.
Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (2000). Guide for plant appraisal (9th ed.).
Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture.
Crawley, M. J. (2013). The R book (2nd edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Day, S. D., Dickinson, S. B., Wiseman, P., & Harris, J. R. (2010). Tree root ecology in the
urban environment and implications for a sustainable rhizosphere. Arboriculture &
Urban Forestry, 36(5), 193–2005.
Despot, D., & Gerhold, H. (2003). Preserving trees in construction projects: Identifying

13
R.J. Hauer, et al.
incentives and barriers. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(5), 267–280.
Development Bureau. (2015). Guidelines on tree preservation during development.
Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section, Development Bureau. The
Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Retrieved August 14,
2018 from https://www.greening.gov.hk/filemanager/content/pdf/tree_care/
Guidelines_on_Tree_Preservation_during_Development_e.pdf.
Dodge, L., & Geiger, J. (2003). Tree roots and sidewalk damage. Western Arborist, 29(3),
28–29.
Driscoll, C. T., Lambert, K. F., Chapin, F. S., Nowak, D. J., Spies, T. A., Swanson, F. J., ...
Hart, C. M. (2012). Science and society: The role of long-term studies in environ-
mental stewardship. BioScience, 62(4), 354–366. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.
62.4.7.
Esposito, K. (2005). Greening the cities. Wisconsin Academy Review, 51(1), 2–6.
Fite, K., & Smiley, E. T. (2016). Best management practices – Managing trees during con-
struction (Second Edition). Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture.
Francis, J. K., Parresol, B. R., & de Patino, J. M. (1996). Probability of damage to side-
walks and curbs by street trees in the tropics. Journal of Arboriculture, 22, 193–197.
Gibson, J. G. (2017). Built to last challenges and opportunities for climate-smart infra-
structure in California. Union of Concerned Scientists White Paper. Retrieved from
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/11/gw-whitepaper-smart-
infrastructure.pdf.
Hauer, R. J. (2009). Trees and construction – A quarter century grey and green infra-
structure battle. Minnesota Shade Tree Advocate, 11(1), 5–7.
Hauer, R. J., & Johnson, G. R. (2008). State urban and community forestry program
funding, technical assistance, and financial assistance within the 50 United States.
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 34(1), 5–12.
Hauer, R. J., Casey-Widstrand, C. J., & Miller, R. W. (2008). Advancement in state gov-
ernment involvement in urban and community forestry in the 50 United States:
Changes in program status from 1986 to 2002. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 34(1),
5–12.
Hauer, R. J., Miller, R. W., & Ouimet, D. M. (1994). Street tree decline and construction
damage. Journal of Arboriculture, 20(2), 94–97.
Hauer, R. J., & Peterson, W. (2016). Municipal tree care and management in the United
States: A 2014 urban & community forestry census of tree activities. Special Publication
16-1Stevens Point: University of Wisconsin.
Halwatura, R. U., Jayawardena, V. G. N. P., & Somarathna, H. M. C. C. (2013).
Identification of damages to building structures due to roots of trees. Unpublished
Conference Paper. Retrieved August 21, 2018 from http://dl.lib.mrt.ac.lk/bitstream/
handle/123/8979/SBE-12-119.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Hilbert, D. R., Roman, L. A., Koeser, A. K., Vogt, J., & van Doorn, N. S. (2019). Urban tree
mortality: A literature review. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 45(5), 167–200.
Hirons, A. D., & Sjöman, H. (2018). Tree species selection for green infrastructure: A
guide for specifiers. Trees & Design Action Group. Retrieved August 17, 2018 from
https://www.myerscough.ac.uk/media/4052/hirons-and-sjoman-2018-tdag-tree-
species-selection-1-1.pdf.
IBM Corp (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM
Corporation.
Jim, C. Y. (2003). Protection of urban trees from trenching damage in compact city en-
vironments. Cities, 20(2), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(02)00096-3.
Johnson, G., & North, E. (2016). Total Infrastructure Planning: Mind the four R's for
successful street landscapes. Arborist News, 25(3), 69.
Klein, R. W., Koeser, A. K., Hauer, R. J., Hansen, G., & Escobedo, F. J. (2019). Risk as-
sessment and risk perception of trees: A review of literature relating to arboriculture
& urban forestry. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 45(1), 23–33.
Ko, Yekang, Jun-Hak, L., McPherson, E. G., & Roman, L. A. (2015). Long-term monitoring
of Sacramento Shade program trees: Tree survival, growth and energy-saving per-
formance. Landscape and Urban Planning, 143, 183–191.
Koeser, A., Hauer, R., Norris, K., & Krouse, R. (2013). Factors influencing long-term street
tree survival in Milwaukee, WI, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12, 562–568.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.05.006.
