Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186

A decade of urban forestry in Europe

Cecil C. Konijnendijk*
Skov & Landskab, Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Hoersholm Kongevej 11, DK-2970 Hoersholm, Denmark

Abstract

Major changes in society have led to a call for structural changes in forestry, also in Europe. Urbanisation as one
of the major driving forces has had a clear impact on European forestry. One of the new approaches emerging in
response is the concept of urban forestry. It was developed in North America during the 1960s as innovative approach
to managing natural resources in urban environments. Aimed at the integrated planning and management of all tree-
based resources in cities and towns, the concept found broad support in North America after initial resistance from
both foresters and urban green professionals. Similar resistance was met in Europe, and here it took until the early
1990s before the concept of urban forestry found broader acceptance and support. Since then, a European urban
forestry research community has emerged, as have policies, programmes and higher education incorporating elements
of urban forestry. Urban forest resources in Europe might be small in relative terms compared to other natural
resources. They do, however, cover millions of hectares of land and provide multiple, highly demanded goods and
services. Forestry can benefit from urban forestry experiences and innovations, for example in terms of better meeting
the expectations and demands of urban society. Urban forestry, on the other hand, is firmly rooted in some of the
basic concepts of traditional forestry, such as sustained yield. Review of a decade of urban forestry in Europe shows
that strong links should be maintained for the benefit of both.
䊚 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Urban forestry; Urbanisation; Forest science; Forest policy; Europe

1. The new face of forestry and management concepts constituting a major

paradigm shift has been called for (Kennedy et
With the major socio-economic transition of the al., 1998).
Western world into an urban, post-industrial and The need for change has led to various devel-
global economy and society, traditional forestry opments and adaptations. In North America, for
and natural resource management have been facing example, ‘new forestry’ in the shape of sustainable
considerably public scepticism and re-evaluation ecosystem-based management or stewardship was
(Kennedy et al., 1998). The legitimacy of foresters developed as a new guiding concept for forestry.
has been challenged and many long-standing pub- Similar developments have taken place in Europe,
lic forest and natural resource policies and practic- where multiple-use management and sustainable
es have been questioned (Kennedy et al., 1998;
forest ecosystem management now are accepted
Otto, 1998). An adaptation of professional values
and leading concepts (e.g. Kennedy et al., 1998).
*Tel.: q45-4576-3200; fax: q45-4576-3233. These new approaches recognise the importance
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.C. Konijnendijk). of the socio-cultural and environmental values of

1389-9341/03/$ - see front matter 䊚 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00023-6
174 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186

forests, apart from the economic values (i.e. timber Although a growing part of the forest resource has
production) that have traditionally been prioritised. come under urban influence, both directly (i.e.
Rather than managing tree stands, complex forest becoming incorporated into the interface or located
ecosystems are the subject of management. The at the interface with urban areas) and indirectly
human dimension of these ecosystems in terms of (as urban uses and values have also come to
multiple users and stakeholders is an integral part dominate more remote forest areas), forestry has
of this. Not only foresters but also public land been rather hesitant to recognise its urban mandate.
managers, in general, are increasingly turning into It has considered itself as a primarily rural activity,
social value brokers and conflict management most forest resources are situated in rural (or
facilitators (Kennedy and Ward Thomas, 1995; natural) areas and the production process had much
Kennedy et al., 1998). The significant changes in in common with agricultural production. Topfer ¨
forestry are can also be derived from the changes (2001) mentions how the traditional urban–rural
in definitions of terms as ‘forest’, ‘forestry’ and controversy (one was either pro- or anti-urban)
‘forester’ over time (Helms, 2002). has obstructed with more effective and sustainable
Kennedy et al. (1998) conceptualised the ongo- land use planning, for example at the urban fringe.
ing paradigm shift in forestry through the transition Institutions such as the Food and Agriculture
from a machine model to an organic model. In the Organisation of the United Nations, and state
new, organic model, the complexity of forest eco- forestry agencies even in the most urbanised coun-
systems with their interdependent subsystems and tries have only recently recognised their urban
many relationships is recognised and appreciated mandate (e.g. Konijnendijk, 1999; FAO, 2002).
rather than distrusted, and focus is on forest func- Policy-makers, planners and managers, however,
tion or process. Rather than the rigid, hierarchical have expressed the lack of forestry concepts,
and monodisciplinary forestry institutions of the approaches and methods adapted to the urban
past, new forest management institutions are need- environment (Krott, 1998; Konijnendijk, 1999).
ed. These should be flexible, accepting and open This article aims to explore the status and
organisations, involving a wide range of disciplines prospects of the incorporation of the urban dimen-
and interests being actively involved in a collabo- sion into forestry, as important element of the
rative dialogue. Broader and more inclusive visions overall paradigm shift occurring within the field.
and goals are formulated, but science and scientists It reviews the emergence and status of the concept
provide one set of values and skills. As commu- of urban forestry in Europe, as an attempt to
nity-level participation and conflict management accommodate forestry and the need for an urban
are increasingly important, diverse social science scope. Finally, urban forestry’s possible value for
and people skills are recognised and developed. the development of forestry at large is analysed.
The role of urbanisation in the change of forestry
should not be overlooked. Large parts of the world
have become highly urbanised and the majority of 2. Development and definition of the urban
the world’s population now lives in cities and forestry concept
towns (WRI, 2001). Although some forests have
been under the direct influence of cities and towns The most broadly accepted definition of urban
for ages, and especially in Europe (Hosmer, 1922; forestry, based on Miller (1997) is ‘the art, science
Konijnendijk, 1999), the dramatic ‘urbanisation’ and technology of managing trees and forest
of the forest is a more recent phenomenon. Paris resources in and around urban community ecosys-
(1972) spoke of the ‘citification’ of the forest: tems for the physiological, sociological, economic
conflict situations between ‘industrial’ and ‘socie- and aesthetic benefits trees provide society’
tal’ use of forests have been occurring to an (Helms, 1998, p. 193). This definition already
increasing extent, and urban societies have been makes it clear that urban forestry is more than just
imposing their ideas, values, perceptions and life ‘forestry’ in (or near) urban areas. Apart from
styles on the countryside and its forest areas. forest resources, for example, other tree-dominated
 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186 175

