Growing the Urban Forest: Our Practitioners’ Perspective

  • Naomi ZürcherEmail author
  • Maria -Beatrice Andreucci
Part of the Future City book series (FUCI, volume 7)

The materials of city planning are:

sky, space, trees, steel, and cement;

in that order and that hierarchy.

– Le Corbusier

In a natural forest, trees and their traditional forest associates – the living soil ecosystem as well as other flora and fauna – exist in communities – dynamic systems of mutual dependence and accommodation among the community’s members.

Enter the Urban Forest – primarily consisting of urban trees and related green infrastructure (GI), but with few of the traditional community members and one very new and very dynamic associate – us.

The availability of valuation research tools combined with the pressures of urbanization and climate change have promoted an awareness of the multi-faceted value of Urban Forests. As with all valued resources, the Urban Forest and related GI require a clear, well-defined, working toolbox of Best Management Standards , Protocols and Practices that can effectively manage the urban tree and its associates.

The preceding book chapters...


Geographic Information System Green Space Urban Forest Urban Agriculture Good Management Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Boris SD (2012) Urban forest and landscape infrastructure: towards a landscape architecture of open-endedness. J Landsc Archit 7(2):54–59Google Scholar
  2. Bruse M, Fleer H (1998) Simulating surface-plant-air interactions inside urban environments with a three dimensional numerical model. Environ Model Software 13:373–384Google Scholar
  3. Casotti C, Salza A (2016) “Orti Aperti”. The experience of horticultural therapy in a child and adolescent psychiatry facility in Turin. In: Proceedings from 53nd IFLA worldwide congress, 20–22 April 2016, Turin (I)Google Scholar
  4. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Naeem S, Limburg K, Paruelo J, O’Neill RV, Raskin R, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eriksson F, Eriksson T, Ignatieva M (2016) Lawn as a symbol of nature in urban environment: social benefits of lawns in Sweden. In: Proceedings from 53nd IFLA Worldwide Congress, 20–22 April 2016, Turin (I)Google Scholar
  6. Flueck WT (2009) Evolution of forest systems: the role of biogeochemical cycles in determining sustainable forestry practices. Ecol Soc 14(2):r4
  7. Fried M (1963) Grieving for a lost home. In: Duhl LJ (ed) The urban condition: people and policy in the metropolis. Simon & Schuster, New York, pp 124–152Google Scholar
  8. Haase D et al (2014) A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models and implementation. Ambio 43:413–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanna KC, Culpepper RB (1998) GIS in site design: new tools for design professionals. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Holling CS (1986) Resilience of ecosystems; local surprise and global change. In: Clark WC, Munn RE (eds) Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Reprinted in: Cleveland C, Costanza R, Perrings C (eds) (1997) The development of ecological economics. Edward Elgar Publishing, Brookfields, pp 292–317Google Scholar
  11. Høyer S (2002) Sven-Ingvar Andersson 2002, garden art and beyond. Exhibition catalogue. Arkitektens Forlag, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  12. Hubacek K, van der Bergh J (2006) Changing concepts of land in economic theory: from single to multi-disciplinary approaches. Ecol Econ 56:5–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ingegnoli V, Giglio E (2016) The improving importance of landscape project to limit premature death due to environmental alterations, independently from pollution. Helps from landscape bionomics. In: Proceedings from 53nd IFLA Worldwide Congress, 20–22 April 2016, Turin (I)Google Scholar
  14. Institute of Global Education (2004) Accessed 21 June 2016
  15. ISTAT (2014) Rapporto annuale 2014. La situazione del Paese. Accessed 4 June 2016
  16. Jones O, Cloke P (2002) Tree cultures: the place of trees, and trees in their place. Berg, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones O, Cloke P (2008) Non-human agencies: trees in place and time. In: Knappett C, Malafouris L (eds) Material agency: towards a non-anthropocentric approach. Springer, New York, pp 79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaplan R (1993) The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landsc Urban Plan 26:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Konijnendijk CC (2008) The forest and the city: the cultural landscape of urban woodland. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Martin KS, Wing J (2007) The discourse and discipline of GIS. Cartographica 42(3):235–248Google Scholar
  22. Ministero dell’Ambiente (2013) Norme per lo sviluppo degli spazi verdi urbani. Accessed 3 May 2016
  23. Schumacher F (1973) Small is beautiful. Blond and Briggs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Taylor AF, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC (2001) Coping with ADD: the surprising connection to green play settings. Environ Behav 33:54–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tyrväinen L, Pauleit S, Seeland K, de Vries S (2005) Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In: Konijnendijk CC, Nilsson K, Randrup TB, Schipperijn J (eds) Urban forests and trees – a reference book. Springer, Berlin, pp 81–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urban Forester/Consulting Arborist/Certified Master ComposterArbor AegisLuzernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Faculty of ArchitectureSapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations