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

net/publication/339390933

Street Trees, Construction, and Longevity: Tree Growth

and Response over Four Decades (1979 to 2018)

Chapter · February 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 224

7 authors, including:

Richard Hauer Andrew K. Koeser

University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point University of Florida
125 PUBLICATIONS   1,373 CITATIONS    128 PUBLICATIONS   798 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The promotion of well-being by urban forests View project

Determining Root Space Requirements for Street Trees View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Hauer on 20 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 38
Street Trees, Construction, and
Longevity: Tree Growth and Response
over Four Decades (1979 to 2018)

Richard Hauer, Andrew Koeser, Stephani Parbs,

Jim Kringer, Randy Krouse, and David Sivyer
Richard Hauer, Professor of Urban Forestry, College of Natural Resources,
University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA.

Andrew Koeser, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, Gulf Coast

Research and Education Center, Wimauma, Florida, USA.

Stephani Parbs, Undergraduate Research Assistant, College of Natural Resources,

University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA.

Jim Kringer, Urban Forestry Technician, City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

Randy Krouse, Urban Forestry District Manager,

City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

David Sivyer, Forestry Services Manager, City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

ABSTRACT

The effects of street, curb, and sidewalk construction on tree growth,

health, and survival were studied in Milwaukee, WI, United States.
Three periods were used to contrast the implementation of tree preserva-
tion during construction: (1) a limited developed program period prior
to 1989, (2) an intermediate program of development and refinement

546
 Street Trees, Construction, and Longevity • 547

between 1990 and 2004, and (3) during an advanced developed pro-
gram from 2005 to 2017. Trees died at a higher annual rate (~4.1%
mortality) and had a lower tree condition rating (~5.7% decrease) in
the initial study period measurement in 1989. The second period found
construction activities had a reduced effect on tree condition (~2.4%
decrease) in 2005. There was no difference in tree survival and condition
during the most recent period in 2018 and the advanced developed
program. The tree preservation program was useful to promote healthy
and sustained street tree populations in construction zones. Trees in
larger tree lawns had higher tree survival and condition in all three
periods. Larger trees on average had lower tree condition. Finally, tree
condition in a previous period was a positive predictor of the current
tree condition.

Introduction
Trees and construction are common factors in urban environments. The repair
of utilities, streets, curbs, and sidewalks commonly occur in built environments
(McPherson et al. 2001; Sydnor et al. 2000). Repair intervals of infrastructure
varies from 10 to 20 years for paved roads, 20 to 25 years for sidewalks, and
50 to 100 years or greater for drinking water and sewer pipes (Gibson 2017).
Trees located proximal to utilities, streets, curbs, and sidewalks could be dam-
aged during construction activities when considerations for tree protection
are not employed (Day et al. 2010; Jim 2003; McPherson et al. 2001; Morell
1992)
Miller and Hauer (1995) found 3% of street trees were annually associated
with construction in Milwaukee, WI (United States). A street tree planting
location will thus likely experience construction once every 33 years in this
city. The estimated median lifespan for street trees in Milwaukee, WI, is 28.5
years (Miller et al. 2015). Roman and Scatena (2011) reported a mean life
expectancy of trees at 19 to 28 years. Thus, a tree located near these infra-
structure elements is likely to be present for one or more construction events
during its lifetime.
548 • The Landscape Below Ground IV