vegetation is included in the scope of urban and management. Developments such as the grow-
forestry. ing demands for urban green functions and increas-
ing pressures on green areas led to an interest in
2.1. Brief history of urban forestry in North more strategic and integrated approaches, such as
America urban ecology and urban green structure planning,
during the 1970s and 1980s. Researchers interested
The term ‘urban forestry’ was first used in 1965 in the tree dimension of urban green got to know
as title for a graduate study on the success and the concept of urban forestry as applied in North
failures of municipal tree planting in part of America, e.g. through study visits and conferences.
Metropolitan Toronto (Johnston, 1996). Before Some of the North American urban forestry pio-
that, graduates of forestry schools in North Amer- neers were involved in organising the symposium
ica were more frequently hired to manage munic- ‘Trees and forests for human settlements’ in Nor-
ipal tree management programmes because of their way (1976), jointly with the United Nations’
biological, quantitative and managerial skills (Mil- Habitant Forum and the International Union of
ler, 2001). Problems caused by for example intro- Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) (John-
duced pests and diseases had called for more ston, 1997a,b).
integrative tree management approaches (Johnston, Initial resistance against the concept also existed
1996). In spite of recognition of the concept by in Europe. Even though the scientific Arboricul-
the Society of American Foresters, and the hosting tural Journal was given the subtitle ‘International
of National Urban Forestry Conferences, it took Journal of Urban Forestry’ in 1981, its publisher
some time for urban forestry to become accepted the British Arboricultural Association saw the term
by a broader group of experts. For example, many as an unnecessary ‘Americanism’ (Johnston,
foresters were reluctant to see a role for forestry 1997b). Support for the concept came from inter-
in urban areas. Many arborists and other urban ested landscape architects and especially foresters.
green space professionals were hesitant to embrace Researchers at the Dutch state forest research
urban forestry, as they felt that foresters used it as institute undertook several study tours to North
a way into their domain (Johnston, 1996; Miller, America in order to get familiar with the approach
2001). The benefits of using the integrative and during the early 1980s (Heybroek et al., 1985).
interdisciplinary concept, however, were increas- Britain, however, became the first European
ingly recognised. Helped by the lobbying efforts stronghold of urban forestry. Representatives of
of interest groups such as American Forests, polit- NGOs and other interest groups involved with
ical support for the approach was gained. A rather urban tree planting and management schemes
extensive funding scheme was developed to sup- helped promote the concept based on close collab-
port urban forestry research, policy and practice. oration with American counterparts, e.g. by setting
The American urban forestry research scene today up several large-scale urban forestry projects in
is very well developed, with high-level research various cities (e.g. Johnston, 1997b). Govern-
being undertaken at universities together with fed- mental interest followed, e.g. through the nation-
eral and state research agencies (Johnston, 1996; wide Community Forests developed during the late
Miller, 2001). Higher education in urban forestry 1980s. Forest and tree planting and management
exists through, for example, 30 Baccalaureate pro- were to be used as tools for environmental, social
grammes, mostly offered by forestry faculties or and economic development of 12 urban agglom-
departments (Miller, personal communication). erations and their surrounding areas. The Com-
munity Forests programme draws heavily upon
2.2. Brief history of urban forestry in Europe elements of the urban forestry concept, such as
focus on social values and a broader concept of
It took longer for the concept to gain hold in ‘forest’ (Davies and Vaughan, 1998). The National
Europe, although Europe can pride itself on a long Urban Forestry Unit (NUFU) was set up in 1995
tradition of urban green space planning, design as an independent organisation championing the
176 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186

need for integration of tree planting, conservation topics, often with the participation of experts from
and management with different agendas, such as outside Europe. It reviewed the status of research
health, land reclamation, built development, heri- and higher education on urban forestry in Europe,
tage and education (NUFU, 2002). Initially, Ire- issued a long list of publications and started
land was the only country to follow Britain in compiling a first European reference book on
embracing the concept of urban forestry. The first urban forestry. A strong European network resulted
Urban Forestry Conference, held in Dublin in from the Action and led to several new initiatives
1991, led to government recognition for example (Nilsson and Konijnendijk, in press). One of the
via a grant scheme for urban woodlands. The first direct spin-offs of COST E12 as well as EFI’s
major review of urban forestry in Ireland was activities concerning urban forestry was the estab-
carried out in 1994 and the first urban tree resource lishment of the European Urban Forestry Research
in Ireland (for Dublin) started in 1993 (Johnston, and Information Centre (EUFORIC) in 2001.
1997b). EUFORIC operates as one of six so-called Region-
Networking and international contacts proved al Project Centres of EFI. These are centres without
crucial in the British, Dutch, Irish as well as other walls focusing on a topic of specific interest within
cases. The International Society of Arboriculture, European forestry. EUFORIC aims to act as a
set up in the United States in 1924 as the National clearinghouse and coordinator within European
Shade Tree Conference, gradually increased its urban forestry. Activities so far also included
international member base and activities to meet organising conferences such as ‘Forestry serving
part of the networking demand (Johnston, 1996). urbanised societies’ in Copenhagen (2002), and
Several new networks of urban forestry researchers the launch of a new scientific journal (Urban
emerged in response during the 1990s. The Nordic Forestry and Urban Greening) to serve the urban
Forest Research Cooperation Committee (SNS) forestry research community.
supported a first Nordic workshop on urban for- A number of additional new, international initia-
estry held in Reykjavik in 1996 (Nilsson and tives emerged within European urban forestry dur-
Randrup, 1996). SNS continued to support urban ing the late 1990s and early 2000s. Various
forestry networking through funding joint Nordic– international projects, for example under the Eur-
Baltic seminars in Tallinn (Sander and Randrup, opean Union’s Fifth Framework Programme for
1998) and Kaunas (Randrup et al., 2001). The research have used the term, although still seldom
European Forest Institute (EFI), an independent in their title, were started. Conferences on urban
non-governmental organisation conducting forest forestry topics such as indigenous vegetation and
research, also became involved in urban forestry plant health in urban horticulture were held. From
research during the mid-1990s. It undertook a a non-scientific perspective, IUFRO’s European
comparative European study of urban woodland Forum on Urban Forestry, organised annually since
policies, conservation and management (Konijnen- 1998, can be mentioned. The Forum brings togeth-
dijk, 1999). er urban forestry practitioners to exchange experi-
The Danish Forest and Landscape Research ences and ideas (Krott, 1998).
Institute then initiated what proved to be an impor-
tant step for the advancement of urban forestry in 2.3. Defining urban forestry in Europe
Europe. A network for the promotion and coordi-
nation of urban forestry in Europe was set up in The emergence of an urban forestry research
1997, under the European Union-funded COST community at the European level might suggest
programme (European Cooperation in the field of that broad acceptance of the concept has been
Scientific and Technical Research). COST Action achieved. The definition of urban forestry within
E12 Urban Forests and Trees ran until 2002 and the European context is still under debate.
involved more than 100 experts from 22 European One of the problems faced related to the differ-
countries. The Action organised a series of semi- ence between ‘concept’ and ‘term’. While concepts
nars as well as two conferences on urban forestry are the cognitive representation or perceptions of
 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186 177

