See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254220260

Comparison of carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and air pollution

removal by protected and maintained urban forests in Alabama, USA

Article  in  International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management · September 2012
DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2012.712550

CITATIONS READS

11 168

4 authors, including:

Arthur H. Chappelka
Auburn University
128 PUBLICATIONS   3,189 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Arthur H. Chappelka on 28 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem
Services & Management

ISSN: 2151-3732 (Print) 2151-3740 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm21

Comparison of carbon storage, carbon

sequestration, and air pollution removal by
protected and maintained urban forests in
Alabama, USA

Nicholas A. Martin , Arthur H. Chappelka , Edward F. Loewenstein & Gary J.

Keever

To cite this article: Nicholas A. Martin , Arthur H. Chappelka , Edward F. Loewenstein & Gary
J. Keever (2012) Comparison of carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and air pollution removal
by protected and maintained urban forests in Alabama, USA, International Journal of Biodiversity
Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 8:3, 265-272, DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2012.712550

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.712550

Published online: 09 Aug 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 374

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbsm21
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2012, 265–272

Comparison of carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and air pollution removal by protected
and maintained urban forests in Alabama, USA
Nicholas A. Martina*, Arthur H. Chappelkaa , Edward F. Loewensteina and Gary J. Keeverb
a
School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, 602 Duncan Drive, Auburn, AL 36849, USA; b Department of Horticulture,
Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA

The Auburn University campus in Auburn, Alabama, USA, was the location for a case study to compare carbon storage,
carbon sequestration, and air pollution (CO, O3 , NO2 , PM10, SO2 ) removal estimates between protected and maintained
urban forests. Results were from a complete tree inventory and i-Tree Eco analysis of the 237 ha maintained and 5.5 ha
protected areas of the campus. Trees in the maintained landscapes had an average diameter at breast height of 16.4 cm and
basal area of 2.24 m2 /ha when compared with 24.4 cm and 12.04 m2 /ha for the protected area. The maintained landscapes
were estimated to store 6652 kg of carbon per ha and sequester 291 kg/year/ha of carbon. The protected area was estimated
to store 41,975 kg of carbon per ha and sequester 1758 kg/year/ha of carbon. Trees in the maintained areas removed
2970 kg/year of air pollution (12.5 kg/year/ha) compared with 560 kg/year for the protected area (102 kg/year/ha), which
was 8 times the amount on a unit area basis compared with the maintained landscapes. The results demonstrate differences
between maintained and protected forests and how important protected areas are in urban environments in enhancing carbon
storage and sequestration and promoting air pollution removal.
Keywords: air quality; i-Tree Eco; UFORE model; Urban Forestry; carbon sequestration; urban ecosystem services

Introduction (Patterson and Coelho 2009). Most environmental prob-

The urban environment is a dynamic landscape, where
humans cause changes every day that may be beneficial,
detrimental, short lived, or long lasting. The world’s human
population continues to rise and the migration to cities and
urban areas is increasing (MEA 2005b). In the twentieth
century, the urban population grew to 2.9 billion, and as of
2005, there were 388 cities worldwide with populations of
1 million or more people (MEA 2005b). These trends of
constant change and population migration are increasingly
stressing our urban environments, forests, ecosystems, and
ecosystem services.
To better understand the changes occurring in our
urban areas, we first need to appreciate our environment
and what it provides humans. Moll and Petit (1994) defined
ecosystem as ‘a set of interacting species and their local,
non-biological environment functioning together to sus-
tain life’. Ecosystem services can therefore be defined as
‘the benefits human populations derive, directly or indi-
rectly, from ecosystem functions’ (Costanza et al. 1997);
more concisely, ‘ecosystem services are the benefits people
obtain from ecosystems’ (MEA 2005a).
Ecosystem services encompass numerous benefits that
typically vary from region to region and from city to
city. Urban ecosystem services include air filtering, micro-
climate regulation, noise reduction, rainwater drainage,
sewage treatment, recreational and cultural values (Bolund
and Hunhammar 1999), carbon storage and sequestration,
energy savings (Nowak et al. 2008), and wildlife habitats
lems found in cities are created locally, and one of the most
effective ways to deal with them is through local ecosystem
services. The services generated also help in increasing the
quality of life and public health (Bolund and Hunhammar
1999).
Besides determining what ecosystem services are being
provided, how to value them is also important. Extensive
research has placed values on ecosystem services. Bolund
and Hunhammar (1999) conducted research on ecosys-
tem services in urban areas and observed different urban
ecosystems along with local direct services. They found
that locally generated benefits have a large impact on urban
areas and should be addressed in land-use planning. Chee
(2004) investigated how ecosystem service valuation is
being developed and how it fits in with economic frame-
works and found that ecosystem service valuation has the
potential to affect policies but the techniques still have
shortcomings. Valuing ecosystem services from market,
price, and cost aspects was focused by Heal (2000), who
concluded that the role of economics is to help provide
incentives for conservation of natural systems.
Research has also been conducted on the effects of
ecosystem services in urban settings. Nowak and Crane
(2002) used field data and model outputs to estimate the
amounts of carbon storage and sequestration that urban
trees in the United States provided and their role in reduc-
ing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Air pollution removal
estimates were determined by Nowak et al. (2006), who