Trees in constructions zones have been reported to have increased mor-

tality, reduced tree condition, and reduced growth rate across a variety of land
uses (Hauer et al. 1994; Koeser et al. 2013; Miller 1994; North et al. 2017;
O’Herrin et al. 2016). Damage to trees results in lost value in tree popula-
tions and increased costs associated with the removal and replanting of trees
(Hauer et al. 1994; Koeser et al. 2013; North et al. 2017; Watson, 1998).
Arboricultural standards and Best Management Practices (BMP) for trees and
construction aim to reduce this financial and tree health impact (Matheny
and Clark, 1998; Tree Care Industry Association, 2012). Tree preservation
BMPs, standards, plans, and policies provide a means to avoid tree damage
and negate the potential effects of construction (Hauer and Peterson 2016;
Miller et al. 2015).
Within a municipal tree setting, tree preservation practices have evolved
over the past several decades (Hauer et al. 1994; Miller and Hauer 1995;
Matheny and Clark 1998; Ottman et at. 1996; Watson et al. 2014). The street
tree preservation program in Milwaukee, WI, United States, is an example
(City of Milwaukee 1996; Esposito 2005; Ottman et al. 1996; Urbain 2004).
The program developed from the limited program in the mid-1980s to an
intermediate developed program in the mid-1990s to mid-2000s. By the mid-
2000s, the program evolved to the current state of an advanced developed
program.
This study investigated the effect of a tree preservation program on the
health, survival, and growth of street trees. A cohort of tree planting sites
first inventoried in 1979 was used for follow-up assessments in 1989, 2005,
and 2018. In each assessment, the presence or absence of a tree, if a tree was
present in the previous inventory, and the current tree condition was deter-
mined. Research questions include: (1) Do trees within a construction zone
have similar growth, survival, and condition than trees outside of these areas?
(2) Has a tree preservation program that differed in program implementation
contrasted through three periods (limited developed program [LDP] 1979 to
1989, intermediate developed program [IDP] 1990 to 2004, and advanced
developed program [ADP] 2005 to 2017) resulted in different outcomes in
tree condition, survival, and growth? and (3) Do site and tree parameters
predict the growth, condition, and longevity of street trees? The tolerance of
tree species to site conditions and also to construction was further studied.
 Street Trees, Construction, and Longevity • 549

Methods
Street trees within construction zones and nearby control trees not subjected to
construction activities were studied for their condition, survival, and growth.
The implementation of a tree preservation program through three stages of
differing program capacity including a limited developed program (LDP),
intermediate developed program (IDP), and advanced developed program
(ADP) was contrasted through the effect on tree condition, survival, and
growth. In brief, the ADP involves practices that result in little damage to
structural tree roots, stems, and the canopy through modified construction
equipment (e.g., integral curb pavers that require 4.5 cm of clearance rather
than 28.0 cm behind the curb and 90° exhaust pipes to direct exhaust heat
away from leaves). Streets are decreased in width by the clearance require-
ment (e.g., 4.5 cm) to avoid damage to roots growing against the removed
curb. Sidewalk widths are narrowed and summits over roots are used to min-
imize root damage. Monitoring and enforcement of noncompliance through
fines ($40 USD per cm stem diameter) give contractors an incentive to avoid
damage. In the LDP, soil removal and root damage at an approximate distance
of 30 to 50 cm behind the curb was common, resulting in greater root damage.
The LDP involved little to no planned activity to minimize tree damage and
contrasts with the avoidance and mitigation of tree damaging practices devel-
oped and used in the IDP and ADP. The IDP coincided with the gradual
development and implementation of practices in place during the ADP, with
the end of the IDP period in 2004 similar to the ADP and the beginning of
the IDP in 1990 more like construction practices in the LDP.
We hypothesized tree survival, condition, or growth between trees would
be similar within construction zones and control areas in the ADP. In contrast,
differences during the LDP and IDP were previously found (Hauer et al. 1994;
Koeser et al. 2013). Tree lawn width, tree stem diameter, and past tree condi-
tion were hypothesized to significantly predict tree survival and tree condition.
Independent variables including tree attributes (condition, diameter, species)
and site attributes (tree lawn width, construction) were modeled through
multiple regression and logistic regression to test the effects of the depen-
dent variables of tree condition, tree survival, and tree stem growth (Table
38.1).
550 • The Landscape Below Ground IV

