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

net/publication/226585348

A review of tree root conflicts with sidewalks, curbs, and roads

Article  in  Urban Ecosystems · September 2001

DOI: 10.1023/A:1024046004731

CITATIONS READS

57 1,131

3 authors, including:

Thomas Barfoed Randrup E. Gregory Mcpherson

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences United States Department of Agriculture
63 PUBLICATIONS   1,739 CITATIONS    164 PUBLICATIONS   7,207 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Outdoor teaching and use of green space in schools View project

Innovatons in Public Private Collaboratons, INOPS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Barfoed Randrup on 26 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Urban Ecosystems, 5: 209–225, 2001

c 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

A review of tree root conflicts with sidewalks, curbs,

and roads
T.B. RANDRUP∗ [email protected]
Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Hoersholm
Kongevej 11, DK-2970 Hoersholm, Denmark

E.G. MCPHERSON
Center for Urban Forest Research, USDA Forest Service, c/o Dept. of Environmental Horticulture, University
of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA

L.R. COSTELLO
University of California, Cooperative Extension, 625 Miramontes, Room 200, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019, USA

Received April 26, 2000; Revised February 28, 2003; Accepted March 4, 2003

Abstract. Literature relevant to tree root and urban infrastructure conflicts is reviewed. Although tree roots can
conflict with many infrastructure elements, sidewalk and curb conflicts are the focus of this review. Construction
protocols, urban soils, root growth, and causal factors (soil conditions, limited planting space, tree size, variation
in root architecture, management practices, and construction materials) are discussed. Because costs related to
sidewalk and curb damage are substantial, a review of research addressing repair, mitigation, prevention, and
litigation costs is included. Finally, future research needs are discussed.
Potential for conflicts between trees and sidewalks/curbs is high when one or more of these factors are present:
tree species that are large at maturity, fast growing trees, trees planted in restricted soil volumes, shallow top
soil (hard-pan underneath top-soil), shallow foundations underneath the sidewalk (limited or no base materials),
shallow irrigation, distances between the tree and sidewalk of less than 2.0–3.0 m., trees greater than 15 to 20
years old.
The results of this survey indicate that cities are spending substantial sums of money to address conflicts
between street tree roots and infrastructure. It can be inferred that most of these expenditures are spent dealing
with problems that already exist. However, this raises the question: How much is being spent now to ensure that
conflicts are minimized in the future?
Future research should concentrate on plant factors, site design, and construction of sidewalks and curbs. Also,
more knowledge is needed about interactions between root growth and management techniques, such as pruning
and irrigation. Finally, there is need for studies that will assist policy-makers to efficiently allocate funds among
repair, mitigation, prevention, and legal remedies.

Keywords: urban trees, roots, infrastructure conflicts, sidewalks, curbs, roads

Introduction

Many papers describe the problem of conflicts between tree roots and infrastructure (Barker,
1983; Wong et al., 1988; Benavides Meza, 1992; Kopinga, 1994). Coder (1998) lists sewer

∗ To whom correspondence should be addressed.

210 RANDRUP, MCPHERSON AND COSTELLO

or septic lines, storm water drains, water supply lines, building foundations, sidewalks,
streets, parking lots, curbs, walls and swimming pools as infrastructure elements damaged
by roots.
This review focuses on research related to damage to sidewalks, curbs, and roads. Review
areas include: 1) factors contributing to sidewalk damage, 2) an overview of associated costs,
and 3) new areas for research.
As introductory and background information, papers that address sidewalk and curb
construction protocols, urban soils and root distribution, and professional perspectives are
reviewed.

Sidewalks, soils and roots

Sidewalks and curbs: construction protocols

We define a “sidewalk” as a paved strip, running along one or both sides of a road, for
pedestrian use. Sidewalks in England (footpaths) are usually constructed with a surface
layer consisting of concrete slabs or asphalt. The foundation is made of two layers of
base and sub-base materials, called capping (Downing, 1977; Helliwell and Duncan, 1996)
(figure 1). In Denmark, the traditional foundation is similar to the British model. However,
underneath the concrete slabs, a thin layer of sand is used as bedding and often one to three
layers of base materials are used (Thagesen, 1991) (figure 2). The base is often made of
screened and graded gravel (Kristoffersen, 1998). The amount and depth of layers depend on
the expected load force on the surface and the bearing state of the sub-grade. The capping
layer provides a platform for the sub-base and surface layer and often also serves as a
drainage layer, keeping groundwater from the sub-base.

Figure 1. A typical sidewalk surface layer in the UK is usually made of asphalt, macadam or paving materials
such as block paver. The sub-base is 150 mm (6 in.) thick or greater and made of compacted granular material.
The capping is a more coarse material than the sub-base. The sub-grade is often native material. From: Downing
(1977) and Helliwell and Duncan (1996).
TREE ROOTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONFLICTS 211

Figure 2. The sidewalk surface layer in Denmark is usually made of concrete slabs or concrete pavers. These
are placed on a thin bed of sand or fine gravel, on top of one or more layers of compacted base materials. The curb
is usually of concrete or granite, and is usually placed in a foundation of concrete poured on site. The sub-base
and capping layers may be as thick as 600 mm, but will usually be approximately 150 mm thick for a standard
sidewalk designed to carry only pedestrians and light equipment such as snow blowers, etc.