*Corresponding author. Email: nmartin@bartlett.com

ISSN 2151-3732 print/ISSN 2151-3740 online

© 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.712550
http://www.tandfonline.com
266 N.A. Martin et al.
concluded that urban trees in the United States remove
large amounts of air pollution and, thus, affect air quality.
Nowak et al. (2006) also estimated a value ($) for the
air pollution removal amounts using US median external-
ity values for the pollutants. Pandit and Laband (2010)
used a large sample of residences in part to evaluate and
quantify the effects that shade has on residential energy
consumption and provided energy usage savings according
to different shade amounts.
In addition, techniques and models have been devel-
oped to help quantify ecosystem services, such as i-Tree
Eco and i-Tree Streets (i-Tree 2010a). i-Tree Eco, orig-
inally called the Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) model,
was developed by the US Department of Agriculture Forest
Service (USDA FS) (Nowak and Crane 1998). This model
uses field data and measurements to provide the basis
for ecosystem services’ estimates. Data are input into the
model that uses allometric equations based on species
and local climatic data to provide ecosystem services’
estimates (Nowak and Crane 1998; Nowak et al. 2008).
Benefits of this model are it uses the individual tree mea-
surements taken in the field as the basis for the resulting
ecosystem services that are directly estimated from trunk
and crown dimensions and also the fact that it uses locally
generated estimates of atmospheric and climatic conditions
as input for the model. These techniques and models have
been used in numerous cities in the United States and a few
in other countries (Nowak et al. 2008).
When managing urban forests’ levels of maintenance
(McDonnell and Pickett 1990; Welch 1994) can affect
the ecosystem services provided because maintenance can
change the urban forest structure, which will in turn affect
the services provided. These range from intensively main-
tained areas (e.g., street trees and trees near buildings)
Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the Auburn University campus and Davis Arboretum. Photograph taken in spring 2008.
to those where maintenance is passive and trees are pro-
tected, such as parks or arboretums (McDonnell and Pickett
1990; Welch 1994). It is important to understand how
these intensity levels of maintenance affect ecosystem ser-
vices, so appropriate management strategies and resources
can be concentrated in areas where they provide the most
benefit. The Auburn University (AU) campus, Auburn, AL,
was an ideal location to evaluate these differences, having
large areas that are intensively maintained, as well as an
arboretum that is naturalized, protected, and more passively
maintained. The information reported here is a part of a
larger study evaluating the usefulness of i-Tree Eco pro-
tocols for a 100% inventory and validating certain i-Tree
Eco parameters for southern urban forests (Martin et al.
2011). Our goal was to compare the ecosystem services of
a maintained and protected urban forest, while specifically
evaluating carbon sequestration, storage, and air pollution
removal. Using this methodology, a monetary value for the
amount of each pollutant removed was calculated using
median externality values for the United States (i-Tree
2010c).
Methods
Study site
The study site was the AU campus (32◦ 36 N, 85◦ 30 W)
located in Auburn, Alabama (Figure 1). The core campus
encompasses ∼237 ha of maintained landscapes; defined
as those areas under the management of AU Landscape
Services and range from highly visible planting areas to
remote parking lots with the level of maintenance cor-
responding to visibility and use. The study site included
237 ha of the maintained campus and the 5.5 ha Davis
Arboretum.
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
The Donald E. Davis Arboretum (Figure 1) (∼2% of
the size of the maintained campus), established in 1963,
is maintained by the College of Sciences and Mathematics
(Auburn University 2010). Its primary functions are edu-
cation, conservation, and research on ecosystem preser-
vation and diversity, which are conducted throughout the
arboretum by letting native plants grow in special habitats
that exist in Alabama. The management philosophy of the
arboretum is to encourage native species and habitats and
over time the arboretum has evolved from a collection of
native trees to an arboretum that is expanding in the num-
ber of tree species and also native shrubs and herbaceous
plants (Auburn University 2010).
Field data
Field data were collected during a complete tree inven-
tory of the AU campus from summer 2009 to spring
2010 during full leaf conditions (Martin et al. 2011)
following i-Tree Eco procedures (i-Tree 2010b, 2010c),
which resulted in a complete population sample of both
the AU main campus and Davis Arboretum. There were
16 attributes measured for each tree including tree species,