Study Location Site and Field Measurements

Street trees in Milwaukee, WI, United States (43.0389° N, 87.9065° W), within
construction zones (construction) or outside of construction zones (control)
were used to study the effects of a tree preservation program. Construction
activities (street repair, curb replacement, and/or sidewalk replacement) were
identified by records maintained by the municipality, field verification of con-
struction dates stamped in the concrete, and final verification by an urban
forestry specialist assigned to the construction projects.
A total of 989 tree planting site locations were first inventoried in 1979
(Miller and Sylvester 1979). In the 1989 measurement (LDP), 845 planting
sites (413 Control, 432 Construction between 1981 and 1985) had trees
present in 1979 as a baseline inventory (no construction at any tree site). In
2005 (IDP), a total of 942 planting site locations had trees present in 1989
and either subjected to construction or not (686 Control, 256 Construction
between 1989 and 2004). In the 2018 measurement, 883 planting sites had
trees in 2005 and were inventoried in the most recent ADP 2018 measure-
ment (696 Control, 187 Construction between 2005 and 2017). Each tree
planting location at the end of a measurement period was recorded as either
a surviving tree, replacement tree, or vacancy since the last monitoring. Tree
survival was determined by comparing the tree species and diameter to the
immediate previous measurement period or in a few cases by planting records
for small dimeter trees (< 15 cm, of same species).
Tree diameter (cm, 1.37 m above ground surface), percent tree condition,
tree lawn width (cm, distance between curb and sidewalk), tree species, home
address, and applicable field comments were recorded after full leaf expansion
(e.g., May and June) in each of the measurement periods. Tree condition fol-
lowed the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers methods (Neely 1988)
for all three evaluation periods. Annual tree diameter increment (cm) and
basal area increment were derived by summing total growth and divided by
the years between measurement periods.
 Street Trees, Construction, and Longevity • 551

Statistical Analysis
Binary logistic regression models tested the effects of tree condition (% ) in
the immediate previous measurement period (2005), tree lawn width, tree
diameter in the immediate previous measurement period (2005), construction
(binary 1 = yes, 0 = no), and tree species including the seven most common
species (n >15) on the dependent variable tree survival for the ADP. Seven tree
species, Norway maple (Acer platanoides 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
basswood (Tilia americana L.), and littleleaf 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 performing species in
past models (Koeser et al. 2013). The logistic regression model used the glm()
function in R (R core team, 2017) and simplification employed backward
and forward stepwise elimination using Akaike information criterion (AIC).
Remaining non-significant terms were further 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 α ≤ 0.05 level. The same approach was used for the IDP and LDP study
periods.
An a priori assumption of no effect of construction on tree condition
and growth separately was modeled with a multiple regression model in SPSS
Version 25 (IBM Corporation 2017). The effect of independent variables
(2005 tree diameter [cm], 2005 tree condition [%], tree lawn width [cm],
construction [binary 1 = yes, 0 = no], and the eight tree species listed above)
on the dependent variable (2018 tree condition) was tested for trees present
in 2018 (ADP). Similar modeling was conducted for the LDP and IDP. This
same model approach was used for the dependent tree growth variables (e.g.,
diameter and basal area). An α ≤ 0.25 significance level was used with screen-
ing of variables in full models and an α ≤ 0.05 significance level was used
to retain variables in final models. Assumptions of normality, linearity, and
homoscedasticity were met and multicollinearity in models was tested with
the variance inflation factor <10 (Neter et al. 1990; Mertler and Vannatta
2005). An ANOVA that contrasted condition only between construction and
552 • The Landscape Below Ground IV

control trees occurred for comparison of an effect in each period. However,

the multiple regression models control for site effects.

Results
Tree response to construction varied by each period (LDP, IDP, and ADP)
through both tree condition and tree survival. In the LDP (1989 measure-
ment), lower survival and tree health rating conditions were found for trees in
construction zones. An effect of construction on tree survival and condition
was also found for the IDP (2005 measurement), however, to a lesser degree
than in the LDP period. In the ADP, no effect of construction was found on
tree condition or survival in the 2018 measurement. Findings suggest the
positive effect of the development of an ADP. Findings for tree condition, tree
survival, and tree growth follow.