The curb acts as a barrier that helps to keep vehicles in the roadway, and also a means
of directing storm runoff to nearby catch basins. In the United States, the curb is usually
made of concrete (figure 3), while in Europe curbs are often made of granite or concrete.
The shape of the curbs varies between the two continents (figures 2 and 3).
In the United States, sidewalks are typically made of 10 cm (4 inches) of un-reinforced
concrete placed on-site. The foundation consists of only one base layer, e.g., compacted

Figure 3. The sidewalk surface layer and the curb in the US are usually made of concrete that is poured on-site.
The base is 75 mm (3 in.) or more thick and usually consists of fine and coarse materials such as crushed rock.
The sub-grade consists of compacted native soil. From: Ambrose and Brandon (1992), Sealana and Associates
(1994) and PCA (1998).
212 RANDRUP, MCPHERSON AND COSTELLO

base rock (Ambrose and Brandow, 1992; Dunn, 1998), that also serves as a drainage layer
(figure 3). Underneath the base layer, organic material is removed and the subsoil is com-
pacted as needed (PCA, 1998). Concrete is a rigid material relative to asphalt, whereas
bricks and pavers derive their structural integrity in large part from a well-prepared sub-
base (uniform and compacted), and the interlocking actions of individual pavers.
Helliwell and Duncan (1996) described the conflicting requirements of the urban infras-
tructure in the U.K. as follows: “The engineer has a responsibility to design and maintain
surfaces and services capable of withstanding intensive use over long periods, with the min-
imum maintenance costs. To do this, the engineer designs surfacing constructions founded
over relatively dry substrates compacted to the maximum achievable density. This substrate
is kept relatively dry by impervious surfacing and sub-surface drainage. The development
of any irregularity in the sub-surface layers is minimized by the exclusion of organic matter
and, if possible, root growth. In contrast, the arboriculturalist seeks to meet the require-
ments of trees by creating a porous substrate that retains moisture within the tension range
available to trees: is drained sufficiently to avoid prolonged saturation and ensure aeration:
is soft enough to permit root growth laterally and to depth exceeding one meter and is
recharged by rainfall during the growing season and subsequent winter.” It is believed that
as a principle, the conflict described above is relevant throughout the world. However, local
and national rules, traditions and regulation may vary, which makes the conflict between
tree roots and the infrastructure more significant in certain areas than in others.

Urban soils and root distribution

Urban soils are often disturbed, manipulated or handled in ways that change their properties
and attendant characteristics (Craul, 1992). These modifications often adversely influence
growing conditions (e.g., Kopinga, 1991; Jim, 1998a; Jim, 1998b). Under ‘natural’ growing
conditions, 60–90% of the entire root volume is to be found in the top 0.2 m of a mineral
soil, and virtually all the large structural supporting roots, are in the upper 0.6 m (Ruark
et al., 1982; Cutler et al., 1990; Coutts and Nicoll, 1991; Dobson, 1995). Several authors
state that roots proliferate in areas conducive for growth (e.g., Nicoll and Coutts, 1997;
Harris et al., 1999), such as near leaks where the infrastructure has been damaged.
Forces exerted by radial growth of roots can lift light structures such as paths, curbs,
paving slabs, boundary walls or occasionally single story buildings (e.g., garages or porches)
(Biddle, 1998). Displacement of structures is usually progressive (MacLeod and Cram,
1996). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1996) distinguishes between different types of
concrete sidewalk distress (Table 1). Sidewalk failures directly associated with root growth
include cracking, vaulting, and faulting.

Factors associated with sidewalk damage

Trees

Limited space seems to be the major cause of root conflicts with infrastructure (Barker,
1983; Wong et al., 1988; McPherson and Peper, 1995; Francis et al., 1996). However, fast
TREE ROOTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONFLICTS 213

Table 1. Adapted from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1996)

Type of failure Cause of failure

Cracking and breaking Vehicular loads, freeze-thaw cycles or tree roots

Vaulting and upheaval Shrinking or swelling of soil, penetration of incompressible materials or tree root
growth
Faulting and displacement Settlement, pumping, eroding of materials, freeze-thaw cycles or tree root growth
Spalling, fracture Incompressible materials in joints, weak concrete or freeze-thaw cycles
Surface deterioration De-icing salts, freeze-thaw cycles, weak concrete or water accumulation

growing species like poplars (Kopinga, 1994) and Eucalyptus (Day, 1991) are known to
cause conflicts. Nicoll and Armstrong (1998) found sidewalk conflicts up to 7.0 m from
trees, and Kopinga (1994) did not find any distinct correlation between the distance of trees
to roads and the frequency of conflicts. However, the limited available data suggest that
the farther away the tree is situated from the sidewalk or curb, the lower the probability of
conflicts.
Several studies have found strong correlations between tree size and conflicts with infras-
tructure (Table 2). Wagar and Barker (1983) found that large trees caused more conflicts
than small trees. Also, more than half of the variation found for sidewalk conflicts was
associated with tree diameter. Wong et al. (1988) found that most trees started to cause
damage when they were 11–20 cm in diameter at breast height (dbh) (1.40 m). However,
most oaks (Quercus sp.) and horse chestnuts (Aesculus sp.) did not cause damage until they
were >20 cm in dbh.
Hamilton (1984) concluded that there is not a correlation between sidewalk distress
and tree age. Barker (1983) suggested that the ages when trees significantly interfere with
infrastructure is linked to their growth rates. He concluded that for trees with comparable
height, the faster they grow, the earlier and more often their roots interfere with sidewalks
and curbs. This observation agrees with findings by Day (1991) and McPherson and Peper
(1995).

Table 2. Studies that have found relations between tree age and infrastructure conflicts

Tree age reported being the cause of damage Reference

Younger age Wagar and Barker, 1983

Younger age Day, 1991
Age > 15–20 years Sydnor et al., 2000
Age minimum 30 years McPherson and Peper, 1995
Age 30 years Nicoll and Armstrong, 1998
Age 40 years Kopinga, 1994
Some species only 5–7 years Kopinga, 1994
Tree age varies Barker, 1983
No specific age Hamilton, 1984
214 RANDRUP, MCPHERSON AND COSTELLO

Wagar and Barker (1983) found that slightly less than half of the variation found for curb
conflicts was associated with tree species. However, both Dobson (1995) and McPherson
and Peper (1995) stated that although differences in root architecture exist among species,
the final pattern of an individual tree root development is determined more by environment
than by genetic inheritance.
Large and fast growing species are more likely to cause problems than smaller and
slow growing species. However, it has been reported that trees of the same species have
caused conflicts at some locations, while in other locations, no conflicts occurred (Wagar
and Barker, 1983; Wong et al., 1988). Although some species are particularly problematic,
most species will produce large surface roots if soil conditions are unfavorable.
In some cases tree roots act differently at the same location. There are no obvious reasons
why roots of some trees are causing damage, while roots from other trees of same species
and sizes are not causing damage. Local variations in the soil, (e.g., Short et al., 1986; Jim,
1998a; McPherson et al., 2000), as well as genetic differences (Burger and Taylor, 2000;
Costello et al., 2000a) are possible causes. However, conflicts appear to be more related to
tree age, growing conditions, and amount of rooting volume, than to species.