diameter at breast height (dbh) (1.37 m above the ground),
tree height, average crown width, dieback, and a relative
tree condition rating modified from Webster (1978) and
Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (2000).
Total number of stems per tree was recorded and dbh
was measured using a logger’s diameter tape. Minimum
tree dbh to be included in the inventory was 2.54 cm,
and for multi-stem trees, up to the six largest stems were
recorded. Any tree that could not be measured at dbh was
measured at 0.3 m from the ground-line following i-Tree
Eco protocol (i-Tree 2010b, 2010c). Total tree and bole
height were evaluated using either an MDL LaserAce®
hypsometer or a Laser Technology, Inc. TruPulseTM 360B
rangefinder. Total tree height was determined by measur-
ing from the alive or dead top of the tree down to the
ground-line. Bole height was recorded as the height from
the ground-line to the bottom of the foliage of the low-
est branch of significance. Crown width was the average
of two measurements taken from the crown edges at 90◦
angles (i-Tree 2010b; Martin et al. 2011).
Percent dieback and percent crown missing were also
determined for each tree. Dieback was evaluated by
observing all sides of the tree and assigning an overall
estimate of the percent dieback. Ranges of <1%, 1–10%,
11–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, 76–99%, and 100% dieback
were used to assign tree conditions of excellent, good, fair,
poor, critical, dying, and dead, respectively. Percent crown
missing was estimated similarly to percent dieback, by
viewing all sides of a tree and estimating the overall per-
cent missing in 5% increments. Directional pruning and
branch loss from damage (ice, wind, etc.) are examples
that could attribute to missing crowns. The relative condi-
tion rating accounted for visible damage such as dieback,
missing crown, presence of insects or disease, visible root
damage, and proximity of infrastructure and used a rating
267
scale ranging from excellent (6) to dying/dead (1). A more
detailed description of the sampling methodology used can
be obtained by referring to Martin et al. (2011) and i-Tree
Eco (i-Tree 2010b). Tree locations were recorded with a
Global Positioning System (GPS) unit (either a Trimble
GeoXM GeoExplorer® 2005 series or a Trimble GeoXT
GeoExplorer® 2008 series, with an external antenna on a
tripod).
Data were downloaded (daily) from the GPS units to
a desktop computer using the Trimble GPS Pathfinder®
Office v.4.1 and 4.2 software. The ESRI ArcGIS®
9 ArcMapTM v.9.3 software was used for final presenta-
tion. Once collected, data were sent to the USDA FS-Urban
Forestry South in Athens, Georgia, for analysis. Using
this information, carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and
air pollution removal for the AU urban forest and Davis
Arboretum were compared.
i-Tree Eco analysis
Estimates provided by i-Tree Eco included carbon stor-
age, carbon sequestration, and air pollution removal (i-Tree
2010c). Carbon storage is the amount of carbon stored in
the tree as biomass. Carbon sequestration is an estimated
rate for a given tree of the amount of carbon removed
from the air and stored in the tree annually. Carbon stor-
age and carbon sequestration occur when trees fix carbon
during photosynthesis and then store the excess carbon
as biomass, thus removing atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2 ), a dominant greenhouse gas (Nowak and Crane
2002). i-Tree Eco uses the field data collected for the
trees in combination with a series of calculations and allo-
metric equations to estimate the carbon storage. The Eco
model then uses tree diameter in combination with tree
growth models and equations to estimate the annual carbon
sequestration rate for the trees (i-Tree 2010c).
i-Tree Eco provides removal estimates of certain air
pollutants, specifically carbon monoxide (CO), ozone
(O3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ), particulate matter <10 µm
(PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2 ), which is why the term
‘air pollution’ is used and not greenhouse gases (i-Tree
2010a, 2010c). For this case study, the air pollutants were
not evaluated separately because total air pollution removal
was the focus. The model uses a combination of field
data, tree cover data, US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) pollution concentration monitoring data, and hourly
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) weather data from
the local area as input. The model then uses the input
along with a series of equations to estimate the amount of
air pollution removed. The model then estimates a mone-
tary value ($) using US median externality values for each
pollutant (i-Tree 2010c).
Carbon sequestration comparison
To compare carbon sequestration for the maintained land-
scapes of the AU campus and protected Davis Arboretum,
gross carbon sequestration amounts, as estimated by i-Tree
268 N.A. Martin et al.