Kopinga, J. (1994). Aspects of the damage to asphalt road pavings caused by tree roots. In
G. W. Watson, & D. Neely (Eds.). The Landscape Below Ground. Proceedings of an
International Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban Soils (pp. 165–178).
Champaign, Ill, USA: International Society of Arboriculture.
Krouse, R. (2010). Milwaukee forestry: Managing EAB risk with ash injections. City Trees,
46(2), 16–20.
Manion, D. (1991). Tree disease concepts (Second edition). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-
Hall Inc.
Matheny, N., & Clark, J. R. (1998). Trees and development – A technical guide to preservation
of trees during land development. Champaign, IL: International Society of
Arboriculture.
McPherson, E. G. (2000). Expenditures associated with conflicts between street tree root
growth and hardscape in California. Journal of Arboriculture, 26, 289–297.
McPherson, E. G., Costello, L. R., & Burger, D. W. (2001). Space wars: Can trees win the
battle with infrastructure. Arborist News, 10(3), 21–24.
McPherson, G., & Peper, P. (1995). Infrastructure repair costs associated with street trees
in 15 cities. In G. W. Watson, & D. Neely (Eds.). Trees and Building Sites: Proceedings of
an International Workshop on Trees and Buildings (pp. 49–63). Champaign, IL:
International Society of Arboriculture.
McPherson, E. G., & Peper, P. J. (1996). Costs of infrastructure tree damage to infra-
structure. Arboricultural Journal, 20, 143–160.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced multivariate statistical methods (Third
edition). Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Miller, F. D. (1994). The effect of trenching on growth and overall plant health of selected
species of shade trees. In G. W. Watson, & D. Neely (Eds.). The Landscape Below
Ground. Proceedings of an International Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban
14
Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670
Soil (pp. 157–164). Champaign, Ill, USA: International Society of Arboriculture.
Miller, R. W., & Hauer, R. J. (1995). Street reconstruction and related tree decline. In G.
W. Watson, & D. Neely (Eds.). Trees and building sites: Proceedings of an international
conference held in the interest of developing a scientific basis for managing trees in
proximity to buildings (pp. 12–16). Champaign, IL: International Society of
Arboriculture.
Miller, R. W., Hauer, R. J., & Werner, L. P. (2015). Urban forestry planning and managing
urban greenspaces (3rd Edition). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Miller, R. W., & Schuman, S. P. (1981). Economic impact of Dutch elm disease control as
determined by computer simulation. In E. S. Kondo, Y. Hiratsuka, & W. B. G. Denyer
(Eds.). Proceedings of the Dutch Elm Disease Symposium and Workshop October 5-9, 1981
(pp. 325–344). Winnipeg, Canada: Manitoba Department of Natural Resources.
Miller, R. W., & Sylvester, W. A. (1979). Report on the use of UW/SP URBAN FOREST
computer inventory program as part of the Dutch elm disease demonstration project in
Wisconsin. Wisconsin Dutch elm disease demonstration project 1979 accomplishment
reportMadison: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources65–67.
Morgenroth, J., & Östberg, J. (2017). Measuring and monitoring urban trees and urban
forests. In F. Ferrini, C. C. Konijnendijk van den Bosch, & A. Fini (Eds.). Routledge
handbook of urban forestry.
Morell, J. D. (1992). Competition for space in the urban infrastructure. Journal of
Arboriculture, 18(2), 73–75.
Mullaney, J., Lucke, T., & Trueman, S. J. (2015). A review of benefits and challenges in
growing street trees in paved urban environments. Landscape & Urban Planning, 134,
157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.013.
Neely, D. (1988). Valuation of landscape trees, shrubs, and other plants: A guide to the
methods and procedures for appraising amenity plants (Seventh edition). Savoy, IL:
International Society of Arboriculture.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1990). Applied linear statistical models:
Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental design (3rd Edition). Homewood, IL:
Richard Irwin, Inc.
North, E. A., D'Amato, A. W., Russell, M. B., & Johnson, G. R. (2017). The influence of
sidewalk replacement on urban street tree growth. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,
24, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.029.
Nowak, D. J., Kuroda, M., & Crane, D. E. (2004). Tree mortality rates and tree population
projections in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2(3),
139–147. https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00030.
Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E., Stevens, J. C., Hoehn, R. E., Walton, J. T., & Bond, J. (2008). A
ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services.
Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 34, 347–358.
O’Herrin, K., Hauer, R. J., Vander Weit, W. J., & Miller, R. W. (2016). Home-builder
practices and perceptions of construction on the wooded lot: A quarter century later
follow-up assessment. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 42(5), 285–300.