Soils and infrastructure (sidewalks, curbs, and roads)

Damage caused by roots has been related to sidewalk engineering and design failures (Cutler,
1995; Brennan et al., 1997; Coder, 1998). However, Sydnor et al. (2000) found that in 3 of
4 sampled soil complexes, sidewalk blocks of all ages were more likely to be raised where
there were no trees than where trees were present.
The type of surface material may also be important in relation to the degree of damage
made by roots. Wong et al. (1988) found significantly more conflicts between roots and
sidewalks made with asphalt than concrete. Nicoll and Armstrong (1998) found that roots
caused almost all conflicts when over 100 mm in diameter, and that conflicts were caused
by fast growing roots as deep as 0.4 m below the sidewalk, as well as by roots directly below
the surface.
Francis et al. (1996) stated that for tropical regions, such as Mexico and Puerto Rico,
the critical dbh’ for curb conflicts was much larger than for sidewalk conflicts. It appears
that curbs are less likely to be damaged than sidewalks because adjacent streets have more
compacted base materials and are more poorly aerated than base materials under sidewalks.
Similarly, Kristoffersen (1999) showed that roots of Tilia × vulgaris Fraxinus excelsior and
Acer platanoides did not penetrate a base material consisting of well-graded gravel that was
constructed and compacted according to general standards.
Soil texture alone does not seem to explain the presence of sidewalk conflicts (Wagar and
Barker, 1983). Both Kopinga (1994) and Costello et al. (2000a) reported that conflicts were
observed in different types of soils. Kopinga (1994) found conflicts in relatively high humus-
rich clay soils as well as sandy clay soils and poor sandy soils. Costello et al. (2000b) found
sidewalk damage in 6 out of 9 locations that were sampled, all of which were sandy loams or
sandy/silt loams. In tree locations where no damage was found, soil physical and chemical
properties were similar to where damage occurred. Restrictions to root development were
not found at sites where sidewalk damage was noted. They concluded that soil condition
TREE ROOTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONFLICTS 215

alone was not a reliable predictor of sidewalk damage. The authors observed that rootstock
variation could be an important factor.
Day (1991) noted that damage seemed less severe for soft or loose soils that deformed
as the roots grew, than for dense or hard soils (such as heavily compacted base materials).
A plausible explanation is that tree roots under sidewalks are primarily found in the inter-
face between either the surface layer and the sub-base or between different base materials
(Kopinga, 1994; Sealana and Associates, 1994). The roots penetrate the interface attracted
by the comparatively high degree of humidity underneath the road surface (Kopinga, 1994).
Once the roots penetrate under the sidewalk they quickly absorb the small quantity of water
present. This creates a soil humidity gradient that stimulates rapid apical growth of the roots.
Limited moisture and low soil fertility may explain why these roots form few branches and
fine lateral roots. Once the roots reach the soil on the other side of the pavement they return
to a normal rooting pattern. Accelerated growth induces an increase in the diameter of roots
under the sidewalk. Cracks begin to form after a period of time depending on factors such
as thickness and elasticity of the sidewalk. High moisture of the soil under the sidewalk
surface is a major factor in attracting tree roots and subsequent deformation of the concrete.
Therefore, Kopinga (1994) suggested that differential rates of soil suction between the soil
adjacent to and under the asphalt could be one explanation for root development under road
surfaces. Nicoll and Armstrong (1998) concluded that roots might even grow faster directly
under paved areas than outside, resulting in accelerated secondary thickening.
Certain sidewalk construction methods may favor root growth. A sidewalk made of
concrete may function as a barrier against soil moisture loss by evaporation. In addition,
the high moisture content of the soil, compared to the concrete, gives the soil high specific
heat. When the sidewalk warms, heat radiates to the soil beneath it. Conversely, when
the sidewalk cools its temperature drops more rapidly than the soil temperature and the
underside of the sidewalk becomes a surface for condensation of soil moisture, which
subsequently percolates back into the soil (Barker, 1988). Graves (1994) described how
urban soil temperatures vary but are greatest under asphalt and concrete surfaces.

Irrigation and crown pruning

Irrigation is known to initiate new root growth (Phene et al., 1991; Fernandez et al., 1991;
Carmi et al., 1992; Neilsen et al., 1997). Therefore, irrigation in urban areas may increase
the tree root/infrastructure conflict.
It has been noted that some cities use regular crown pruning to control root growth
and related conflicts with infrastructure. Coder (1997) concluded that significant crown
pruning can slow root growth, and overall tree health can be compromised. However, the
impact of crown pruning on roots may be proportional to the amount of crown removed.
Thus, extensive heading will lead to severe root impacts, whereas light thinning probably
has little effect on roots (Coder, 1997). Jones et al. (1998) found that crown pruning of
Prosopis juliflora led to decreased root growth. The authors noted that similar effects were
found for a variety of environmental conditions and for different species. Alder (Alnus
glutinosa), poplar (Populus tremula) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) showed net loss
of root mass after half the leaf area was removed, presumably due to increased partitioning
216 RANDRUP, MCPHERSON AND COSTELLO

of photosynthate to shoots rather than roots after shoot pruning. Crown pruning of even
relatively vigorous growing species like poplar will reduce the root growth rates and thus,
possibly reduce conflicts with infrastructure. However, it appears that relatively heavy
crown pruning is needed to significantly reduce root growth. Seen from an arboricultural
and aesthetic viewpoint, this may not be a satisfying solution to tree root conflicts with
infrastructure.

