An Analysis of Street Tree Health

A 2018 Analysis of Street Tree Health and Ecosystem Services in the

Downtown Neighborhood, Worcester, Massachusetts
Juliette Gale *, Kelly Janus ♱ , Carly Robbins ‡

* Geography and Global Environmental Sciences, Geography Department, Clark University, Worcester, MA
01610
♱ Geographic Information Science, Department of IDCE, Clark University, Worcester, MA
‡ Geographic Information Science, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610

Abstract
Street trees benefit the economic, physical, and mental wellbeing of residents living and working in urban
neighborhoods. This study catalogued the presence, location, size, species, and health of current urban street
trees surrounding the financial and cultural Downtown Neighborhood of Worcester, MA. Data collection
and analysis was requested by and done on behalf of the Worcester Tree Initiative (WTI), a non-
governmental organization which advocates for street trees in Worcester. 444 data points were collected. Of
these, 337 were street trees, and 107 were street tree pits. Results showed clustering of street trees in
regions surrounding Mechanic’s Hall, the DCU Center, and Saint Vincent’s Hospital. Clustering of tree pits
existed by the Palladium, Saint Vincent’s Hospital, the former Worcester Market Building, and the
Worcester Police Department. The average street tree was relatively small with an average trunk diameter of
6.2 inches; however, 78% of street trees were found to be healthy and in good condition. The estimated
fiscal value provided by street trees in the Downtown Neighborhood totaled to approximately $4607.66 per
year, as of 2018. This figure is dependent upon the quantity, health, species, and size of street trees and will
increase as the trees grow, provided that they remain healthy. Future street tree planting recommendations
were given to WTI for the street tree ecosystem in the Downtown Neighborhood of Worcester.

Introduction
The Downtown Neighborhood in Worcester,
Massachusetts is currently undergoing a great deal
of spatial change. Worcester’s Downtown Urban
Revitalization Plan (URP), proposed in 2016, is
underway and rapidly targeting buildings and
streetscapes for redevelopment and investment
(Worcester Redevelopment Authority, 2016). In
redeveloping the streetscapes, the URP is
following a “complete street” design which calls
for widening sidewalks, constructing bike lanes
and bus shelters, improving lighting, and pushing
forward on landscaping efforts (Worcester
Redevelopment Authority, 2016). Landscaping
efforts include planting and maintaining street
trees. The “complete street” designated
revitalization areas partially overlap with
Worcester’s Streetscape Policy District and is
therefore subject to the Streetscape Policy. The
Streetscape Policy states that, “Street trees and
landscaped islands promote an aesthetically
pleasing environment, fostering a pedestrian-
friendly zone” (CWSP, 2012, p. 13). The policy
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services
outlines recommendations regarding tree spacing,
tree impact on visibility, planting and tree pit
requirements, and acceptable species (CWSP,
2012). Due to the recent plans for redevelopment,
WTI believes that this is a prime opportunity to
assess the current urban street tree ecosystem and
use this information to advocate for
improvements.
The City of Worcester has had a difficult history
regarding the health of urban trees. During the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, Worcester trees
were affected by various invasive species and
fungal disease outbreaks, including gypsy moths
and Dutch elm disease (Danko et al., 2016). In
1938, a hurricane hit the Worcester area, downing
over 3,000 street trees in the city and about ⅓ of
the total trees throughout the city (Figure 1). 15
years later, in 1953, a tornado tore through the
city, felling thousands of additional trees
throughout the city (Danko et al., 2016). The City
of Worcester implemented a tree planting program
to replace the loss of trees following these
devastating events. The program, however,
prioritized planting maple species for its known
urban resilience (Freilicher, 2011). This resulted
in 80-90% of Worcester’s street trees to be
composed of maple species (Danko et al., 2016;
Freilicher, 2011).
With Worcester’s trees being a monoculture of
maples, the city was vulnerable to species specific
disease and infestations. In the summer of 2008
the Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALB), a beetle
species that prefers maples, was discovered in
Worcester (Freilicher, 2011). In response, a
quarantine area and tree cutting program was
implemented to prevent the spread of ALB to
other areas (Danko et al., 2016). This program
resulted in the removal of over 30,000 trees in
Worcester County by 2014, leaving many of
Worcester’s once tree-dense areas bare (Danko et
al., 2016; Freilicher, 2011). This caused a major
loss of tree canopy and then highlighted the
importance of trees in providing benefits such as
energy savings and carbon avoided to the City of
Worcester (Freilicher et al., 2008).
