Variations of the Treescape in Relation to Urban Development in a Chinese City: The Case of Nanjing∗

∗The authors gratefully acknowledge the research grant support provided by the Committee on Research and Conference Grants of The University of Hong Kong.

Abstract

Urban trees, as prominent and pertinent landscape elements of cities, are increasingly studied by both practitioners and academics. Trees in Chinese cities have hitherto received little detailed analysis from the viewpoint of urban forestry or landscape analysis. This study attempts a comprehensive evaluation of the tree population in Nanjing, focusing on the association between urban development and treescape attributes. Six districts, covering the main built-up area of 130 km², formed the study area. Nine land-use types with varied urban morphology and three urban zones with different development history were identified, within which subareas and trees were sampled for field study of tree dimensions, tree performance, and site characteristics. Statistical analyses on the 6,527 surveyed trees verify that tree performance is significantly associated with land use, site condition, and related human activities. Treescape is associated with housing ownership, town planning, and the history of urban expansion. The relationship between treescape and urban landscape units can furnish hints for improved urban forest planning and management and better coordination between planners and landscape professionals.

∗The authors gratefully acknowledge the research grant support provided by the Committee on Research and Conference Grants of The University of Hong Kong.

Key Words:

• land use
• Nanjing
• urban forestry
• urban treescape

Notes

∗The authors gratefully acknowledge the research grant support provided by the Committee on Research and Conference Grants of The University of Hong Kong.

Note: Null hypothesis: the two land uses are not similar with respect to tree performance. s denotes p>0.05, indicating the two land-use types are similar.

∗p<0.05;

∗∗p<0.01;

∗∗∗p<0.001.

^aShannon diversity index (H).

^aShannon diversity index.

^bSimpson's diversity index.

^cAverage performance score.

Note: Null hypothesis: the two land uses are not similar with respect to tree performance. Underlined items indicate p>0.05, which means that the two urban zones are similar.