objects or facts, terms are their linguistic expres- very different definitions of ‘urban’ (Forrest et al.,
sion or linguistic label (ISO, 2000). While broad 1999) and ‘forest’ (Helms, 2002). As we have
agreement seems to exist about the relevance of seen, moreover, the ‘forest’ in urban forest related
the urban forestry concept, the term has evoked to more than forest in its more traditional defini-
confusion in Europe. ‘Urban forest’ can be trans- tion. ‘Other wooded land’ and ‘trees outside for-
lated into different European languages into terms ests’, categories used by FAO for its forest resource
such as Stadtwald (German), stadsbos (Dutch), assessments (FRAs) (FAO, 2002), in the shape of
by nær skov or byskov and taajamametsa¨ (Finn- for example parks, gardens and street trees are to
ish). These often have had a longer tradition as be included when they are located in (or near)
referring to only the woodland element of urban urban areas. Problems with operationalising the
green structures (Konijnendijk, 1999). Urban urban forest concept hamper sound resource inven-
woodlands in the form of communal, city or town tories and monitoring. Moreover, FAO’s FRAs
woodlands are a very European phenomenon, with have not paid any particular attention to urban
a long history of woodland conservation and man- forest resources so far, although ‘trees outside
agement (Hosmer, 1922; Konijnendijk, 1999). forests’ were mentioned in the FRA 2000 as an
The wide variation in definitions of ‘urban important area for future assessments (FAO, 2002).
forestry’ and ‘urban forests’ still used in Europe A first national, comprehensive assessment of
is illustrated in Table 1. The more traditional urban forest resources was carried out by the
meaning of terms similar to ‘urban forest’ can be United States Forest Service (Dwyer et al., 2000).
noted. English-speaking countries have been the It applied a combination of methods, including
first to incorporate urban forestry as a more inte- satellite imagery, national statistical data and
grative and broad concept. Through its activities assessments for particular cities or metropolitan
and discussions, COST Action E12 ‘Urban Forests areas. Tree canopy cover was used as a more
and Trees’ has helped to make at least the concept reliable indicator than land use types. The assess-
of urban forestry more accepted amongst European ment showed that 74.4 billion trees cover 33.4%
researchers (Nilsson and Konijnendijk, in press). of the metropolitan areas (urban countries) in the
The concept applied is very similar to the defini- 48 adjacent states, i.e. approximately 8% of land
tion of urban forestry as mentioned at the outset area and 1y4 of all trees in the 48 states. In urban
of this article (Helms, 1998). areas in a more narrow sense (i.e. cities, towns,
‘Forest’ within ‘urban forest’ thus has been villages, etc.), 3.8 billion trees cover 27.1% of the
given a different meaning than the traditional forest land, i.e. approximately 1% of the entire adjacent
concept encompasses. By including small woods, United States.
parks and gardens with area size andyor canopy No comprehensive, comparative assessments of
cover below thresholds for ‘forest’, as well as urban forest resources in Europe (international or
individual trees the traditional forest concept has national level) seem to be available at the time.
been broadened considerably. Table 2 includes information about some (partial
or less reliable) assessments of urban green space
3. Status and significance of urban forestry in cover. The European Environment Agency has
Europe provided statistics on urban green area cover in
selected European cities, but mentioned that statis-
3.1. Urban forest resources tics are unreliable and not easy to compare (EEA,
1995). It is uncertain, for example, what types of
Urban forests refer to all forest and tree green areas (category? ownership?) have been
resources in (and close to) urban areas. This included. Moreover, total green structure, with its
concept is difficult to operationalise for the pur- non-tree-dominated elements, will be larger than
pose of reliable resource inventories. Questions to the urban forest resource. The survey by Ottitsch
be answered include how to define ‘urban’, ‘for- (2002) faced similar problems, while the study by
est’, as well as ‘close to’. Different countries use Pauleit et al. (2002), attempting to use tree canopy
178 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186

Table 1
Examples of definitions of urban forestry and urban forests provided by the national experts of COST Action E12 ‘Urban Forests
and Trees’ (based on Forrest et al., 1999)

