How arboriculture can help develop the necessary science and practice, but engaging communities remains paramount for successful urban forestry

This second issue of the Arboricultural Journal in 2019 presents two contributions on essentially “urban forestry” issues and approaches, and two on relevant aspects of physiology and growth of urban trees and their environments. Hardy, Weir, and Slater (2019) examine the usefulness of the SolvitaTM Gel System for field testing of urban forests soils. They conclude that the SolvitaTM Gel System field test kit has the potential to be used as an urban forest soil assessment tool and that such application merits further research. This is a helpful and relevant observation since soils are frequently overlooked when considering tree health and condition, and moreover, selecting the available and reliable equipment is not easy for arboricultural workers unfamiliar with the science. Other observations on soils and their examination or assessment would be welcomed.

Moving to the community aspects of urban forestry, Molla and Mekonnen (2019) have undertaken a detailed piece of research based on Hawassa City in Southern Ethiopia. Their work not only highlights the importance and value of the urban forest in this situation, but it raises serious issues in terms of addressing core aspects of sustainability. Indeed, their conclusions include some rather grim reading which serves as a reminder of deep-seated problems in many emerging economies. This can be difficult for urban trees in affluent western cities, but here there was a lack of awareness on the use of urban trees and the urban forest. Furthermore, there was limited public support for urban green infrastructure, and the management of urban trees and the urban forest poor were adversely influenced by limited policy and strategic guidance. Additionally, a compounding factor, occurring in many global cities, was rapid urban expansion. This appears to have exacerbated the poor levels of understanding and therefore allowed inappropriate management practices. The issues raised here must surely apply to many other emerging cities and more case-studies of this sort would be pertinent contributions to our expanding professional practice at a global level.

Staying with the focus on people and communities, Papastavrou (2019), has undertaken a study based on the city of Bristol in England. The city has developed a tree strategy with a commitment to double its tree canopy cover to 30% by 2050. This is with a nod to the UK Government’s appointment of a “tree champion” and changes in government guidance on the need to consult more effectively prior to any major urban tree-felling programmes. Of course, there is the uncomfortable truth for governments that do not wish to spend money on local services, and this is that it will have to be paid for. A major cause of some of the recent urban tree-felling controversies has undoubtedly been the haemorrhaging of local authority funding for environmental services such as urban forestry. However, UK governmental decision-makers do not wish to hear this. The paper suggests that there should be a legal obligation to consult effectively prior to major tree-felling. It also puts forwards mechanisms to achieve this. Furthermore, Papastavrou (2019) advocates “proper” consultation in advance of any key strategic decisions by local authorities.

Finally, we journey back to the issues of tree growth and behaviour with Tothill and Slater (2019) and another of the “Slater series” on natural bracing. In this particular case, the authors consider and compare Norway maple (Acer platanoides) and small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata). Their observations of tree growth and structure are tied to field experience of the differences in failure rates between the two species. Such research can help guide best practice in future tree management.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.