Ottman, K., Genich, K., & Boeder, J. (1996). Street trees and construction. Arborist News,
5(3), 26–32 34.
Östberg, J., Martinsson, M., Stål, Ö., & Fransson, A.-M. (2012). Risk of root intrusion by
tree and shrub species into sewer pipes in Swedish urban areas. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening, 11(1), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.11.001.
Pataki, D. E., Carreiro, M. M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N. E., Jennings, V., Pincetl, Pouyat, R.
V., Whitlow, T. H., & Zipperer, W. C. (2011). Coupling biogeochemical cycles in
urban environments: Ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1890/
090220.
Perry, T. O. (1992). The ecology of tree roots and the practical significance thereof.
Journal of Arboriculture, 8(8), 197–211.
R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://
www.R-project.org/.
Randrup, T. B., McPherson, E. G., & Costello, L. R. (2003). A review of tree root conflicts
with sidewalks, curbs, and roads. Urban Ecosystems, 5, 209–225.
Roman, L. A., Battles, J. J., & McBride, J. R. (2016). Urban tree mortality: a primer on
demographic approaches (General Technical Report, NRS-158). Newtown Square,
PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs158.pdf.
Roman, L. A., McPherson, E. G., Scharenbroch, B. C., & Bartens, J. (2013). Identifying
common practices and challenges for local urban tree monitoring programs across the
United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 39(6), 292–299.
Roman, L. A., & Scatena, F. N. (2011). Street tree survival rates: Meta-analysis of previous
studies and application to a field survey in Philadelphia, PA, USA. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening, 10, 269–274.
Sanders, J., Grabosky, J., & Cowie, P. (2013). Establishing maximum size expectations for
urban trees with regard to designed space. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 39(2),
68–73.
Seattle Department of Transportation. (2015). Trees and sidewalks operations plan.
Seattle, WA. Retrieved August 14, 2018 from https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/
Departments/SDOT/Trees/TreeSidewalksOperationsPlan_final215.pdf.
Scholz, M., Uzomah, V. C., & Al-Faraj, A. M. (2016). Potential tree species for use in urban
areas in temperate and oceanic climates. Heliyon, 2(9), e00154. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00154.
Smiley, E. T., & Fite, K. (2016). Preserving trees during construction. Arborist News, 25(5),
12–16.
Standards Australia (2009). Australian standard protection of trees on development sites. AS
4970–009. Sydney: Standards Australia.
Sydnor, T. D., Gamstetter, D., Nichols, J., Bishop, B., Favorite, J., Blazer, C., & Turpin, L.
(2000). Trees are not the root of sidewalk problems. Journal of Arboriculture, 26(1),
20–25.
Sivyer, D. (2010). Mapping the future for EAB readiness and response planning in
Milwaukee: An update. City Trees, 46(1), 16–18 35.
R.J. Hauer, et al.
Tree Care Industry Association. (2012). ANSI A300 (part 5)-2012, American National
Standard for Tree Care Operations – Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant
Management – Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site
Planning, Site Development, and Construction). Londonderry, NH.
Urbain, D. C. (2004). The urban jungle. Wisconsin Urban and Community Forests. 12(2),
1, 4–5. Retrieved from https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/UrbanForests/documents/
VOL12NO2.PDF.
Urban, J. (2008). Up by roots: Healthy soils and trees in the built environment. Champaign,
IL: International Society of Arboriculture.
VanNatta, A. R., Hauer, R. H., & Schuettpelz, N. M. (2012). Economic analysis of emerald
ash borer (coleoptera: Buprestidae) management options. Journal of Economic
Entomology, 105(1), 196–206.
Vogt, J. M., Hauer, R. J., & Fischer, B. C. (2015). The costs of maintaining and not
15
Landscape and Urban Planning 193 (2020) 103670
maintaining the urban forest: A review of the urban forestry and arboriculture lit-
erature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 41(6), 293–323.
Wagar, J. A., & Barker, P. A. (1983). Tree root damage to sidewalks and curbs. Journal of
Arboriculture, 9(7), 177–181.
Watson, G. W. (1998). Tree growth after trenching and compensatory crown pruning.
Journal of Arboriculture, 24(1), 47–53.
Watson, G. W., Hewitt, A. M., Custic, M., & Lo, M. (2014a). The management of tree root
systems in urban and suburban settings: A review of strategies to mitigate human
impacts. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 40(4), 193–217.
Watson, G. W., Hewitt, A. M., Custic, M., & Lo, M. (2014b). The management of tree root
systems in urban and suburban settings II: A review of strategies to mitigate human
impacts. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 40(5), 249–271.