Country Definition of urban forest andyor urban forestry

Finland Urban forests have been defined as forests located
in or near an urban area where the main function
is recreation. They consist mainly of natural
forest vegetation and therefore, the definition
excludes for example, man-made parks with lawns.
Germany No adequate term is existing to cover urban forests and
urban forestry. A tradition exists with using the term
‘Stadwald’, referring to the forest element. Urban forest mostly
would refer to man-made forest on formerly agricultural
or even derelict land specifically designed and
managed for the recreation of the urban population.
Greece Urban forests refer to urban green spaces and include:
(a) the trees along the streets of towns and cities;
(b) the parks and gardens within city boundaries; and
(c) the forests around towns and cities.
Iceland Urban forestry is the planting of trees
and tree stands within the legal boundaries
of urban areas with the purpose of providing amenities
for the population, namely shelter, recreation, landscaping,
beauty and even production of timber or other products,
where it does not detract from other amenity values.
Ireland An extensive definition, similar to North American
concept, is applied for urban forestry.
Recognised are e.g. the adoption of forestry
principles, the inclusion of the entire tree and
woodland resource in and around an urban area, the fact
that trees are managed as part of an overall resource,
urban forestry being a social discipline,
the need for coordinated involvement, etc.
Italy The term urban forest has hardly been used.
The concept of ‘urban forests and trees’
is related to the wider, inclusive of the term
‘urban greenery’, defined as any designed open
space in urban areas, concerned with—as a whole
or in part—vegetation elements and regularly managed.
Lithuania Urban forestry includes forests, street trees and
other green areas. The focus of urban
forestry in Lithuania has mostly been municipal.
Slovenia Urban forests represent forests, parks, i.e.
woodland resources in urban areas,
which have environmental and social rather than
production functions and benefits for the citizens.
The urban area is regarded as the area of a
(town) municipality. The owner of the urban
forest should in principle be the municipality.
The Netherlands Approximately 10% of all Dutch forests considered urban woodlands.
The term ‘urban forest’ would translate as ‘stadsbos’ (Borgesius, 1992), i.e.
referring to urban woodland. For urban forest at large,
the term ‘urban green’ is most commonly used.
 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186 179

Table 1 (Continued)
Country Definition of urban forest andyor urban forestry
Public urban green areas include nature areas,
urban woodlands, parks, green areas,
public gardens and street and roadside trees.
United Kingdom Urban forestry is a multi-disciplinary activity
that encompasses the design, planning,
establishment and management of trees,
woodlands and associated flora and open space,
which is usually physically linked to form a mosaic of
vegetation in or near built-up areas. It serves a
range of multi-purpose functions, but it is primarily
for amenity and the promotion of human well-being.

cover, seems more informative, although the of elements, such as parks and gardens, woodlands
authors also expressed their concern about data and cemeteries (CBS, 1998).
quality and comparability. From a forestry perspective, the woodland ele-
Johnston and Rushton (1999) also noted the ment of urban forests has special interest. In this
lack of records and inventories of urban tree case, it is not much easier, however, to obtain
resources, as did the British Green Spaces Task- comparative data, although the definition of these
force. The latter called for a green space typology woodlands as ‘forests’ under the national law
and more reliable and comprehensive inventory of should facilitate inventory. The major difficulty is
green spaces (DTLR, 2002). In the Netherlands, to determine what woodlands are to be classified
the national statistical data for municipal land use as ‘urban’. Table 3 provides the results of some
include green areas as consisting of a wide range assessments made. In many cases, urban woodland

Table 2
Data on urban green space cover in Europe (examples)

Regionycountry Information on urban Reference

green space resource
Europe Green space cover of selected cities EEA (1995)
varied between 5% (Madrid) and 60% (Bratislava).
Tree (canopy) cover in cities in 8 Pauleit et al. (2002)
European countries: ranging from 1.5 to 62%.
Green area cover for 14 European Ottitsch (2002)
cities surveyed varied between 5% (Thessaloniki)
and 56% (Ljubljana); average of
approximately 30% for all cities. Green space per
inhabitant from 6 to approximately 7000 m2.
Belgium Flanders region: 9% of municipalities Basiaux et al. (1999)
covered by green areas (1991 survey).
Brussels region: 14% (2300 ha)
of land area covered by green space.
Great Britain Green areas cover approximately 14% of urban areas. DTLR (2002)
Parks and green spaces estimated
to account for 120 000–150 000 ha.
The Netherlands Average municipal green space cover CBS (1998)
of 19% for 22 of the largest
Dutch cities (i.e. average of 228 m2yinhabitant).
180 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186

Table 3
Data on urban woodland area and cover in Europe (examples)

RegionyCountry Information on size of Reference

urban woodland resource
Europe Average woodland cover of 18.5% Konijnendijk (2001)
within municipal boundaries of
26 larger European cities (104 m2 yinhabitant)
Belgium Flanders region: approximately 4.5% of municipalities Basiaux et al. (1999)
included in 1991 survey covered by woodlands.
Walloon region: 25 000 ha of forests located in
suburban areas and managed for community uses.
No data on municipal forests available.
Brussels region: 1950 ha (12%)
of land area covered by woodlands.
Czech Republic Fifteen percent of all forests owned by municipalities ´
Zaruba (1998)
and cooperations. 100 larger cities own
between 500 and 8000 ha of forests.
Finland Municipalities in Finland own 430 000 ha of forests. ¨ ¨ (1999) cited by Tyrvainen
Lofstrom ¨ (1999)
France 270 000 ha of forests in the Greater Moigneu (2001)
Paris region; 80 m2 of forest per
inhabitant (compared to 800 m2 for France as a whole).
Latvia 0.8% of all Latvian forests considered Donis (2001)
urban forests (owned by cities and towns).
Twenty percent of urban areas covered by forests.
The Netherlands Average municipal woodland cover of CBS (1998)
approximately 7% for 22 of the largest Dutch cities.
Larger cities usually have municipal forest
cover of between 0 and 5% (1993 data).
Slovakia Ten percent (186 000 ha) of Slovakian Graus (1998)
forests owned by municipalities.
Sweden 300 000 ha considered ‘urban fringe forests’, i.e. more Carlborg (1991) cited by Rydberg (1998)
than 1% of the overall Swedish forest cover.
United Kingdom Community forests programme aimed Ball et al. (1999)
at achieving a 30% woodland cover (f119 000 ha)
around 12 large agglomerations
over next decades. Actual cover in 1999 was 6.5%.