Tree Condition
The effect of construction on tree condition varied among the three periods.
Tree condition in 1979 (baseline) was a similar (p = 0.94) mean 75.0% (0.5
SE) for trees that were later either construction or control trees (Table 38.1,
Figure 38.1). There was no effect of construction on tree condition (mean
69.4%, 0.5 SE) in the 2018 ADP inventory in both an uncontrolled ANOVA
(p = 0.24) and in a multiple regression model (p = 0.97) controlling for lawn
width, tree diameter, past tree condition, and species (Table 38.2). During the
LDP, tree condition was significantly lower by 5.7% in trees in construction
zones in an uncontrolled ANOVA (p < 0.0001) and similarly 5.7% lower in
a multiple regression model (p < 0.0001). In the IDP stage, a significant dif-
ference for trees in construction zones (p = 0.04) was detected in an ANOVA
when not controlling for other factors. The actual percentage reduction in tree
condition was 2.4%, a 57% lesser effect than the earlier LDP measurement
period (Figure 38.1, Table 38.1). However, a multiple regression controlling
for site parameters showed no difference between construction (p = 0.556)
and control trees (Table 38.2). The results suggest a tree preservation program
 Street Trees, Construction, and Longevity • 553

effectively reduced the impact of street, curb, and/or sidewalk repair on tree
health as measured by a tree condition rating system.

Figure 38.1 Tree condition over four time periods in Milwaukee, WI, United States, in 1979 (before
construction), 1989 (limited developed program, LDP), 2005 (intermediate developed program, IDP), and
2018 (advanced developed program, ADP) that varied in tree preservation. (Bars are standard error; n =
845, 670, 762, 709, respectively for 1979, 1989, 2005, and 2018.)

Table 38.1 Study variables used to examine the effect on tree survival and tree condition. z

Variable Definition Mean/count (SE), n

TreeCond2018 Dependent response, Tree condition in 2018 69.42 (0.46), 701
TreeCond2005 Dependent response, Tree condition in 2005 74.72 (0.51), 762
TreeCond1989 Dependent response, Tree condition in 1989 73.88 (0.46), 670
TreeCond1979 Tree condition 1979 75.05, (0.49), 845
TreeDiam2018 Tree diameter (cm @1.37 m) in 2018 48.58 (0.60), 701
TreeDiam2005 Tree diameter (cm @1.37 m) in 2005 41.95 (0.49), 762
TreeDiam1989 Tree diameter (cm @1.37 m) in 1989 30.05 (0.54), 670
TreeDiam1979 Tree diameter (cm @1.37 m) in 1979 18.95 (0.59), 845
554 • The Landscape Below Ground IV

Variable Definition Mean/count (SE), n

Construction18 1 if in construction zone 2005-2017, else 0 162
Construction05 1 if in construction zone 1990-2004, else 0 191
Construction89 1 if in construction zone 1981-1985, else 0 334
LawnWidth18 Lawn width as measured in 2018 (cm) 228.78 (0.60), 701
LawnWidth05 Lawn width as measured in 2005 (cm) 226.21 (4.36), 762
LawnWidth89 Lawn width as measured in 1989 (cm) 234.95 (4.79), 670

z
Data from Milwaukee, WI, United States, inventory from 1979 to 2018—a period of limited (1989), intermediate
(2005), and advanced (2018) enactment of a tree preservation program.

Three independent variables (lawn width, past tree condition, and past
tree diameter) significantly (p < 0.001) predicted between 5% to 20% (Adj
R2) of the variability of the dependent variable tree condition in all three
periods (Table 38.3). Construction was significant for only the LDP, with a
5.7% greater tree condition for control trees. Tree condition increased as tree
lawn width increased between 0.007 and 0.014 for each cm (Table 38.3). As
tree diameter increased, tree condition decreased, ranging between −0.075
and −0.104 per cm of diameter. Past tree condition also consistently predicted
current tree condition. No residual effect of construction from a previous study
period was detected in a more recent measurement period (data not shown).

Table 38.2 The effect of street tree construction, site, and species attributes on tree condition of
surviving trees during an advanced (2018), intermediate (2005), and limited (1989) tree preservation
program.