Root barriers

Root barriers are used with the intent of preventing or delaying conflicts between tree
roots and infrastructure. By placing a physical or chemical barrier between tree roots and
sidewalks/curbs, roots growing laterally are either deflected down below the depth of the
barrier (physical barrier) or their growth is inhibited (chemical barrier). Roots that grow
under the barrier are thought to be deep enough to avoid contact with infrastructure, thus
reducing the potential for damage (e.g., Nicoll and Coutts, 1998; Harris et al., 1999).
Research has shown variable effects of root barriers on root distribution. Wagar (1985)
reported fewer number of roots of white mulberry (Morus alba) and zelkova (Zelkova
serrata) trees in the surface 0.2 m with barriers in clay loam soil, but noted substantial surface
rooting for some trees with barriers and suggested this resulted from soil compaction/poor
aeration at certain locations in the study plot. Costello et al. (1997) found that ash (Fraxinus
oxycarpa ‘Raywood’) and poplar (Populus nigra ‘Italica’) roots grew toward the soil
surface after growing underneath plastic and fabric circular barriers. Similar results were
found using a linear barrier with Southern live oak (Quercus virginiana) and sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis) (Gilman, 1996). Barker (1995a, b) found that European hackberry
(Celtis australis) and Southeastern black cherry (Prunus serotina ‘Virens’) generated deeper
root systems with root barriers in well-drained, alluvial soil. However, at the same research
site Peper (1998) and Peper and Mori (1999) found that Chinese hackberry (Celsis sinensis)
and white mulberry roots returned to the surface. It was proposed by Gilman (1996) that
“root barriers might be most effective in soils where they are least needed, i.e., in well-
drained, non-compacted sites.” Harris et al. (1999) note that “root-control devices appear
to be least effective where most needed, that is, where poor soil aeration or compaction
encourages shallow rooting.”
Apparently, at least three types of barriers are available:

1. Deflectors: solid, interlocking thermoplastic panels, sheets, rolls or preformed planters.

Roots grow to the inside face of the barrier and are deflected laterally or downward.
Some products have vertical ribs built into the material to channel roots downward and
prevent circling roots. Plastic deflectors are the most commonly-used type of barrier.
2. Inhibitors: landscape fabrics or screens impregnated with chemical compounds that
inhibit root development.
When roots grow into the zone of activity of the inhibitor, root meristem activity is
suppressed. Inhibitors include herbicide-containing fabric (Harris et al., 1999), copper
screening and copper-infused fabric (e.g., Wagar and Barker, 1993). Environmental fate
of herbicide used in fabric may be of concern to users.
TREE ROOTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONFLICTS 217

3. Traps: screens, welded-fiber sheets and fabrics.

Holes in these materials are small enough to allow root tips to penetrate, but radial
growth is inhibited (Wagar and Barker, 1993, Edwards et al., 1999). Copper screens can
act as a trap and an inhibitor.

All three types of barriers can be used in a linear or circular configuration. Linear barri-
ers includes deflectors, inhibitors or traps, which can be placed in a linear configuration
alongside hardscape elements, such as along curbs, sidewalks and foundations. They are
installed against the infrastructure element prior to planting or in trenches after root prun-
ing (Harris et al., 1999). Circular barriers are placed in a circular configuration outside the
rootball of a newly-planted tree, circular barriers are commonly used in sidewalk cut-outs
or other restrictive spaces. They surround the root system (to various depths) and allow
root development only through the bottom of the barrier. In restrictive soils (e.g., hardpans)
they may limit root development to the soil volume within the barrier, compromising root
growth, distribution, and anchorage. In circular barriers, the structural stability of trees
may be less than that for trees without barriers. Also, it is likely that the barrier may com-
promise buttress development and anchorage. However, Smiley et al. (2000) found that
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) planted in circular barriers required more force to be
pulled over than trees without barriers. Anchorage is more likely compromised in poor
quality soils where conditions outside the barrier limit root development to the inside of the
barrier.
For locations such as in planting strips or lawns, linear barriers should be used in order to
allow optimum root growth. Plastic barriers are rigid, and became commercially available
in the 1970’s. They are widely used in California. The initial concept and design was based
on work by Brayton (1967).
Many factors should be considered when selecting plastic barriers:

• type of plastic—the plastics industry recognizes high-density polyethylene as most re-

silient and durable.
• size—barrier thickness and depth.
• presence of interior ribs—particularly if barriers are used in planting wells. Peper (1998)
indicated that internal ribs in circular barriers deflect roots downward, while Pittenger
and Hodel (1999) did not find this effect.
• connector type—panels need to remain connected (or roots will possibly penetrate sep-
arations). They should not be easily pulled or twisted apart.
• watering tubes—can be included with the barrier but may add to cost. No research
regarding positive or negative value has been found.
• the top edge of rigid barriers needs to remain visible (at least 2.5 cm above soil level or
mulch) after installation or roots can grow over them and the effect of the barriers may
be lost (Nicoll and Coutts, 1998; Harris et al., 1999).
• rigid plastic materials must be UV resistant or the exposed edge will possibly deteriorate;
also, plastic is a durable material, but can become brittle in freezing weather.
• ease of installation—time and expense are factors to consider (Peper and Barker,
1994).
218 RANDRUP, MCPHERSON AND COSTELLO

Table 3. Costs in relation to tree—infrastructure damage (+/− is standard error)

Frequency
Costs of repair Avr. repair % of total Annual costs
Cost types per capita ($)∗ (repairs per tree)∗ costs ($)∗ expenditures∗ ($)

Sidewalk repair 0.88 +/− 0.36 1:99 480 44 3.01/tree∗∗

Street surface repair 0.32 +/− 0.05 1:151 288 5
Curb & gutter repair 0.45 +/− 0.10 1:169 277 8 1.14/tree∗∗∗
Mitigation and 0.17 +/− 0.08 9
prevention (total)
(Root pruning) 1:86 79
(Grinding) 1:72 44
(Ramping)∗∗∗∗ 1:13,782 31
(Root barriers) 1:293 40
Tree removal and 0.26 +/− 0.14 1:596 537 13
replacement
(Replacement costs) 154
Trip and Fall cases 0.26 +/− 0.06 6,245 (avr. 7
payment)
Legal staff time 0.12 +/− 0.06 7
Inspection and repair 0.22 +/− 0.05 7
program adm.
Total 2.68 100
∗ 18 California cities (McPherson, 2000).
∗∗ 15 US cities (McPherson and Peper, 1995).
∗∗∗ 5 US cities (McPherson and Peper, 1995).
∗∗∗∗ Ramping or tapering the walk with asphaltic concrete or a similar product.