area andyor cover are assessed by only including gardens, street tree population, and so forth. Again,
the areas defined as ‘forest’ within the municipal comparative data are difficult to obtain (Johnston
boundaries. The study by Konijnendijk (1999, and Rushton, 1999; Pauleit et al., 2002).
2001) is an example of this. Scientists have The limited data presented here at least provide
attempted to assess the wider urban woodland some insight in the significance of urban forest
resource at country level by including peri-urban resource in Europe. Table 3 suggests that Nordic
or urban fringe forests, as well as by including all and Central European countries assess their urban
municipally-owned forests, as shown in the table. woodland resource to one or several percents of
Similar tables could be drawn up for other their overall forest resource. This share is consid-
components of the urban green structure or urban erably higher in the more urbanised parts of
forest resource, for example public parks and Western Europe, and increasing through afforesta-
 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186 181

tion near large agglomerations (Mather, 1990; pean cities have established and conserved forests
Konijnendijk, 1999). In some local cases, urban for protecting their drinking water resources (Kon-
woodland resources are very significant: Berlin ijnendijk, 1999). Urban green protects soils and
owns approximately 27 000 of nearby forests, and moderates harsh urban climates, e.g. by cooling
the city of St. Petersburg is responsible for a the air, reducing wind speeds and shading
142 000 ha forest greenbelt (Konijnendijk, 1999). (McPherson et al., 1997). The level of biodiversity
In absolute terms, urban woodland resources are of urban green areas is often surprisingly high
significant, covering millions of hectares in (Milligan Raedeke and Raedeke, 1995). National
Europe. As the work by Dwyer et al. (2000) parks are found at the gates of large cities such as
indicated, the actual urban forest resource is sig- Warsaw, Moscow and Vienna (Konijnendijk,
nificantly larger when other tree-dominated lands 1999).
are included. Cities have often turned to green areas for
providing attractive environments for businesses to
3.2. Provision of goods and services settle and people to live (Konijnendijk, 1999,
2001). The generally positive impact of nearby
Urban forest resources might be small compared forests and green areas on house prices has become
to e.g. total forest land in many European coun- documented, e.g. by Tyrvainen ¨ (1999). Price
tries, their are of high importance in terms of (2002) provides a review of ways to assess the
providing goods and services to society, even aesthetical values of urban forests.
although timber production is often of minor
importance (Konijnendijk, 1999). Urban wood- 3.3. Policies
lands and other parts of the urban forest are the
most popular outdoor recreation environments in Attention for urban forestry at the European
Europe. Between 1y4 and 1y2 of all annual forest level has been limited so far, although sufficient
visits in France take place in the 80 000 ha of access to public green space is seen as an important
forests in the Greater Paris region (Moigneu, indicator for sustainable cities (EEA, 1995). At
2001). In Sweden, an estimated 55% of all forest the national level, however, new policies have
visits are to urban woodlands (Rydberg, 1998). incorporated the importance of urban forests andy
Urban woodlands in Europe often attract several or urban forest elements. Countries such as Bel-
thousands of visits per hectare per year (Konijnen- gium (Flanders), Denmark, Ireland, The
dijk, 1999), as the large majority of all recreational Netherlands and Great Britain issued afforestation
visits to forests are paid to sites not more than 1– policies in which urban agglomerations have the
2 km from the home (e.g. Hornsten,
¨ 2000). The highest priority. Woodland grant schemes thus
impact of urban forests on physical and mental favour urban settings. Social and environmental
human health, e.g. through offering environments services such as providing opportunities for out-
for exercise and reducing stress, also has been door recreation and protection of drinking water
given research focus lately (Grahn and Stigsdotter, for primarily urban populations have become prior-
2003). The presence of trees and woodlands close itised in national forest policies (Konijnendijk,
to where many people live can also cause prob- 1999). Urban and community forests are described
lems, as in the cases of fires occurring at the urban as a priority and powerful tool in the England
fringe, as well as of health threats such as diseases Forestry Strategy issued in 1998 (Forestry Com-
carried by animals, and allergies. mission, 1998). Some European cities with a long
Urban trees and other vegetation intercept par- history of woodland ownership developed strate-
ticles and gaseous pollutants (Harris, 1992; gies and policies for their woodlands, while most
McPherson et al., 1997) and act as carbon sinks other cities have contented themselves with forest
in the equations relevant within the context of management plans only (Konijnendijk, 1999).
global warming (McPherson and Simpson, 1999). Comprehensive local urban forestry strategies are
They reduce stormwater runoff and many Euro- even less common, especially outside of Britain
182 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186

and Ireland. Krott (personal communication) men- innovative and in what way can it be a valuable
tions that is has been problematic to develop true contributor to the ongoing development of modern
urban forestry policies at city level due to for forestry. Moreover, how does urban forestry build
example funding problems, political struggles and upon and benefit from traditional forestry concepts
different priorities. and approaches?
As outlined in the first section, structural chang-
3.4. Research and education es in forestry are called for. The very concept of
forest, for example, has been under continued
The described networking initiatives helped scrutiny (Helms, 2002). It has broadened over
urban forestry research establish itself in Europe. time to take an ecosystem perspective, but a further
Reviews of the status of urban forestry research crossing of boundaries has been called for, as
and higher education in Europe carried out within different land uses need to be regarded in a more
the framework of COST Action E12 acknowledged integrated way (Kennedy et al., 1998). The tradi-
the increasing level of activity (Konijnendijk et tional urban–rural divide, for example, has unpro-
al., 2000; Andersen et al., 2002). A survey of 20 ductive and gives wrong sense of alternative
European countries identified more than 400 recent development options. More regional and landscape
or ongoing research projects on trees andyor for- concepts are needed to strengthen the links and
ests in the urban environment. A wide range of complementarities between cities and rural areas
topics had occupied researchers, while attention (Topfer,
¨ 2001). New concepts and approaches
for three main components of urban forests— such as landscape ecology and management, sus-
woodlands, parks and individual trees—had been tainable land use, urban ecology, and urban agri-
about equal (Konijnendijk et al., 2000). Higher culture all take a more integrative perspective on
education (i.e. at Bachelor level or higher) on different land uses, land covers and ecosystems.
urban forestry has been less developed so far. One Urban forestry does the same by crossing the
hundred and eighty educational institutions in 28 boundaries between woodlands and other elements
countries offered 31 full degree programmes and of urban (and peri-urban) green structures. Initia-
191 courses and modules. Only very few, however, tives such as the English Community Forests go
were regarded ‘urban forestry’ in the true sense of even further. Building on the concepts of urban
the concept by the researchers, as mostly only and community forestry, new types of ‘forest
some elements were touched upon, primarily from landscapes’ are created, where woodlands are only
a monodisciplinary perspective. An increase in the one—be it important-element of land use mosaics
number of programmes and courses offered, how- (Davies and Vaughan, 1998).
ever, was noted (Andersen et al., 2002). This also provides a suitable platform for mul-
tiple disciplines to work together. Urban forestry
4. Discussion: urban forestry’s relation to is multidisciplinary, and ideally even interdiscipli-
forestry nary. The earlier mentioned review of research on
urban tree resources in Europe identified 38 dis-
Urban forestry has gradually established itself ciplines being involved, including basic as well as
in Europe as integrative and innovative approach applied sciences, natural and social sciences, the
towards the tree-dominated part of urban green humanities as well as planning sciences (Koni-
structures. The urban forest resource is relatively jnendijk et al., 2000).
small compared to overall forest resources, but Multifunctionality in forestry is also called for.
expanding and already covering a significant area By focusing on other goods and services than the
of land. They provide multiple essential benefits traditional output of forestry, i.e. timber production,
to urban societies. A research community has urban forestry provides an interesting perspective.
emerged during the past decade, higher education Urban forestry, by its very nature, can only be
is under development and policy attention is successful if meeting the multiple demands of
increasing. But, what has made urban forestry ever-present urban societies. In this way, urban
 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186 183

forests have been described as ‘hotspots’ for for- income and reducing costs have been explored.
estry at large (Krott, 1998). They act as testing Infiltration of alternative funding programmes,
grounds for forestry at large attempting to meet from the local level to the European Union, has
changing societal demands. It has shown that the been one strategy. Marketing of goods and services
soft values of forests and trees are in fact very other than timber or of locally produced certified
important, socially, environmentally as well as timber has been attempted, with variable success.
economically. The possible negative effects of Urban foresters have demonstrated that they pro-
having trees and forests close to people, as in the duce services in a very efficient way. Management
case of wildfires, should not be neglected in this of the municipal forests of Wuppertal, Germany
respect. costs less than 71 per forest visit, which compares
Modern forestry should manifest itself more as favourably to the cost of other recreational activi-
social value broker and conflict manager. Again, ties (Vosteen, 2002). In some cases, urban forestry
urban forestry provides a valuable example. Social elements have been built into large-scale projects
services are in focus, as providing healthy recrea- such as new housing schemes, landscape devel-
tional, living and working environments is priori- opment, and industrial developments (e.g. Koni-
tised. High demands for urban forest goods and jnendijk, 2001). Krott (personal communication)
services have to be met by a small resource base, believes that this ‘greening’ of major development
and conflicts have been a logical consequence. projects is very important for the success of urban
Thus urban foresters have had to develop their forestry.
people skills as well as conflict management Programmes such as the English Community
capacities. They are learning how to involve other Forests, the England Forestry Strategy and various
stakeholders in their decisions and activities. In national and local policies and programmes pro-
high-pressure urban environments, partnerships are moting urban forests also relate to another demand
a necessity. Teamwork with fellow professionals is placed on forestry at large: the need for bolder
required, as well as close collaboration with non-
and long-term strategies connecting to agendas
experts. Urban forestry can become a powerful
other than those of traditional forestry.
tool for community building. The integration of
The relationship between forestry and urban
fringe groups, for example, can be promoted
forestry is based on mutual benefits and not on
through urban forests and forestry (Dwyer et al.,
‘one way traffic’. Forestry has been the driving
2000; Krott, personal communication). As areas
of collaboration and demonstration, urban forests force behind the development of the concept of
can improve transparency and forestry’s image in urban forestry, for a start. Foresters were brought
society (Rydberg, 1998; von Gadow, 2002). into cities because of their more holistic and
This brings us to developing new, flexible insti- strategic insight (Miller, 2001). Today, forestry is
tutions for managing forests and other natural still the leading discipline in European urban
resources. Urban forestry has faced the same need forestry research and education (Konijnendijk et
and new types of institutions have been created. al., 2000; Andersen et al., 2002). This it not
The independently-operating project teams that strange, as explained by Collins (1997) who out-
coordinate the 12 English Community Forests, for lines the links of urban forestry with traditional
instance, operate in close collaboration with a forestry. Urban forestry has adopted the principle
range of public and private actors, combining skills of sustained yield, which underpins forestry; it sets
such as forestry, ecology, planning, marketing and out to achieve and maintain a balanced age struc-
community relations and involvement. ture within each urban locality, ensure continuous
Funding has been a growing problem for public tree cover, and hence sustained provision of goods
and private forestry in Europe. Urban green space and services for current and future generations.
management has traditionally been dependent on Trees are managed as part of the overall resource,
municipal budgets, which have been reduced over and by means of long-term planning based on
time. As a consequence, innovative ways of raising secure resource allocation and detailed surveys.
184 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186