This loss of trees prompted extensive tree planting
efforts throughout the city. In 2010, the City of
Worcester implemented an “adopt a tree” program
to supply trees to residents impacted by the ALB
outbreak. The Massachusetts Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR) also
administered USDA funds towards two replanting
programs that aimed to replant trees and increase
tree diversity (Freilicher, 2011).
In addition to these efforts, a new organization
was born as a response to the ALB outbreak. In
2009, the Worcester Tree Initiative (WTI) was
established by congressman James P. McGovern
and former Lt. Governor Tim Murray, with the
goal of replanting 30,000 trees in the Worcester
area within 5 years. WTI was able to complete
this replanting goal by October of 2014 through
tree giveaways, training programs, and a DCR
reforestation program (WTI, n.d.)
Presently, with the threat of ALB greatly
diminished and thousands of new trees planted
throughout Worcester, WTI has expanded its
focus beyond the initial replanting program.
Instead, WTI’s mission is “to make Worcester's
urban forest better than it was before the beetle,
because cities need forests, not just to be
surrounded by forests, but to be forest-like
themselves” (WTI, n.d.). To accomplish this goal,
WTI has continued planting programs and has
formed educational and youth programs to involve
1
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services
Worcester residents in the urban forest efforts
(WTI, n.d.). As urban forestry becomes more of a
priority in cities, a better definition of what
constitutes a “good” and “forest-like” urban
neighborhood will become more readily available.
To gather information, one of WTI’s objectives
has been to compile an inventory of street tree
data throughout all of the City of Worcester’s
neighborhoods. Street trees are trees over which
the city has jurisdiction; they grow in cutouts by
sidewalks and in medians between roads. WTI
collects this data so that the organization has
quantitative data to support future tree planting
and and to inform city planning.
Street trees bestow ecological, health, economic
and aesthetic benefits to the City of Worcester.
Urban trees are important for the storage of CO2,
the interception of gaseous and particulate air
pollutants, and the reduction of stormwater runoff
(McPherson et al., 2007). In addition, tree
presence and their ecological benefits have
positive impacts on human mental and
physiological health, reducing emotional and
physical stress on the body, as well as reducing
noise pollution (McPherson et al., 2007).
Because street tree distribution is artificial, there is
a potential for uneven and arbitrary distribution
across the city (Heynen, 2003). This can lead to
the uneven distribution of the ecological,
economic, and health benefits that trees provide.
Attention to street tree distribution is of
importance, as it has been shown that tree absence
disproportionately impacts marginalized
communities (Heynen, 2003). Tree planting
initiatives that target areas of tree absence have the
potential to bring the benefits of trees to areas of
need.
As a continuation of WTI’s work, the main
objectives of this study include: 1) the mapping of
the locations and condition of street trees in the
Downtown Neighborhood, 2) the calculation of
the total annual ecosystem services provided by
the Downtown Neighborhood street trees, and 3)
the determination of potential planting areas
within the neighborhood.
Study Area
WTI provided a study area of the Downtown
Neighborhood for this study (Figure 2). WTI
restricted the neighborhood within the boundaries
of Highland Street and Belmont Street to the
North; Summer Street and Francis J. McGrath
Boulevard to the East; Madison Street to the
South; and Irving Street, Linden Street, and
Lancaster Street to the West.
It is important to note that not all trees in the study
area are street trees. Some are privately owned
and maintained by home and business owners.
Some grow in abandoned parcels of land, and
some exist in public parks. Total tree canopy data
called “Urban Tree Cover” was created using
LiDAR and WorldView-2 imagery by Dr. A.
Elmes of Clark University. This data shows
additional trees in the Downtown Neighborhood
which are not street trees and were not analyzed in
this study.