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients t-test Statistics Correlations
Model Variables Beta Std. Error Beta t-value Sig. Zero-order Partial
Final 2018 Model (R2 = .323, R2adj = .315, std. error of est. = 10.213, F(8,692) = 700, p < .0001)
(Intercept) 42.019 3.362 12.498 0.000
LawnWidth2018 0.016 0.003 0.153 4.621 0.000 0.129 0.173
(cm)
TreeCond2005 0.327 0.040 0.258 8.114 0.000 0.282 0.295
(%)
TreeDiam2005 −0.129 0.016 −0.245 −7.194 0.000 −0.115 −0.264
(cm)
 Street Trees, Construction, and Longevity • 555

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients t-test Statistics Correlations
Model Variables Beta Std. Error Beta t-value Sig. Zero-order Partial
Basswood 5.707 2.453 0.075 2.327 0.020 −0.003 0.088
Green Ash 13.880 0.934 0.514 14.865 0.000 0.411 0.492
Honeylocust 4.711 1.182 0.135 3.984 0.000 −0.070 0.150
Littleleaf Linden 6.467 1.810 0.116 3.573 0.000 0.014 0.135
Silver Maple 8.557 3.769 0.074 2.271 0.023 −0.017 0.086
Final 2005 Model (R2 = .055, R2adj = .049, std. error of est. = 13.889, F(5,756) = 762, p < .0001)
(Intercept) 65.889 3.276 20.110 0.000
LawnWidth2005 0.009 0.004 0.074 2.014 0.044 0.059 0.073
(cm)
TreeCond1989 (%) 0.166 0.042 0.141 3.947 0.000 0.145 0.142
TreeDiam1989 −0.143 0.039 −0.136 −3.639 0.000 −0.073 −0.131
(cm)
Littleleaf Linden −5.927 2.064 −0.105 −2.871 0.004 −0.070 −0.104
Norway Maple −4.169 1.084 −0.144 −3.847 0.000 −0.091 −0.139
Final 1989 Model (R2 = .215, R2adj = .209, std. error of est. = 10.613, F(5,664) = 670, p < .0001)
(Intercept) 41.928 3.549 11.814 0.000
Construction1989 −5.770 0.842 −0.242 −6.856 0.000 −0.239 −0.257
LawnWidth2005 0.012 0.003 0.120 3.380 0.001 0.105 0.130
(cm)
TreeCond1979 (%) 0.437 0.045 0.336 9.687 0.000 0.358 0.352
TreeDiam1979 (cm) −0.084 0.028 −0.106 −3.028 0.003 −0.106 −0.117
Sugar Maple −7.823 2.263 −0.119 −3.457 0.001 −0.109 −0.133

Table 38.3 Effect of site variables in a multiple regression model for three periods that varied
in implementation of a tree preservation program. 1989 = limited developed program, 2005 =
intermediate developed program, and 2018 = advanced developed program.

Measurement Year
Independent Variable (unit) 1989 2005 2018
Lawn Width (per cm) 0.011 0.007 0.014
Construction (0 = no, 1 = yes) −5.723 ns ns
Past Tree Condition (per %) 0.44 0.17 0.33
Past Tree Diameter ( per cm) −0.075 −0.104 −0.097
556 • The Landscape Below Ground IV

Measurement Year
Model Summary
Sample Size (n) 670 762 701
Adjusted R2 0.20 0.05 0.10
Model Significance (p-value) < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

ns = Not Significant

Tree Survival and Growth

Trees died at a greater rate in construction zones, 4.1% greater mortality (p
= 0.004) during the LDP measurement period in 1989. Results from 2005
also showed a negative effect (p = 0.01) of construction on tree survival in the
IDP period, but an approximate 50% reduction in tree mortality. During the
recent ADP measurement in 2018, no effect (p = 0.81) of construction on
tree mortality was found when controlling for tree species, lawn width, prior
tree diameter, and past tree condition in the logistic model.
No effect of construction on tree growth was found for the ADP (p =
0.129), IDP (p = 0.62), or LDP (p = 0.55) periods. Tree diameter growth
declined over time with a mean 0.84 cm (0.01 SE) annual increase during the
ADP phase, 1.12 cm (0.02 SE) in the IDP, and 1.24 cm (0.02 SE) during the
LDP. No significant difference in annual basal area increment was also found
for all three periods. Annual basal area increment was 0.0044 m2 (0.0001 SE),
0.0058 m2 (0.0001 SE), and 0.0057 m2 (0.0001 SE) for the LDP, IDP, and
ADP periods, respectively. Even though annual growth increment declined
over time, the annual basal area increment is greatest in the two most recent
time periods.