Urban forestry and forestry at large thus are Woodlands: Strategic Priorities and Programmes. England
closely connected and should remain so in order Forestry Strategy. Forestry Commission, London.
Forrest, M., Konijnendijk, C.C., Randrup, T.B. (Eds.), 1999.
to benefit from each other’s efforts in better COST Action E12—Research and Development in Urban
meeting the demands of changing societies. Forestry in Europe. Official Printing Office of the European
Communities, Luxembourg.
von Gadow, K., 2002. Adapting silvicultural management
References systems to urban forests. Urban Forestry and Urban Green-
ing 1 (2), 107–113.
Andersen, F., Konijnendijk, C.C., Randrup, T.B., 2002. Higher Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U.A., 2003. Landscape architecture and
education on urban forestry in Europe: an overview. Forestry stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2 (1), 1–18.
75 (5), 501–511. Graus, J., 1998. The management of municipal and urban
Basiaux, Ph., Bodson, M., Embo, T., et al., 1999. Belgium. In: forests in the Slovak Republic. In: Krott, M., Nilsson, K.
Forrest, M., Konijnendijk, C.C., Randrup, T.B. (Eds.), (Eds.), Multiple-use of Town Forests in International Com-
COST Action E12—Research and Development in Urban parison. Proceedings of the First European Forum on Urban
Forestry in Europe. Official Printing Office of the European Forestry, 5–7 May 1998, Wuppertal. Institut fur ¨ Forstpolitik,
Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 38–54. ¨
Forstgeschichte und Naturschutz, Gottingen, pp. 111–117.
Ball, R., Bussey, S.C., Patch, D., Simson, A., West, S., 1999. Harris, R.W., 1992. Arboriculture: Integrated Management of
United Kingdom. In: Forrest, M., Konijnendijk, C.C., Ran- Landscape Trees, Shrubs and Vines. second ed. Prentice
drup, T.B. (Eds.), COST Action E12 – Research and Hall, New Jersey.
Development in Urban Forestry in Europe. Office for Helms, J.A., 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. The Society of
Official Publications of the European Communities, Lux- American Foresters, Bethesda.
embourg, pp. 325–340. Helms, J.A., 2002. Forest, forestry, forester: what do these
Borgesius, J.J., 1992. Beheer van stadsbossen tussen publiek terms mean? Journal of Forestry 100 (8), 15–19.
en bestuurden. Groen 4, 19–23. Heybroek, H.M., Kopinga, J., Wit, A.P. de, 1985. Urban
CBS, 1998. Statistisch bestand Nederlandse gemeenten 1998. forestry and forest-planning in the USA. Report on an
2. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, VoorburgyHeerlen. exchange visit, October 1984. Report nr. 395. De Dorsch-
kamp, Wageningen.
Collins, K.D., 1997. Editorial. Irish Forestry 54 (2), 1.
Hosmer, R.S., 1922. Impressions of European forestry. Chica-
Davies, C., Vaughan, J., 1998. England’s community forests—
go: the Lumber World Review. Reprinted In: Fortmann, L.,
a case study: community forests in North-East England. In:
Bruce, J.W. (Eds.), 1988, Whose Forests?: Proprietary
Krott, M., Nilsson, K. (Eds.), Multiple-use in town forests
Dimensions of Forestry. Rural Studies Series, Westview,
in international comparison. Proceedings of the first IUFRO
Boulder Press, pp. 117–123.
European Forum on Urban Forestry, Wuppertal, 5–7 May
¨
Hornsten, L., 2000. Outdoor recreation in Swedish forests.
1998. IUFRO Working Group S.6.14.00, pp. 137–144.
Doctoral dissertation. Department of Forest Management
Donis, J., 2001. Urban forestry in Latvia: status, policy, and Products, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
management research. In: Randrup, T.B., Gustavsson, R., Uppsala.
Christophersen, T. (Eds.), Urban forestry in the Nordic and ISO, 2000. International Standard ISO 704 Terminology
Baltic countries – Urban forests under transition. Proceed- work—Principles and methods. Reference number ISO
ings from an international seminar on urban forestry in 704:2000(E).
Kaunas, Lithuania, April 21-23, 2002. Skov & Landskab Johnston, M., 1996. A brief history of urban forestry in the
Report 9. Hoersholm: Skov & Landskab, pp. 19–23. United States. Arboricultural Journal 20, 257–278.
DTLR, 2002. Green Spaces, Better Places. Final Report of the Johnston, M., 1997a. The development of urban forestry in
Urban Green Spaces Taskforce. Department of Transport, the Republic of Ireland. Irish Forestry 54 (2), 14–32.
Local Government, and the Regions, London. Johnston, M., 1997b. The early development of urban forestry
Dwyer, J.F., Nowak, D.J., Noble, M.H., Sisinni, S.M., 2000. in Britain: Part 1. Arboricultural Journal 21, 107–126.
Connecting People with Ecosystems in the 21st century: An Johnston, M., Rushton, B.S., 1999. A Survey of Urban Forestry
Assessment of Our Nation’s Urban Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. in Britain. Faculty of Science, University of Ulster,
PNW-GTR-490. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- Coleraine.
vice, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland. Kennedy, J.J., Dombeck, M.P., Koch, N.E., 1998. Values,
EEA, 1995. Europe’s environment: the Dobris Assessment. beliefs and management of public forests in the Western
Stanners, D., Bourdeau, Ph. (Eds.), European Environment world at the close of the twentieth century. Unasylva 49
Agency, Copenhagen. (192), 16–26.
FAO, 2002. Urban and Peri-urban Forestry Sub-Programme: Kennedy, J.J., Ward Thomas, J., 1995. Managing natural
Strategic Framework for the Biennium 2002–2003 and Mid resources as social value. In: Knight, R.L., Bates, S.F. (Eds.),
Term 2002–2007. FAO FORC, Rome. A New Century for Natural Resources Management. Island
Forestry Commission, 1998. A New Focus for England’s Press, Washington, DCyCovelo, pp. 311–319.
 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186 185