Eco, were divided by the total area to obtain a carbon Lagerstroemia spp. was the most common species in
sequestration value on a unit area basis. Regression equa- the maintained landscapes of the main campus, whereas
tions were developed for the campus and the arboretum, Pinus palustris, Liquidambar styraciflua, and Quercus
using carbon sequestration as the dependent variable and nigra were the most common in the arboretum (Table 2).
dbh as the independent variable. Intercepts and slopes were The five most abundant species comprised ∼49% of
compared (α = 0.05) to determine differences in carbon the total population for the maintained campus com-
sequestration for the two areas. pared with 18% for the Davis Arboretum, indicating
much more diversity in the arboretum, with 160 tree
species present compared with 139 for the maintained
Results campus.
Tree characteristics for the AU campus and Davis
Arboretum are described in Table 1. The average dbh for
the AU campus was 16.4 cm and for the arboretum was Carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and air pollution
24.4 cm (standard deviation: 19.6 and 19.4, respectively). removal
The AU campus and the arboretum differed drastically The carbon storage estimate for the arboretum was ∼15%
(16% and 62%, respectively) in canopy cover. The trees of the total for the main campus and carbon sequestration
in the arboretum exhibited larger mean total height, crown was ∼14% (Table 3). However, when estimated on a per ha
width, and basal area, whereas the AU campus contains basis, the arboretum stored and sequestered over 6 times
only about 12% of the total number of trees in the main- more carbon than the main campus. There were no large
tained landscapes (Table 1). differences in the estimated average amount of carbon
sequestration per tree by diameter class between the AU
Table 1. Overall tree characteristics for maintained areas of the campus and the arboretum (Table 4). Statistical analyses
Auburn University campus and the protected Davis Arboretum (data not shown) indicated that there was no significant
using i-Tree Eco inventory procedures. difference in slope (p-value = −0.0994) between the AU
Auburn campus and Davis Arboretum. There was a significant
University difference in intercept (p-value < 0.0001) between the
campus Davis Arboretum campus and arboretum with the campus having the larger
intercept coefficient, indicating that the smaller diameter
Area sampled (ha) 237 5.5
Number of trees 7345 891 trees on the campus were larger in diameter than those in
Number of species 139 160 the arboretum and were in better condition.
Average dbh (cm) 16.4 24.4 On average, the maintained landscapes on the campus
Average tree height (m) 8.5 12.7 were estimated to remove 12.5 kg/year/ha of air pollution
Average tree crown 6.7 7.6 ($67/ha). The Davis Arboretum was estimated to remove
width (m)
Basal area (m2 /ha)a 2.24 (0.001–1.9) 12.04 (0.001–1.13)
Estimated canopy 16 62 Table 3. Carbon storage and sequestration rates for the Auburn
cover (%)b University campus and Davis Arboretum as of 2009–2010.
Estimated 10,757,390 1,316,806
compensatory value Auburn University
($)c Campus Davis Arboretum
Notes:a representsthe range for all trees.
b Estimated canopy cover determined by dividing the total canopy-
Carbon storage (kg) 1,576,469.88 230,864.84
(6,652/ha) (41,975/ha)
projected ground area calculated by the model by the total area Gross carbon 69,063.88 9,670.94
inventoried.
c Estimated compensatory value calculated by i-Tree Eco is based on sequestration (291/ha/year) (1,758/ha/year)
the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) method (i-Tree (kg/year)
2010b).

Table 2. The five most common species for the Auburn University campus and Davis Arboretum with total number of trees and the
percent of the total population (Pop.).

Auburn University Campus Davis Arboretum

Species # of trees % Pop. Species # of trees % Pop.

Lagerstroemia spp. 1639 22 Pinus palustris 37 4

Quercus phellos 596 8 Liquidambar styraciflua 34 4
Pinus taeda 565 8 Quercus nigra 33 4
Magnolia grandiflora 464 6 Quercus alba 27 3
Quercus lyrata 363 5 Quercus stellata 26 3
Total 3,627 49 157 18
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 269