Discussion
This study of trees and construction found the implementation of a program
of tree preservation during construction has reduced the impact of construc-
tion on tree mortality and tree condition compared to what occurred prior
 Street Trees, Construction, and Longevity • 557

to this program. This study has followed a cohort of 989 planting locations
through long-term research in an urban tree population. The initial 1989
study by Hauer et al. (1994) found trees near construction had reduced tree
condition and lower survivability. During the LDP, an estimated $792,000
(USD, real 1990) annual impact from construction-induced-greater mortal-
ity and lower tree condition occurred (Hauer et al. 1994; Miller and Hauer
1995). This would be a $1.5 million impact in 2018 (Consumer Price Index
adjusted). This initial result led to the implementation of a tree preservation
program (Ottman et al. 1996; City of Milwaukee 1996). Results from 2005
suggested a positive effect of the tree preservation program in the IDP phase,
with 50% less impact from construction (Hauer 2009; Koeser et al. 2013).
The recent 2018 ADP phase found no effect of construction on tree health
and survival. The tree preservation program costs approximately $235,000
annually in 2018, thus the program produces a 6.4 benefit to cost (B/C) for
the preconstruction tree pruning (equipment clearance) and two full-time
staff foresters (salary, fringe benefits, and overhead costs). For each dollar
invested in the program, over six dollars were returned. Thus, this nearly
40-year urban forestry story demonstrates how science and policy, when
implemented through urban forestry management activities, can result in
a healthier and longer-lived tree population with an economically favorable
outcome.

Growing Space, Tree Size, and Tree Condition

This study demonstrated that growing space was important with the survival
and condition of trees regardless if they were in a construction zone or not.
As tree lawn width increased the health and survival of trees increased. This
result is consistent with 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 et al. 2016).
An odds ratio analysis from this study found 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. The findings were not surprising considering
Berrang et al. (1985) found trees growing in larger tree lawns had a greater tree
558 • The Landscape Below Ground IV

condition. Tree growth was better in larger tree lawns in Minneapolis/Saint

Paul, United States (North et al. 2014, North et al. 2017).
Providing trees a growing space that meets biological needs should also
minimize the effects of construction on trees. Maintaining a minimum dis-
tance of 1.5 to 2.0 m from a tree trunk at maturity to the edge of infrastructure
decreases the odds of damage (Hauer et al. 1994; Miller 1994; Johnson and
North 2016; North et al. 2017; Scholz et al. 2016). Tropical tree species
might require a greater distance, with 4 to 11 m from the tree trunk needed
for some species observed to minimize infrastructure damage (Francis et al.
1996; Halwatura et al. 2013).
This study also showed past tree health is an important predictor of tree
survival and future tree health. A healthier tree is better able to withstand
abiotic and biotic stress factors (Clark and Matheny 1991; Manion 1991).
Abiotic factors (e.g., construction, soil compaction, moisture stress) and biotic
organisms (e.g., insects and fungi) predispose trees to decreased condition and
increased risk of death. We also found tree diameter had a negative relationship
with tree condition and was consistent with other studies (Francis et al. 1996;
Koeser et al. 2013).