Costs associated with root and sidewalk conflicts

The repair and renovation of infrastructure is expensive (McPherson and Peper, 1995, 1996)
and frequently results in damage to the trees themselves (e.g., Gulick, 1986; Morell, 1992;
Nicoll and Armstrong, 1998), or their premature removal (e.g., Bernhardt and Swiecki,
1989; Ottman et al., 1996). Various costs associated with infrastructure damage by tree
roots are presented in Table 3.
A survey of 18 California cities reported that annual expenditures for tree-related sidewalk
repair totaled $6.6 million (McPherson, 2000), and tree-related curb and gutter repair costs
for 5 cities were 38% of sidewalk repair costs (McPherson and Peper, 1995).
In the California survey, only 8 of 18 cities fully funded sidewalk repair. Property owners
were required to pay all tree-related sidewalk and curb and gutter repair costs in the two
largest cities, Los Angeles and San Jose. Of the total $6.6 million spent on sidewalk repair
in the 18-city sample, 61% was paid with municipal funds and 39% was passed through
to property owners. Property owners paid 17% of total curb and gutter repairs, while the
municipalities paid for all street repairs. Because municipalities pay for much of the re-
pairs, all tax payers are still paying for the costs of repairs even though they may not
TREE ROOTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONFLICTS 219

have damage on their property. Morell (1992) described that in Park Ridge, IL, the prop-
erty owner pays for infrastructure improvements related to tree root damage through their
property taxes. Furthermore, expenses to repair the infrastructure may be covered from
one department (street maintenance) while the trees usually are managed in a different
department, e.g., parks (Barker, 1983; Morell, 1992; Rolf and Stal, 1994). Dunn (1998)
described Sunnyvale, CA as one of few cities where street tree maintenance and con-
crete maintenance were in the same department (Public Works) and managed by the same
person.
In the California survey (McPherson, 2000), mitigation and prevention measures in-
cluded root pruning, grinding, ramping, and use of root barriers (Table 3). Infrequently
applied measures included tree well engineering, water jetting, and narrowing sidewalks to
accommodate flared tree trunks and shallow roots. The cost of implementing these strategies
accounted for 8% of total mitigation/prevention expenditures.
Tree removal and replacement also plays a significant part in municipal budgets (Table 3).
Furthermore, benefits are foregone when a large tree is prematurely removed because of
a conflict with surrounding infrastructure. The value of annual benefits produced by a
large street tree in a San Joaquin Valley community like Modesto, CA can exceed $100
(McPherson et al., 1999a). On the other hand, cities like Modesto spend $20 to $40 per
year to maintain a street tree of this size, so benefits can exceed costs by a factor of 2
or more (McPherson et al., 1999b). Replacement trees are a net cost for the first 5 to 10
years because establishment costs are greater than benefits from the relatively small tree
crown. Therefore, premature removal and replacement of large trees results in considerable
payment for work performed ($691/tree on average), and a substantial loss of net benefits
formerly produced by the tree (approximately $70/tree).
An interesting finding from the California survey was the relatively large cost for trip
and fall payments and legal staff (Table 3) (McPherson, 2000). Annual expenditures were
variable, ranging from $1,300 in Lompoc to $1.3 million in Los Angeles. The highest
single trip and fall payment reported was $120,000, and the average payment was $6,245.
Expenditures for inspectors and staff administering repair programs totaled 7% of total costs
for the 18 California cities. Inspection costs accounted for 55% of the total expenditure.
Results from the California survey indicate that on average communities spent over
$2/capita or $11/tree each year on expenses related to conflicts between tree roots and
infrastructure. In 1992 California cities budgeted an average of $4.36/capita or $18.32/tree
for their tree programs (Bernhardt and Swiecki, 1993). Repair costs alone accounted for 60%
of total expenditures, and sidewalk repair was the single largest cost category, accounting for
about 33% of total expenditures. But other costs are important. For example, Californians
spent $2.26 on legal remedies for every $1 spent on mitigation and prevention.
The distribution of expenditures varies among cities, reflecting how each city has chosen
to deal with the problem historically, as well as each city’s willingness to fund repair activi-
ties in the present. For example, in 1996 the City of Los Angeles, CA had an estimated $375
million sidewalk repair backlog due to inadequate funds for repairs beginning in 1976 (Los
Angeles Department of Public Works 1996). Only recently has funding become available
to begin to alleviate this problem. As a result, in 1996 the City spent only $0.69/capita
on tree-related infrastructure issues and 51% of this amount was spent to pay claims and
220 RANDRUP, MCPHERSON AND COSTELLO

legal fees. The disproportionate expenditure on legal remedies reflects a long-term failure to
adequately maintain the infrastructure in combination with an increasingly litigious urban
population.
The City of Lompoc, CA, adopted a different strategy. In 1996 it spent an average
of $10.67/capita on tree root-infrastructure conflict issues, the largest amount reported
for the 18-city sample (McPherson, 2000). Although Lompoc spent the most for repair
($5.85/capita) and mitigation/prevention ($2.44/capita), it had the lowest expenditure rate
for trip and fall payments and legal fees ($0.01/capita). Lompoc spent $863 for repair,
mitigation, and prevention for each $1 spent for trip and fall.

Management and research needs

Many citations in this review are based on observations, surveys, and interviews. Few ma-
nipulated and controlled experiments have been conducted within this research field. There
is need for more systematic and comprehensive studies. Opportunities for research exist in
newly created urban forests as well as redevelopment sites within cities. A proactive ap-
proach is needed to solve existing problems as well as design more harmonious relationships
between the emerging green and gray infrastructures.