Table 4. Average carbon sequestration per tree (kg/year) by other urban areas. Those results could then be used to
diameter class (cm) for the Auburn University campus and Davis aid in development and planning strategies to optimize
Arboretum.
ecosystem services. However, when evaluating air pollu-
Average carbon sequestration per tree (kg/year) tion removal, it is important to remember that pollution
concentrations can vary site to site based on local envi-
Dbh (cm) Auburn University campus Davis Arboretum ronments and conditions and this should be taken into
1–15 3 3 consideration.
16–30 8 8 Comparing the results from this study site to other
31–45 15 16 study sites in the south-eastern United States is crucial for
46–60 22 25 evaluation. The area where this case study was done is
61–76 32 35
77+ 54 59
relatively small in comparison with other study sites that
have been established in the south-eastern United States.
It is important to remember that this case study was for a
relatively small area (compared with large cities, suburbs,
Table 5. Air pollution removal rates and removal values for etc.) and that within the case study itself, the arboretum
the Auburn University campus and Davis Arboretum as of
2009–2010. is small in comparison with the maintained campus. For
example, the City of Auburn was estimated to have an aver-
Removal amount age pollution removal value of $0.29/tree/year in 2008
(kg/year) Removal value ($) (Huyler et al. 2010) compared with the estimated aver-
Auburn University 2,969.1 (12.5/ha) 15,880.27 (67/ha) age removal value of $2.29/tree/year for the maintained
Campus landscapes of the AU campus and the Davis Arboretum
Davis Arboretum 560.2 (101.9/ha) 3,013.10 (548/ha) combined and $3.38/tree/year for the arboretum alone.
Ozone (O3 ) and PM10 were the air pollutants estimated
to have the highest removal amounts for both study sites
102 kg/year/ha of air pollution ($548/ha), or ∼8 times (Huyler et al. 2010). The City of Auburn was estimated
more on a per ha basis (Table 5). to store an average of 1.8 kg carbon/tree (Huyler et al.
2010), and the maintained landscapes of the AU campus
and Davis Arboretum combined were estimated to store
Tree condition an average of 219 kg carbon/tree and 259 kg carbon/tree
for the arboretum alone. The differences between the sites
Differences in tree condition between the AU maintained
could be attributed to 81.9% of the trees in Auburn having a
landscapes and the Davis Arboretum were evaluated. Over
dbh of <15.24 cm (Huyler et al. 2010), compared with only
60% of the trees on the maintained portion of the AU
43% for the AU campus and Davis Arboretum combined
campus were rated as being in excellent or good con-
and for the campus and arboretum alone. This indicates
dition and about 3% in very poor or dying/dead con-
that areas with larger trees will provide more ecosystem
dition (Figure 2(a)). Approximately 71% of the trees in
services (Escobedo et al. 2009a, 2009b).
the Davis Arboretum were rated as being in excellent or
good condition and about 1% in very poor or dying/dead
condition (Figure 2(b)). Across species, for trees with Carbon sequestration comparison
a dbh of ≥21 cm, approximately 28% and 17% of all
Results for carbon sequestration from the AU campus
trees in the arboretum and on the main campus, respec-
and Davis Arboretum inventory were compared to carbon
tively, were rated in good or excellent condition. For trees
sequestration results from Gainesville, Florida (Escobedo
with a dbh of ≥31 cm, approximately 18% and 10% of
et al. 2009a). Estimated average per tree sequestration
the respective populations fell into these categories. The
rates by diameter class (1–15 cm, 16–30 cm, 31–45 cm,
remaining trees were in fair, poor, very poor, or dying/dead
46–60 cm, 61–76 cm, and 77+ cm) for Gainesville were
condition.
2, 9, 17, 9, 33, and 111 kg/year, respectively. Using the
same diameter distribution classes, the estimated seques-
tration rates for the AU campus and arboretum combined
Discussion
were 3, 8, 16, 23, 32, and 54 kg/year and 2, 8, 16, 25,
Carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and air pollution 36, and 62 kg/year for the arboretum alone. Major differ-
removal ences in carbon sequestration were in the 46–60 cm and
Estimating the carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and 77+ cm diameter classes, with the latter having the largest
air pollution removal provided by the maintained land- differences. These differences in the larger diameter classes
scapes on the AU campus and the Davis Arboretum was could be the product of several factors, such as the small
the main objective of this case study. To estimate the number of trees with large diameters on the campus and in
full value of the urban forest, which would include recre- the arboretum, and differences in species composition and
ation and other ecosystem services, the direct benefits that tree condition (Escobedo et al. 2009a, 2009c; Martin et al.
they provide must be quantified and also compared with 2011).
270 N.A. Martin et al.

(a)
1400
Good/excellent
1200 Fair
Poor
1000 Very poor

Number of trees
Dying/dead

800

600

400

200

0
.9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 0+
5–7 12 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 99 10
2. 8– 13
–
21
–
31
–
41
–
51
–
61
–
71
–
81
–

Tree dbh (cm)

(b)
160
Good/excellent
140
Fair
120 Poor
Number of trees

Very poor
100 Dying/dead

80

60

40

20

0
9

.9

0+
7.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

9.
12

10
5–

–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9
8–
2.