Konijnendijk, C.C., 1999. Urban Forestry in Europe: A Com- GyarmatpusztayBudapest, Hungary, 9–12 May 2000. Min-
parative Study of Concepts, Policies and Planning for Forest isterie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Afdeling Bos &
Conservation, Management and Development in and Around Groen etc., Brussels, pp. 201–206.
Major European Cities. Doctoral dissertation. Research Nilsson, K., Konijnendijk, C.C. COST Action E12—Linking
Notes No. 90. Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu. together researchers on urban forests and trees in Europe.
Konijnendijk, C.C., 2001. Urban forestry in Europe. In: Palo, In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Schipperijn, J., Nilsson, K. (Eds.),
M., Uusivuori, J., Mery, G. (Eds.), World Forests, Markets COST Action E12—Proceedings No. 2. Office for Official
and Policies. World Forests, vol. III. Kluwer Academic Publications of the European Communities, Brussels, in
Publishers, Dordrecht etc, pp. 413–424. press.
Konijnendijk, C.C., Randrup, T.B., Nilsson, K., 2000. Urban Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B. (Eds.), 1996. Urban Forestry in
forestry research in Europe: an overview. Journal of Arbo- the Nordic Countries—Proceedings of a Nordic Workshop
riculture 26 (3), 152–161. on Urban Forestry, held in Reykjavik, Iceland, September
Krott, M., 1998. Urban forestry: management within the focus 21–24, 1996. Danish Forest and Landscape Research Insti-
of people and trees. In: Krott, M., Nilsson, K. (Eds.), tute etc., Hoersholm etc.
Multiple-use of Town Forests in International Comparison. NUFU, 2002. NUFU Website. Available from:
Proceedings of the First European Forum on Urban Forestry, www.nufu.org.uk.
¨
5–7 May 1998, Wuppertal. Gottingen: Institut fur
¨ Forstpol- Ottitsch, A., 2002. Urban forest policies—objectives and func-
tions—trends and developments. Results from a comparative
itik, Forstgeschichte und Naturschutz, pp. 9–19.
European study. Unpublished report, COST Action E12
Krott, M. Towards task-oriented comprehensive urban forestry. Urban Forests and Trees (manuscript in review by Urban
In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Koch, N.E., Hoyer, K.K., Schipper- Forestry and Urban Greening).
ijn, J. (Eds.), Forestry Serving Urbanised Societies. Pro-
¨
Otto, H.J., 1998. Stadtnahe Walder—kann die Fortstwirtschaft
ceedings of the IUFRO European Regional Conference, 27–
¨
sich noch verstandlich machen? Forst und Holz 53 (1),
30 August 2002, Copenhagen. Skov & Landskab,
19–22.
Hoersholm, personal communication.
Pauleit, S., Jones, N., Garcia-Martin, G., et al., 2002. Tree
Mather, A.S., 1990. Global Forest Resources. Belhaven Press,
establishment in towns and cities: results from a European
London.
survey. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1 (2), 83–96.
Mcpherson, E.G., Nowak, D., Heisler, G., et al., 1997. Quan-
Price, C., 2002. Quantifying the aesthetic benefits of urban
tifying urban forest structure, function, and value: the forestry. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1 (3), 123–134.
Chicago urban forest climate project. Urban Ecosystems 1,
Randrup, T.B., Gustavsson, R., Christophersen, T. (Eds.),
49–61.
Urban forestry in the Nordic and the Baltic countries—
McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., 1999. Carbon dioxide Reduc- Urban forests under transformation. Proceedings from an
tions through Urban Forestry: Guidelines, for Professional International Seminar on Urban Forestry in Kaunas, Lithu-
and Volunteer Tree Planters. General Technical Report PSW- ania, April 21–23, 2001. Reports No. 9. Danish Centre for
171. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Forest, Landscape and Planning, Hoersholm.
Station, Albany, CA. Rydberg, D., 1998. Urban forestry in Sweden—Silvicultural
Miller, R.W., 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing aspects focusing on young forests. Doctoral thesis. Acta
Urban Green Spaces. second ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae—Silvestria 73. Swedish
Miller, R.W., 2001. Urban forestry in third level education— University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea.˚
the US experience. In planting the idea—the role of educa- Sander, H., T.B. Randrup (Eds.), 1998. Urban forestry in the
tion in urban forestry. In: Collins, K.D., Konijnendijk, C.C. Nordic and Baltic countries. Proceedings of a Nordic Work-
(Eds.), Proceedings of the COST Action ‘Urban Forests shop on Urban Forestry held in Tallinn, Estonia, December
and Trees’ Seminar in Dublin, 23 March, 2000. The Tree 1–3, 1997. Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute,
Council of Ireland, Dublin, pp. 49–57. Hoersholm.
Milligan Raedeke, D.A., Raedeke, K.J., 1995. Wildlife habitat ¨
Topfer, K., 2001. The crucial importance of urban–rural
design in urban forest landscapes. In: Bradley, G.A. (Ed.), linkages. In: Virchow, D., von Braun, J. (Eds.), Villages in
Urban Forest Landscape: Integrating Multidisciplinary Per- the Future: Crops, Jobs and Livelihood. Springer, Berlin,
spectives. University of Washington Press, Seattle, London, etc, pp. 21–24.
pp. 139–149. ¨
Tyrvainen, L., 1999. Monetary valuation of urban forest
Moigneu, T., 2001. Recreation in the Paris region national amenities in Finland. Academic dissertation. Research
forests: a priceless service which should be costless? In: Papers 739. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa.
Konijnendijk, C.C., Flemish Forest Organisation, (Eds.), Vosteen, A., 2002. Paying for urban forests in Wuppertal. In:
Communicating and Financing Urban Woodlands in Europe. Konijnendijk, C.C., Flemish Forest Organisation, (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second and Third IUFRO European on Communicating and financing urban woodlands in Europe.
Urban Forestry, Aarhus, Denmark, 4–6 May 1999 and Proceedings of the Second and Third IUFRO European on
186 C.C. Konijnendijk / Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2003) 173–186

Urban Forestry, Aarhus, Denmark, 4–6 May 1999 and ´

Zaruba, C., 1998. Historical development and the present state
GyarmatpusztayBudapest, Hungary, 9–12 May 2000. Min- of municipal forests in the Czech Republic. In: Krott, M.,
isterie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Afdeling Bos & Nilsson, K. (Eds.), Multiple-use of Town Forests in Inter-
Groen etc., Brussels, pp. 207–214. national Comparison. Proceedings of the first European
WRI, 2001. Earthtrends: The Environmental Informational Forum on Urban Forestry, 5–7 May 1998, Wuppertal.
portal. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Availa- ¨ Forstpolitik, Forstgeschichte und Naturschutz,
Institut fur
ble from: http:yyearthtrends.wri.org. ¨
Gottingen, pp. 169–172.