Species selection and plant propagation

The importance of genetic improvement as a means for reducing infrastructure conflicts

was discussed as early as 1983 (Barker, 1983) and repeated by Costello et al. (1997),
who emphasized that species selection should be a key element in strategies to reduce
infrastructure conflicts. Costello et al. (2000a) went a step further, suggesting that various
rootstocks used for propagation have varying potentials for sidewalk breakage. There is
potential to select deep rooting species and rootstock as described by Burger and Taylor
(2000). However, most trees develop shallow root systems and urban growing conditions
favor shallow root growth. Therefore, current species selection for urban uses should focus
on trees ability to withstand the specific urban site and soil conditions (Nicoll and Coutts,
1997).
In a study carried out in Cincinnati, OH, Sydnor et al. (2000) concluded that trees were
not the principal reason for sidewalk failures. However, similar research in other locations
is needed to verify these findings.

Construction of sidewalks and curbs

Helliwell and Duncan (1996) suggested that fundamental research into the geotechni-
cal/physical conditions that prevent root extension needs to be carried out. Also, tests of
different construction techniques and base materials related to growth responses of different
tree species are needed. Trials should include the interaction between roots and infrastruc-
ture, as well as the soil moisture regime under paving systems, for a range of natural and
manufactured soils.
TREE ROOTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONFLICTS 221

Soil and stone mixes as base materials

The introduction of new soil mixes for use under sidewalks (Grabosky and Bassuk, 1995,
1996; Kristoffersen, 1998, 1999) appear to promote a broader distribution of roots, ulti-
mately leading to a reduced amount of sidewalk damage. However, some root experts are
skeptical about this idea since secondary root growth, even of deep roots, may displace
the soil/stone mixture and ultimately displace the sidewalk (Nicoll and Armstrong, 1998).
Long-term monitoring of existing and new installations is needed to determine impacts on
root growth rates, vertical root distribution, and sidewalk displacement.

Porous surface layers

The traditional way of constructing sidewalks may favor root growth at the interface between
the soil and the concrete. Porous surface layers that limit condensation and lower the
temperature under concrete slabs might reduce rooting at the interface. Furthermore, porous
surfaces increase infiltration of rainwater into the soil. Examples of porous materials are
porous asphalt, porous concrete, and paving blocks with open joints or drainage holes.
Theoretically, these materials ought to have a distinctive effect on the urban climate, because:
1) they have lower thermal capacity and conductivity than their impervious counterparts; 2)
they interact with the atmosphere more intimately, through ventilation of the interior of the
pavement; and 3) they might be less costly to repair. More research is needed to determine
the net effect of porous surfaces on root growth.

Root growth and pruning

Although root pruning is widely practiced, research has yet to document its impact on tree
health, structural integrity, and longevity. Similarly, questions remain about the effects of
root barriers on the stability of trees and long-term rooting patterns. Research is needed to
understand interactions between these strategies and tree performance. Life cycle benefit-
cost analyses are needed to fully evaluate the long-term efficacy of root pruning and root
barriers.
The practice of crown pruning to reduce root growth and conflicts between tree roots
and infrastructure is common, but there is little information on its efficacy. The reaction of
different species to different levels of crown reduction and related root growth should be
examined.

Conclusions

Potential for conflicts between trees and sidewalks/curbs is high when one or more of these
factors are present: tree species that are large at maturity, fast growing trees, trees planted in
restricted soil volumes, shallow top soil (hard-pan underneath top-soil), shallow foundations
underneath the sidewalk (limited or no base materials), shallow irrigation, distances between
the tree and sidewalk of less than 2.0–3.0 m., trees greater than 15 to 20 years old.
222 RANDRUP, MCPHERSON AND COSTELLO

It is evident that we do not know as much as we need to, in relation to all of the above
mentioned factors. First of all, trees are in most cases not part of the original planning
for street- and townscapes. This lack of planning leads to problems with trees and the
infrastructure. In very few cases, pro-active solutions are made to prevent potential problems.
Secondly, work in this field has so far been very specific, and there needs to be a broader
spectrum and multi-disciplinary approach to the problem. Furthermore, most information
in relation to the problem is observational, rather than based on research, which includes
repeatable studies. Since the scope of the problem is highly dependent on the specific
location, a combination of controlled experiments and in situ testing should be used in the
future.
The results of this survey indicate that cities are spending substantial sums to address
conflicts between street tree roots and infrastructure. It can be inferred that most of these
expenditures are spent dealing with problems that already exist.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the U.S. Forest Service, Center for Urban Forest Research,
University of California, Extension Service and the Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape
and Planning, Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute.
We thank George W. Seegebrecht, Senior Evaluation Engineer, Construction Technology
Laboratories, Inc, IL, USA for valuable comments and suggestions to the manuscript.

References

Ambrose, J. and Brandow, P. (1992) Simplified Site Design. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA.
Barker, P.A. (1983) Some urban trees of California: Maintenance problems and genetic improvement possibilities.
In METRIA: 4. Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance
(H.D. Gerhold, ed.), pp. 47–54. The Pennsylvania State University, School of Forest Resources.
Barker, P.A. (1988) Proactive strategies to mediate tree-root damage to sidewalks. The International Plant Prop-
agators’ Society, Combined Proceedings 1987, 37, 56–61.
Barker, P.A. (1995a) Managed development of tree roots I. Ultra-deep rootball and rootball casing effects on
European hackberry. Journal of Arboriculture 21(4), 202–208.
Barker, P.A. (1995b) Managed development of tree roots II. Ultra-deep rootball and rootball casing effects on
southwestern black cherry. Journal of Arboriculture 21(5), 251–259.
Benavidez Meza, H.M. (1992) Current situation of the urban forest in Mexico City. Journal of Arboriculture 18,
33–36.
Bernhardt, E. and Swiecki, T.J. (eds.) (1989) The State of Urban Forestry in California. Results of the 1988
California Urban Forest Survey. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Urban Forestry Program.
Biddle, P.G. (1998) Tree roots and foundations. Arboriculture Research and Information note nr. 142-98-EXT. In
Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service. Surrey, UK.
Brayton, F.W. (1967) Root growth around barriers. Botanical Gazette 128(2), 79–82.
Brennan, G., Patch, D. and Stevens, F.R.W. (1997) Tree roots and underground pipes. Arboriculture Research and
Information note nr. 36-97-TRL. In Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service. Surrey, UK.
Burger, D.W. and Taylor, Z. (2000) Selection and propagation of deep-rooted ornamental trees for urban envi-
ronments. In Report of the Elvenia J. Slosson Fund for Ornamental Horticulture 1998–1999. (L. Dodge, ed.),
pp. 6–7. University of California, Davis, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
TREE ROOTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONFLICTS 223