Notable buildings in the study area include:
Hanover Theatre, Worcester Public Library,
Worcester City Hall, Denholm Building,
Worcester Historical Museum, Worcester Police
Department, DCU Center, Saint Vincent’s
Hospital, The Palladium, Mechanic’s Hall, The
US Government District Court Building, and the
Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health.
2
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services
Methods
Data Collection
Fieldwork data were collected by Clark University
researchers, J. Gale, N. Geron, E. Keller, K. Janus,
and C. Robbins from September through
November 2018.
Street Tree Location
Street trees and tree pits were geolocated using
Garmin handheld eTrex GPS devices. With these
devices, each tree was recorded as a waypoint
with an associated latitude and longitude
coordinate. The presence of buildings interfered
with the satellite signals in some locations.
Therefore, tree locations in certain areas of the
map, such as Foster Street and the intersection of
Main Street and Myrtle Street, needed to be
corrected manually. In addition to latitude and
longitude, the street tree location type was
identified as either existing in a sidewalk cutout,
planting strip, street median, planting pot, or other.
The address of the nearest building to each tree
was recorded.
The open-source software called DNRGPS—
which stands for Department of Natural
Resources; Global Positioning System—version
6.1.0.6 was used to extract the latitude and
longitude data from the handheld Garmin eTrex
GPS units (Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, 2014). The open-source online
application, MyGeodata converter, was used to
convert the fileGDB files created with DNRPGS
into shapefiles (.shp) to be used in Esri ArcMap
(GeoCzeh, 2018).
Street Tree Attributes
Each tree was identified by its species. The
diameter at breast height (DBH) was measured in
inches for each tree. Crown condition and bark
condition were assessed by vigor as good, fair,
poor, and dead. Because field data collection took
place in autumn, the foliage had already gone
through abscission for some street trees at the time
of collection. In this case, crown condition was
characterized as good if the bark condition was
good. Sidewalk heave caused by street trees was
assessed with consideration toward public safety
and accessibility, and notes were recorded
regarding possible maintenance.
The location of tree pits was recorded, and all
other attributes were recorded as ‘none’ (Figure
4).
Tax Parcel Data
Socioeconomic variables were obtained through
tax parcel data (2006), provided by MassGIS
(Mass.gov, 2018). These included land value,
building value, and building construction year.
These data were input as explanatory variables—
along with crown condition of the nearest street
tree as the dependent variable—into an ordinary
least squares regression to determine the
characteristics of areas with healthy or unhealthy
street trees and to provide explanations for why
street tree condition varies spatially. This
regression was conducted to answer the question,
“Can property value, building value, or property
age predict street tree crown condition?” This
statistical analysis may inform environmental
justice concerns in the Downtown Neighborhood.
Street tree and tree pit density mapping
To map the density of the street trees and tree pits
in the Downtown Neighborhood, the Kernel
Density tool in ArcGIS was run. When
3
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services
calculating both the street tree and the tree pit
densities, all observations were weighted equally.
Monetary value of ecosystem services
i-Tree Eco is an open source software that is used
to assign a monetary value to the following
services provided by street trees: carbon
sequestration, carbon avoided, pollution removal,
avoided sewage runoff, and energy (building
heating/cooling) savings. Tree species, DBH, leaf
condition, tree distance to building, and direction
of tree from the nearest building were input into i-
Tree Eco from the inventory data. This
information was then submitted to the i-Tree Eco
server for processing. When the results returned,
the monetary value and weight of each service was
given for each tree in a data table. Results were
then summarized by species through ArcGIS by
summarizing the data table by species.
Ecosystem services assessment
The Hot Spot Analysis tool in ArcGIS was run to
identify concentrations of high or low total annual
benefits by calculating the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic
(Ord & Getis, 1995). The spatial scale of analysis
was defined by the Manhattan distance at which
clustering was most pronounced. The Incremental
Spatial Autocorrelation tool in ArcGIS was run to
determine this distance.
Street tree condition assessment
An ordinary least squares regression was
conducted to determine the strength of the
relationships between street tree crown condition
and the land value, building value, and building
construction date of the parcel closest to the street
tree. Because of the assumption of independent
observations when running ordinary least squares
regressions, the data were evaluated for spatial
independence using an autocorrelogram (Figure
14). Additionally, a Hot Spot Analysis was run to
identify spatial clusters of street trees in similar
health condition.