13

21

31

41

51

61

71

81

Dbh (cm)

Figure 2. Tree condition by diameter class determined by the overall condition rating for the Auburn University campus (a) and Davis
Arboretum (b). Note that the Auburn campus has ∼8 times the number of trees as the Davis Arboretum.

Protected versus maintained urban forests of the maintained AU campus. McPherson et al. (1997)
Differences between protected and maintained urban reported that 60–70% more air pollution could be removed
forests are important in understanding how to maximize by large, healthy trees as opposed to small trees, indicat-
ecosystem services if it is the desired outcome. The most ing that these trees are vital in increasing air pollution
effective way to demonstrate differences in ecosystem ser- removal. When examining tree condition by diameter class,
vices provided by the main campus and arboretum was the arboretum, in general, appears to have higher tree con-
to express our findings on a unit area basis. Results from dition ratings, especially for larger diameter trees. Reasons
this case study indicated that the arboretum was esti- for this could be because these trees are in a protected
mated to remove more than 8 times the amount of total area with limited disturbances from construction or cam-
air pollution per ha as the campus, which resulted in a pus maintenance (roads, power lines, water lines, etc.).
removal value that is $481 more per ha/year than cam- Tree condition could also be a factor in why the inter-
pus. Air pollution removal is estimated to increase from cepts for the AU campus and Davis Arboretum differed.
2970 kg/year to 24,144 kg/year if the maintained land- The average condition of the trees planted on the AU
scapes of the AU campus had a forest structure similar to campus may be higher where larger, nursery-grown speci-
that of arboretum, with the removal value increasing from mens are planted, compared with the arboretum where the
$15,880 to $129,837. However, a forest structure similar smaller, younger trees are more likely regenerated naturally
that of the arboretum may not be practical for the campus and may be under competition. It is important to remem-
because of the infrastructure demands such as buildings, ber that the management goals and philosophies of the
roads, sidewalks, and utilities. campus and arboretum are not the same with the campus
Tree condition and size may play a role in the differ- focusing on maintained landscapes and the arboretum on
ences in ecosystem services. In general, trees in the Davis encouraging more native or natural settings. Naturally, the
Arboretum were larger and in better condition than those benefits provided by each would not be the same; however,
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
it is important to remember what can be provided by natu-
ral settings and then try to guide our maintained landscapes
and urban areas in that direction.
When evaluating canopy cover of urban and protected
areas, it is important to discuss the urban heat island effect.
This phenomenon occurs when there are higher air and sur-
face temperatures because of large areas of heat-absorbing
surfaces in urban areas with higher amounts of energy
usage (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999; Sokecki et al. 2005).
This is important in estimating ecosystem services such as
carbon sequestration and air pollution removal values since
factors such as temperature affect tree growth, productivity,
and uptake of pollutants. Natural areas with more vegeta-
tive cover can help mitigate this effect because they do not
have either as many or as much heat-absorbing surfaces
as open urban areas, or because these areas shade the sur-
faces from the sun causing less heat to be absorbed. More
vegetative cover results in more evaporative cooling, which
in turn lowers air temperature (Bolund and Hunhammar
1999; Sokecki et al. 2005). If canopy cover were to be
increased on the AU campus, the urban heat island effect
could be reduced, possibly leading to larger, healthier trees.
The potentially healthier trees could then possibly provide
more ecosystem services.
Cost of tree maintenance and loss in tree value due
to construction damage can also differ for protected and
maintained urban forests. The City of Gainesville, Florida,
spent $1,559,932 (∼$10.57/tree) on care for the public
urban forests in 2007 (Escobedo and Seitz 2009). Modesto,
California, had expenditures of $2,686,516 ($29.46/tree)
for its urban forest from 1997 to 1998 (McPherson et al.
1999). Natural areas, with less intensive management,
have much lower costs of maintenance, making their net
worth higher. Hauer et al. (1994) projected that the City
of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has a loss in street tree value
of $792,100/year due to construction damage. Ecosystem
disservices, or costs, also have to be considered (Escobedo
et al. 2011; Pataki et al. 2011). Disservices (pollutants
from power equipment such as vehicles, saws, and mow-
ers) include the cost of maintenance, increase in allergens,
and attraction of wildlife. When examining differences
between protected and maintained urban forests, ecosys-
