Tree and impervious cover in the United States

Urban tree cover Rural tree cover State tree cover Urban impervious cover Rural impervious cover State impervious cover a b s t r a c t Using aerial photograph interpretation of circa 2005 imagery, percent tree canopy and impervious surface cover in the conterminous United States are estimated at 34.2% (standard error (SE) = 0.2%) and 2.4% (SE = 0.1%), respectively. Within urban/community areas, percent tree cover (35.1%, SE = 0.4%) is similar to the national value, but percent impervious cover is significantly higher (17.5%, SE = 0.3%). Tree cover per capita in urban areas averaged 377 m 2 /person, while impervious cover per capita averaged 274 m2/person. Percent tree cover in urban/community areas tends to be significantly higher than in rural areas in several predominantly grassland states, with the greatest difference in Kansas (+17.3%). Most states in more forested regions exhibited a decrease in tree cover between urban/community areas and rural lands, with greatest difference in Kentucky (−37.9%). These changes in tree cover varied significantly among states, illustrating the roles of urban development patterns, management/planning interactions, and the natural environment on creating cover patterns exhibited in urban areas. Understanding these forces and patterns can lead to better planning and management activities to optimize the mix of tree and impervious cover to sustain urban functions while enhancing environmental quality and human health in urban areas. Published by Elsevier B.V.

[1]  Zhiliang Zhu,et al.  Forest density mapping in the lower 48 states: A regression procedure. Forest Service research paper , 1994 .

[2]  Yoko NISHIMURA,et al.  Google Earth , 2008, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[3]  I. Creed,et al.  Uncertainty in future water supplies from forests: hydrologic effects of a changing forest landscape , 2008 .

[4]  J. C. Stevens,et al.  Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover , 1996 .

[5]  R. Nemani,et al.  Global Distribution and Density of Constructed Impervious Surfaces , 2007, Sensors.

[6]  David J. Nowak,et al.  People and Trees: Assessing the US Urban Forest Resource , 2001 .

[7]  D. Nowak.  Contrasting natural regeneration and tree planting in fourteen North American cities , 2012 .

[8]  J. Meyer,et al.  Streams in the Urban Landscape , 2001 .

[9]  F. E. Kuo,et al.  ENVIRONMENT AND CRIME IN THE INNER CITY Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? , 2001 .

[10]  David J. Nowak,et al.  Evaluating The National Land Cover Database Tree Canopy and Impervious Cover Estimates Across the Conterminous United States: A Comparison with Photo-Interpreted Estimates , 2010, Environmental management.

[11]  Luna B. Leopold,et al.  Hydrology for urban land plan-ning-a guidebook on the hydrologic effects of urban land use , 1968 .

[12]  R. Pitt,et al.  Infiltration Through Disturbed Urban Soils , 2000 .

[13]  Farhana Azim.  Design in Nature , 2014 .

[14]  Lynne M. Westphal.  Urban Greening and Social Benefits: A Study of Empowerment Outcomes , 2003, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[15]  W. J. DeCoursey,et al.  Introduction: Probability and Statistics , 2003 .

[16]  J. Monteith,et al.  The Micrometeorology of the Urban Forest [and Discussion] , 1989 .

[17]  Kathleen L. Wolf,et al.  PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE URBAN FOREST IN INNER-CITY BUSINESS DISTRICTS , 2003 .

[18]  Daniel G. Anderson.  Effects of urban development on floods in northern Virginia , 1970 .

[19]  D. Nowak,et al.  Tree and impervious cover change in U.S. cities , 2012 .

[20]  Ralph A. Bradley,et al.  Introduction to Probability and Statistics. , 1960 .

[21]  A. Brazel,et al.  The urban physical environment: temperature and urban heat islands. Chapter 2 , 2015 .

[22]  E. Gregory McPherson,et al.  Assessing the Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest , 1992, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[23]  G. W. Hamilton,et al.  Infiltration rates on residential lawns in central Pennsylvania , 1999 .

[24]  J. Dwyer,et al.  Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Urban Forest Ecosystems , 2007 .

[25]  D. Lerner.  Identifying and quantifying urban recharge: a review , 2002 .

[26]  Seth Rose,et al.  Effects of urbanization on streamflow in the Atlanta area (Georgia, USA): a comparative hydrological approach , 2001 .

[27]  David J. Nowak,et al.  Connecting People with Ecosystems in the 21st Century : An Assessment of Our Nation's Urban Forests , 2000 .

[28]  Thomas F. Cuffney,et al.  QUANTIFYING URBAN INTENSITY IN DRAINAGE BASINS FOR ASSESSING STREAM ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS 1 , 2000 .

[29]  A. Green,et al.  Problems of quality designation in diffusely polluted urban streams - the case of Pymme's Brook, north London. , 2000, Environmental pollution.

[30]  Epcd.  About - U.S. Census Bureau , 2012 .