Carmi, A., Plaut, Z., Heuer, B. and Grava, A. (1992) Establishment of shallow and restricted root systems in cotton
and its impact on plant response to irrigation. Irrigation Science 13, 87–91.
Coder, K.D. (1997) Crown pruning effects on roots. In Proceedings from the III. European Arboriculture Congress
(F. Decembrini, ed.). International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, Ill, USA.
Coder, K.D. (1998) Root growth control: Managing perceptions and realities. In The Landscape Below Ground
II. Proceedings of a Second International Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban Soils (D. Neely and
G. Watson, eds.), pp. 51–81. International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, Ill, USA.
Costello, L.R., Elmore, C.L. and Steinmaus, S. (1997) Tree root response to circling root barriers. Journal of
Arboriculture 23, 211–218.
Costello, L.R., Perry, E.J. and Kelley, D. (2000a) Field Assessment of Soil Factors Contributing to Side-
walk Damage by Tree Roots. In Strategies to Reduce Infrastructure Damage by Tree Roots. Proceedings
of a Symposium for Researchers and Practitioners. Western Chapter, International Society of Arboriculture,
Cohasset, CA.
Costello, L.R., McPherson, E.G., Burger, D.W. and Dodge, L.L. (2000b) Strategies to Reduce Infrastructure
Damage by Tree Roots. Proceedings of a Symposium for Researchers and Practitioners. Western Chapter,
International Society of Arboriculture, Cohasset, CA.
Coutts, M.P. and Nicoll, B.C. (1991) Orientation of the lateral roots of trees. I. Upward growth of surface roots
and deflection near the soil surface. New Phytologist 119, 227–234.
Craul, P.J. (1992) Urban Soil in Landscape Design. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, USA.
Cutler, D.F. (1995) Interactions between roots and buildings. In Trees and Building Sites. Proceedings of and
International Workshop on Trees and Buildings. (G.W. Watson, and D. Neely, eds.), pp. 88–98. International
Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, Ill, USA.
Cutler, D.F., Gasson, P.E. and Farmer, M.C. (1990) The wind blown tree survey: Analysis of results. Arboricultural
Journal 14, 265–286.
Day, R.W. (1991) Damage of structures due to tree roots. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 5,
200–207.
Dobson, M. (1995) Tree root systems. Arboriculture Research and Information note nr. 130/95/ARB. In Arbori-
cultural Advisory and Information Service. Surrey, UK.
Downing, M.F. (1977) Landscape Construction. E. & F.N. Spon, London, UK.
Dunn, L. (1998) Tree Roots and Sidewalk Systems. Technical Report, Literature and Practical Research Review.
City of Sunnyvale, Public Works.
Fernandez, J.E., Moreno, F., Cabrera, F., Arrue, J.L. and Martin-Aranda, J. (1991) Drip irrigation, soil character-
istics and the root distribution and root activity of olive trees. Plant and Soil 133, 239–251.
Francis, J.K., Parresol, B.R. and de Patino, J.M. (1996) Probability of damage to sidewalks and curbs by street
trees in the tropics. Journal of Arboriculture 22, 193–197.
Gilman, E.F. (1996) Root barriers affect root distribution. Journal of Arboriculture 22(3), 151–154.
Grabosky, J. and Bassuk, N. (1995) A new urban tree soil to safely increase rooting volumes under sidewalks.
Journal of Arboriculture 21, 187–201.
Grabosky, J. and Bassuk, N. (1996) Testing of structural urban tree soil materials for use under pavement to
increase street tree rooting volumes. Journal of Arboriculture 22, 255–263.
Graves, W.R. (1994) Urban soil temperatures and their potential impact on tree growth. Journal of Arboriculture
20, 24–27.
Gulick, J. (1986) Solutions to sidewalk problems. American Forests May, 12–15.
Hamilton, W.D. (1984) Sidewalk/curb-breaking tree roots. 1. Why tree roots cause pavement problems. Arbori-
cultural Journal 8, 37–44.
Harris, R.V., Clark, J.R. and Matheny, N.P. (1999) Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees,
Shrubs, and Vines, (3nd ed.). Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
Helliwell, R. and Duncan, N. (1996) Urban Tree Planting—Final Report. Richards, Moorehead and Laing Ltd.,
The Highways Agency, 55 Well Street, Ruthin, Denbighshire LL 15 1AF, UK.
Jim, C.Y. (1998a) Physical and chemical properties of a Hong Kong roadside soil in relation to urban tree growth.
Urban Ecosystems 2, 171–181.
Jim, C.Y. (1998b) Urban soil characteristics and limitations for landscape planting in Hong Kong. Landscape and
Urban Planning 40, 235–249.
224 RANDRUP, MCPHERSON AND COSTELLO