tem disservices have to be estimated along with ecosys-
tem services to fully understand net benefits (McDonnell
and Pickett 1990; Escobedo et al. 2011; Pataki et al.
2011).
The trade-off between ecosystem services and
disservices is very important in development planning
(Escobedo and Seitz 2009; Escobedo et al. 2011).
An understanding of the interactions between built and
natural areas (urban–rural gradient) is also important
(McDonnell and Pickett 1990). The urban environment
needs both infrastructure and green spaces; however,
they have to be balanced to address the needs of the
urban population. As stated earlier, if the entire urban
environment had a forest structure like that of a natural
area, there would be no room for the infrastructure that is
necessary to sustain life in an urban setting (e.g., houses,
271
roads, and buildings). Even if infrastructure could be built
in a natural setting without disturbing the area, disservices
such as maintenance and damage to the infrastructure
by the trees (heaving of sidewalks) would be greatly
increased. Appropriate planning can address some of these
issues. Because of development, not all natural areas can,
or should, be saved; however, the most beneficial areas can
be determined and then protected to help offset the loss of
ecosystem services when sites are cleared for construction.
New construction sites are almost always landscaped when
finished and this helps to offset the loss of vegetation, but
the benefits provided by the new, almost always smaller
plantings, does not come close to the benefits being
provided by well-established natural areas. The end result
of the urban setting needs to be determined first so that
infrastructure and green spaces can be balanced to provide
the most benefits possible.
With urban environments come different levels of
maintenance, depending on where you are and what type
of urban vegetation is present, among other factors. Areas
that are more protected, not maintained as intensively,
and are allowed to grow in more of a natural state pro-
vide more ecosystem services at a lower cost, so more
work should be done to leave natural areas in our urban
environments because of their increased value in ecosys-
tem services. These increased services can be attributed
to the fact that protected areas contain larger trees that
are typically in better condition. Urban designers should
use the information and findings presented in this arti-
cle to become better informed and possibly re-think urban
designing in general so that the environment can be taken
into account, not only to help preserve it but also to incor-
porate it into the designs so that more benefits can be
provided. As more and more people become aware and pro-
tective of our environments and the benefits they provide,
more emphasis will be placed on designs where potential
ecosystem services are the main focus of the design. In the
future, we need to focus on preserving areas of the urban
forest that provide more ecosystem services, specifically
the protected areas where our mature trees are in better
condition so that ecosystem services can be optimized.
However, the entire urban forest needs to be considered
and evaluated during the developmental stages so that the
appropriate balance of developed areas and green spaces
can be sustained.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dudley Hartel and Eric Kuehler of the USDA
Forest Service-Urban Forestry South office for their assistance
and guidance during the project. They also thank Jonathon
Bartlett, Mark Caldwell, Andrew Parker, Elliot Glass, Ann
Huyler, and Efrem Robbins for their assistance with data col-
lection; James Ransom and Daniel Mullenix for their technical
assistance; Dr. Greg Somers for statistical guidance and Charlie
Crawford, Superintendent of AU Landscape Services, for his
assistance throughout the project. This project was funded in part
by Auburn University and the USDA Forest Service Co-operation
Agreement FS-SRS-09-CA-11330150-053.
 272 N.A. Martin et al.
References
Auburn University [Internet]. 2010. Auburn (AL): Donald E.
Davis Arboretum, Auburn University; [cited 2010 Nov 20].
Available from: http://www.auburn.edu/arboretum.
Bolund P, Hunhammar S. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban
areas. Ecol Econ. 29(2):293–301.
Chee YE. 2004. An ecological perspective on the valuation of
ecosystem services. Biol Conserv. 120(4):549–565.
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon
B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J, et al. 1997.
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural
capital. Nature. 387(15):253–260.
Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. 2000. Guide for plant
appraisal. 8th ed. Champaign (IL): International Society of
Arboriculture.
Escobedo F, Seitz J. 2009. The cost of managing the urban
forest [Internet]. FOR 217, School of Forest Resources
and Conservation, Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida; [cited 2010 Dec 15]. Available from: http://edis.ifas.
ufl.edu/FR217.
Escobedo F, Seitz JA, Zipperer W. 2009a. Carbon sequestra-
tion and storage by Gainesville’s urban forest [Internet].
FOR 210, School of Forest Resources and Conservation,