Policy and Ordinance

The Milwaukee program resulted from regulatory and governance mechanisms
that follow standard specifications for construction projects near trees (Fite and
Smiley 2016; Matheny and Clark 1998; Miller et al. 2015). Through a combi-
nation of methods to minimize tree damage through alternative construction
practices, modification of paving equipment, fines, preconstruction meetings,
ordinances, and monitoring during construction, the program has reduced
above and belowground damage and associated long-term health and survival
of street trees (Esposito 2005; Hauer and Peterson 2016; Ottman et al. 1996;
Urbain 2004). No one solution fits all situations and all designs must comply
with applicable local, state, and national standards for accessibility (Costello et
al. 2000; Dodge and Geiger 2003; Smiley and Fite 2016; Seattle Department
of Transportation 2015). Understanding the tolerance of tree species to a
given construction situation is also important (Koeser et al. 2013). Working
 Street Trees, Construction, and Longevity • 559

with contractors to develop modifications to construction practices was an

important part of the tree preservation program in place today. Inspection and
enforcement of tree preservation requirements and fining those responsible
for tree damage a rate of $40 per cm of stem diameter ($100 per inch) is an
effective part of the Milwaukee program (Miller et al. 2015).

Conclusions
Over the nearly 40-year period, the development and implementation of a
trees and construction program led to a healthier tree population. The pro-
gram is a cost-effective approach that combined tree policy, tree biology, and
construction into an advanced program today. The approximate 6 B/C in the
Milwaukee program lends strong support for current management efforts. This
study further showed how the observation of a problem (e.g., tree construction
and declines in tree health and survival) and undertaking the tree preservation
program has led to a longer-lived and healthier tree population. Findings from
this study can be implemented in communities elsewhere to foster healthier
and more sustained street tree populations.

Literature Cited
Berrang P, Karnosky KF, Stanton BJ. 1985. Environmental factors affecting
tree health in New York City. Journal of Arboriculture. 11(6):185-189.
City of Milwaukee. 1996. Preventing construction damage to municipal trees.
Milwaukee (WI): Milwaukee Department of Public Works, Forestry
Division.
Clark JR, Matheny N. 1991. Management of mature trees. Journal of
Arboriculture. 17(7):173-184.
Costello LR, McPherson EG, Burger DW, Dodge LL. 2000. Strategies to
reduce infrastructure damage by tree roots. Proceedings of a symposium
for researchers and practitioners. Cohasset, (CA): Western Chapter,
International Society of Arboriculture.
560 • The Landscape Below Ground IV

Crawley MJ. (2013). The R book, 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley.
Day SD, Dickinson SB, Wiseman P, and Harris JR. 2010. Tree root ecology
in the urban environment and implications for a sustainable rhizosphere.
Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 36(5):193-2005.
Dodge L, Geiger J. 2003. Tree roots and sidewalk damage. Western Arborist.
29(3):28-29.
Esposito K. 2005. Greening the cities. Wisconsin Academy Review. 51(1):2-6.
Fite K, Smiley ET. 2016. Best management practices—managing trees during
construction. 2nd ed. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign, IL
Francis JK, Parresol, BR, de Patino JM. 1996. Probability of damage to
sidewalks and curbs by street trees in the tropics. Journal of Arboriculture.
22(4):193-197.
Gibson JG. 2017. Built to last: challenges and opportunities for climate-smart
infrastructure in California. Union of Concerned Scientists White Paper.
[cited 2019 Jan 29] Available from: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/
attach/2017/11/gw-whitepaper-smart-infrastructure.pdf
Halwatura RU, Jayawardena VGNP, Somarathna HMCC. (2013).
Identification of damages to building structures due to roots of trees.
Unpublished Conference Paper. [Cited 2019 Jan 29] Available from:
http://dl.lib.mrt.ac.lk/bitstream/handle/123/8979/SBE-12-119.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Hauer RJ. 2009. Trees and construction—a quarter century grey and green
infrastructure battle. Minnesota Shade Tree Advocate. 11(1):5-7.
Hauer RJ, Miller RW, Ouimet DM. 1994. Street tree decline and construction
damage. Journal of Arboriculture. 20(2):94-97.
Hauer RJ, Peterson W. 2016. Municipal tree care and management in the
United States: a 2014 urban & community forestry census of tree
activities. Stevens Point (WI): University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point.
Special Publication 16-1.
Jim CY. 2003. Protection of urban trees from trenching damage in compact
city environments. Cities. 20(2):87-94.
 Street Trees, Construction, and Longevity • 561