Jones, M., Sinclair, F.L. and Grime, V.L. (1998) Effect of tree species and crown pruning on root length and soil
water content in semi-arid agroforestry. Plant and Soil 210, 197–207.
Kopinga, J. (1991) The effects of restricted volumes of soil on the growth and development of street trees. Journal
of Arboriculture 17, 57–63.
Kopinga, J. (1994) Aspects of the damage to asphalt road pavings caused by tree roots. In The Landscape Below
Ground. Proceedings of an International Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban Soils (G.W. Watson
and G. Watson, eds.), pp. 165–178. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Ill, USA.
Kristoffersen, P. (1998) Designing urban pavement sub-bases to support trees. Journal of Arboriculture 24,
121–126.
Kristoffersen, P. (1999) Growing Trees in Road Foundation Materials. Arboricultural Journal 23, 57–76.
Los Angeles Department of Public Works (1996) Review of Options for Implementing a Sidewalk Repair Pro-
gram and Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Problems caused by Tree Roots and the Impact on Civil Liability.
Report no. 1. Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Street Maintenance, Bureau of Contract
Administration.
MacLeod, R.D. and Cram, W.J. (1996) Forces exerted by tree roots. Arboriculture Research and Information note
nr. 134/96/EXT. In Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service. Surrey, UK.
McPherson, E.G. (2000) Expenditures associated with conflicts between street tree root growth and hardscape in
California. Journal of Arboriculture 26, 289–297.
McPherson, E.G. and Peper, P.J. (1995) Infrastructure repair costs associated with street trees in 15 cities. In Trees
and Building Sites. In Proceedings of and International Workshop on Trees and Buildings (G.W. Watson and
D. Neely eds.), pp. 49–64. International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, Ill, USA.
McPherson, E.G. and Peper, P.J. (1996) Costs of infrastructure tree damage to infrastructure. Arboricultural
Journal 20, 143–160.
McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Peper, P. and Xiao, Q. (1999a) Tree Guidelines for San Joaquin Valley Com-
munities. Western Center for Urban Forest Research and Education, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Research Station. University of California, Davis.
McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Peper, P. and Xiao, Q. (1999b) Benefit-Cost analysis of Modesto’s municipal
urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 25, 235–248.
McPherson, E.G., Costello, L.R., Perry, E. and Peper, P. (2000) Reducing tree root damage to sidewalks in
California cities: A collaborative study. In Report of the Elvenia J. Slosson Fund for Ornamental Horticulture
1998–1999 (L. Dodge, ed.), pp. 8–12. University of California, Davis, Division of Agriculture and Natural
Resources.
Morell, J.D. (1992) Competition for space in the urban infrastructure. Journal of Arboriculture 18, 73–75.
Neilsen, G.H., Parchomchuk, P., Berard, R. and Neilsen, D. (1997) Irrigation frequency and quantity affect root
and top growth of fertigated ‘McIntosh’ apple on M.9, M.26 and M.7 rootstock. Canadian Journal of Plant
Science 77, 133–139.
Nicoll, B.C. and Armstrong, A. (1998) Development of Prunus root systems in a city street: Pavement damage
and root architecture. Arboricultural Journal 22, 259–270.
Nicoll, B.C. and Coutts, M.P. (1997) Direct damage by urban tree roots: Paving the way for less damaging
street trees. In Arboricultural Practice, Present and Future (J. Claridge, ed.), pp. 77–84. Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions, Norwich, UK.
Ottman, K., Genich, K. and Boeder, J. (1996) Street trees and construction. Arborst News June, 26–32, 34.
PCA (1998) Building Concrete Walks, Driveways, Patios, and Steps. Portland Cement Association, Concrete
Information, IS209.06H. Skokie, Illinois, USA.
Peper, P.J. and Barker, P.A. (1994) A buyer’s technical guide to root barriers. In The Landscape Below Ground,
Proceedings of an International Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban Soils (G.W. Watson and D.
Neely, eds.), pp. 186–193. International Society of Arboriculture, Savoy, Ill, USA.
Peper, P.J. (1998) Comparison of root barriers installed at two depths for reduction of white mulberry roots in the soil
surface. In The Landscape Below Ground II: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Tree Root Development
in Urban Soils (D. Neely and G.W. Watson, eds.), pp. 82–93. International Society of Arboriculture, Champagne,
Ill. USA.
Peper, P.J. and Mori, S. (1999) Controlled rooting depth of post-transplant trees: extension casing and root barrier
effects on Chinese hackberry. Journal of Arboriculture 25(1), 1–8.
 TREE ROOTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONFLICTS 225

Phene, C.J., Davis, K.R., Hutmacher, R.B., Bar-Yosef, B., Meek, D.W. and Misaki, J. (1991) Effect of high
frequency surface and subsurface drip irrigation on root distribution of sweet corn. Irrigation Science 12,
135–140.
Pittenger, D. R. and Hodel, D.R. (1999) Effects of root barriers on tree and root growth. In Proceedings of
the Landscape Management Research Conference and Field Day (D.R. Pittenger, ed.), pp. 1–2. University of
California, Riverside, CA, USA.
Rolf, K. and Stal, O. (1994) Tree roots in sewer systems in Malmo, Sweden. Journal of Arboriculture 20, 329–335.
Ruark, G.A., Mader, D.L. and Tattar, T.A. (1982) The influence of soil compaction and aeration on the root growth
and vigour of trees—a literature review. Part 1. Arboricultural Journal 6, 251–265.
Sealana and Associates (1994) Sidewalk Survey & Analysis Study. Final Report. City of San Jose, CA, Department
of Streets & Parks.
Short, J.R., Fanning, D.S., McIntosh, M.S., Foss, J.E. and Patterson, J.C. (1986) Soils of the Mall in Washington,
DC: I. Statistical summary of properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal 50, 699–705.
Smiley, E.T., Key, A. and Greco, C. (2000) Root barriers and windthrow potential. Journal of Arboriculture 26(4),
213–217.
Sydnor, T.D., Gamstetter, D., Nichols, J., Bishop, B., Favorite, J., Blazer, C. and Turpin, L. (2000) Trees are not
the root of sidewalk problems. Journal of Arboriculture 26, 20–25.
Thagesen, B. (ed.) (1991) Laerebog i Vejbygning, Bind 2: Jord og befaestelser. (Principles in Road Construction,
Vol. 2: Soil and Pavements). Polyteknisk Forlag, Lyngby, Denmark. [In Danish]
US Army Corps of Engineers (1996) Walker. A Sidewalk Management System Developed by the US Army Corps
of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories. Hand-out/ Unpublished data.
Wagar, J.A. (1985) Reducing surface rooting of trees with control planters and wells. Journal of Arboriculture
11(6), 165–171.
Wagar, J.A. and Barker, P.A. (1983) Tree root damage to sidewalks and curbs. Journal of Arboriculture 9, 177–181.
Wong, T.W., Good, J.E.G. and Denne, M.P. (1988) Tree root damage to pavements and kerbs in the City of
Manchester. Arbroricultural Journal 12, 7–34.

View publication stats