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food
and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida; [cited 2010
Dec 15]. Available from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FR210.
Escobedo F, Seitz JA, Zipperer W. 2009b. Air pollution
removal and temperature reduction by Gainesville’s urban
forest [Internet]. FOR 216, School of Forest Resources
and Conservation, Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida; [cited 2010 Dec 15]. Available from: http://edis.ifas.
ufl.edu/FR216.
Escobedo F, Seitz JA, Zipperer W. 2009c. Gainesville’s urban for-
est structure and composition [Internet]. FOR 214, School
of Forest Resources and Conservation, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida; [cited 2010 Dec 15].
Available from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FR214.
Escobedo FJ, Kroeger T, Wagner JE. 2011. Urban forests
and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and
disservices. Environ Pollut. 159(8–9):2078–2087.
Hauer RJ, Miller RW, Ouimet DM. 1994. Street tree decline and
construction damage. J Arboriculture. 20(2):94–97.
Heal G. 2000. Valuing ecosystem services. Ecosystem. 3(1):
24–30.
Huyler A, Chappelka AH, Loewenstein EF. 2010. UFORE model
analysis of the structure and function of the urban forest in
Auburn, Alabama. In: Laband DN, editor. Emerging issues
along urban–rural interfaces III: Linking science and soci-
ety conference proceedings; 2010 Apr 11–14; Atlanta, GA.
Washington (DC): USDA Forest Service Centers for Urban
and Interface Forestry. p. 18–23.
i-Tree-Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forests
[Internet]. 2010a. Washington (DC): USDA Forest Service;
[cited 2010 Oct 15]. Available from: http://www.itreetools.
org/eco/resources/UFORE%20Model%20FAQs.pdf.
i-Tree-Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forests
[Internet]. 2010b. Washington (DC): USDA Forest Service;
View publication stats
[cited 2010 Oct 15]. Available from: http://www.itreetools.
org/resources/manuals/i-Tree%20Eco%20Users%20Manual.
pdf.
i-Tree-Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forests
[Internet]. 2010c. Washington (DC): USDA Forest Service;
[cited 2010 Oct 15]. Available from: http://www.itreetools.
org/eco/resources/UFORE%20Model%20FAQs.pdf.
Martin NA, Chappelka AH, Keever GJ, Loewenstein EF. 2011.
A 100% tree inventory using i-Tree Eco protocol: a case
study at Auburn University, Alabama. Arboriculture Urban
For. 37(5):207–212.
McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA. 1990. Ecosystem structure and
function along urban–rural gradients: an unexploited oppor-
tunity for ecology. Ecology. 71(4):1232–1237.
McPherson EG, Nowak D, Heisler G, Grimmond S, Souch C,
Grant R, Rowntree R. 1997. Quantifying urban forest struc-
ture, function, and value: the Chicago urban forest climate
project. Urban Ecosyst. 1(1):49–61.
McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Peper PJ, Xiao Q. 1999. Benefit-
cost analysis of Modesto’s municipal urban forest. J
Arboriculture. 25(5):235–248.
[MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005a. A framework
for assessment. Washington (DC): Island Press. p. 49–69.
[MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005b. Ecosystem
and human well-being: current state and trends. Washington
(DC): Island Press. p. 1–37.
Moll G, Petit J. 1994. The urban ecosystem: putting nature back
in the picture. Urban For. 14(5):8–15.
Nowak DJ, Crane DE. 1998. The urban forest effects (UFORE)
model: quantifying urban forest structure and functions. In:
Hansen M, Burk T, editors. Integrated tools proceedings. St.
Paul (MN): US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Forest Experiment Station. p. 714–720.
Nowak DJ, Crane DE. 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by
urban trees in the USA. Environ Pollut. 116(3):381–389.
Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC. 2006. Air pollution removal by
urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For Urban
Green. 4(3–4):115–123.
Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC, Hoehn RE, Walton JT, Bond J.
2008. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest
structure and ecosystem services. Arboriculture Urban For.
34(6):347–358.
Pandit R, Laband DN. 2010. A hedonic analysis of the impact of
tree shade on summertime residential energy consumption.
Arboriculture Urban For. 36(2):73–80.
Pataki DE, Carreiro MM, Cherrier J, Grulke N, Jennings V,
Pincetl S, Pouyat RV, Whitlow TH, Zipperer WC. 2011.
Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments:
ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions.
Front Ecol Environ. 9(1):27–36.
Patterson TM, Coelho DL. 2009. Ecosystem services: founda-
tions, opportunities, and challenges for the forest products
sector. For Ecol Manag. 257(8):1637–1646.
Sokecki WD, Rosenzweig C, Parshall L, Pope G, Clark M, Cox J,
Wiencke M. 2005. Mitigation of the heat island effect in
urban New Jersey. Environ Hazards. 6(1):39–49.
Webster BL. 1978. Guide to judging the condition of a shade tree.
J Arboriculture. 4(11):247–249.
Welch JM. 1994. Street and park trees of Boston: a comparison of
urban forest structure. Land Urban Plan. 29(2–3):131–143.