Johnson G, North E. 2016. Total infrastructure planning: mind the four R’s
for successful street landscapes. Arborist News. 25(3):69.
Koeser A, Hauer R, Norris K, Krouse R. 2013. Factors influencing long-term
street tree survival in Milwaukee, WI, USA. Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening. 12:562-568.
Manion D. 1991. Tree disease concepts. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ):
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Matheny, N, Clark JR. 1998. Trees and Development—a technical guide
to preservation of trees during land development. Champaign (IL):
International Society of Arboriculture.
McPherson EG, Costello LR, Burger DW. 2001. Space wars: can trees win the
battle with infrastructure? Arborist News. 10(3):21-24.
Mertler CA, Vannatta RA. 2005. Advanced multivariate statistical methods.
3rd ed. Los Angeles (CA): Pyrczak Publishing.
Miller FD. 1994. The effect of trenching on growth and overall plant health
of selected species of shade trees. In: GW Watson, Neely D, editors. The
landscape below ground. Proceedings of an international workshop on tree
root development in urban soils, Champaign (IL): International Society
of Arboriculture. p. 157-164.
Miller RW, Hauer RJ. 1995. Street reconstruction and related tree decline. In:
Watson, GW, Neely D, editors. 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. Champaign (IL):
International Society of Arboriculture. p. 12-16.
Miller RW, Hauer RJ, Werner LP. 2015. Urban forestry planning and managing
urban greenspaces. 3rd ed. Long Grove (IL): Waveland Press.
Miller RW, Sylvester WA. 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 report. Madison (WI).
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, p. 65-67.
562 • The Landscape Below Ground IV

Morell JD. 1992. Competition for space in the urban infrastructure. Journal
of Arboriculture. 18(2):73-75.
Neely D. 1988. Valuation of landscape trees, shrubs, and other plants: a guide
to the methods and procedures for appraising amenity plants. 7th ed.
International Society of Arboriculture. Savoy (IL)
Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH. 1990. Applied linear statistical models:
regression, analysis of variance, and experimental design. 3rd ed. Richard
Irwin, Inc. Homewood (IL).
North EA, Johnson GR, Burk TE. 2014. Trunk flare diameter predictions
as an infrastructure planning tool to reduce tree and sidewalk conflicts.
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 14(1):65-17.
North EA, D’Amato AW, Russell MB, Johnson GR. 2017. The influence of
sidewalk replacement on urban street tree growth. Urban Forestry and
Urban Greening. 24:116-124.
O’Herrin K, Hauer RJ, Vander Weit WJ, Miller RW. 2016. Home-builder
practices and perceptions of construction on the wooded lot: a quarter
century later follow-up assessment. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry.
42(5):285-300.
Ottman K, Genich K, Boeder J. 1996. Street trees and construction. Arborist
News. 5(3):26-32, 34.
Roman LA, Scatena FN. 2011. Street tree survival rates: meta-analysis of
previous studies and application to a field survey in Philadelphia, PA,
USA. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 10:269-274.
Seattle Department of Transportation. 2015. Trees and sidewalks operations
plan. Seattle (WA).
Scholza M, Uzomah VC, Al-Faraj AM. 2016. Potential tree species for use
in urban areas in temperate and oceanic climates. Heliyon. 2(9):e00154.
Smiley ET, Fite K. 2016. Preserving trees during construction. Arborist News.
25(5):12-16.
Sydnor TD, 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.
 Street Trees, Construction, and Longevity • 563

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 DC. 2004. The urban jungle. Wisconsin Urban and Community
Forests. 12(2):1, 4-5.
Watson GW. 1998. Tree growth after trenching and compensatory crown
pruning. Journal of Arboriculture. 24(1):47-53.
Watson GW, Hewitt AM, Custic M, Lo M. 2014. The management of tree root
systems in urban and suburban settings II: a review of strategies to mitigate
human impacts. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 40(5):249-271.

View publication stats