Results
Street tree presence maps
The Downtown Neighborhood was sparsely
populated with street trees when this study was
conducted. Street trees in the Downtown
Neighborhood were predominantly located east of
Main St. Within the newly developed Grid
District, Portland Street had high counts of street
trees (Figure 3A).
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Exchange
Street, and Foster Street showed high street tree
density. Regarding Foster Street, the stretch near
the DCU Center and Saint Vincent’s Hospital
exhibited the highest kernel density of street trees
in comparison to the other areas along this street
(Figure 3B).
The majority of the street trees found in the
Downtown Neighborhood were ornamental
species such as honey locust, cherry, crab apple,
and dogwood (Figure 5). Honey locusts
dominated the neighborhood: 124 of the 337 total
street trees were honey locusts. Pin oaks were
also widely abundant with a count of 63 (Figure
6). Together, the honey locusts and the pin oaks
represented nearly half of the total street trees in
the Downtown Neighborhood. Despite the
extensive tree removal to contain ALB—which
prefers maple hosts—eight maple street trees were
documented in the study area (Figure 6).
Street trees were fairly small in this neighborhood.
The average DBH of a Downtown Neighborhood
street tree was 6.2 inches. However, there were a
4
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services
few street trees whose DBH was greater than 20
inches (Figure 7). While many of the street trees
were small in diameter, they were mostly healthy.
Overall, street trees in the neighborhood mostly
exhibited good or fair crown condition (Figure 8).
Specifically, 78% were in good condition, 14% in
fair condition, 6% in poor condition, and 2% dead.
Ecosystem benefits
Considering all street trees within the study area,
$4,607.66 in total annual benefits for the
Downtown Neighborhood were calculated using i-
Tree Eco. Honey locusts and pin oaks were the
most cost beneficial species found in the
Downtown Neighborhood when total annual
benefits were aggregated by species (Figure 9).
Honey locusts in the neighborhood collectively
contribute slightly more than $900 in total annual
benefits. Similarly, all pin oaks in the Downtown
Neighborhood contribute around $750 in total
annual benefits (Figure 9). Honey locusts and pin
oaks contributed the highest monetary annual
benefits to the neighborhood due to their high
counts. See Table 1 for the complete total savings
of ecosystem services by species results.
When average total benefits were calculated by
aggregating the total annual benefits by species
and normalizing by the count of that species, the
London plane was most cost beneficial species
(Figure 10). However, there was only one London
plane street tree noted in the study area. The
average total annual benefits provided by the
London plane was around $65 in comparison to
under $10 provided by the honey locust (Figure
10). The high value of ecosystem services
provided by the London plane tree can in part be
explained by its large size (DBH = 19.2 inches).
Other high-performing species include maple and
pin oak. Ornamental species such as callery pear,
Japanese zelkova, and serviceberry are
underperforming species (Figure 10). See Table 2
for the complete average savings of ecosystem
services by species results.
Results showed agreement with R. Singh’s (2017)
study that used i-Tree Eco to model ecosystem
services of juvenile trees in the City of Worcester.
Singh’s study also concluded that pin oak is a top
performing species and that serviceberry is an
underperforming species (Figures 11 and 12).
However, Singh found that tulip was a top
performing species for i-Tree Eco runs under the
then present conditions in 2016 (Figure 11) and
under future projections to 2046 (Figure 12).
Meanwhile, this study concluded that the tulip
street trees provided $31.02 in total annual
savings, with an average annual savings of $2.82
(Tables 1 and 2). Differences in findings are
likely due to the placement of the trees.
A total annual benefits hot spot analysis revealed
hot spots in high density tree areas. These areas
included Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,
Exchange Street, and Bridge Street.
Meanwhile, Front Street and Franklin Street
contained cold spots (Figure 13). These cold spots
do not represent not street trees providing negative
benefits. Instead, cold spots reveal street trees that
contribute low total annual benefits and that are
surrounded by other street trees providing low
benefits.
Street tree condition regression and hot spot
analysis
Ordinary least squares regression results indicated
no statistically significant explanatory variables.
There was virtually no variance in crown
condition that could be explained by land value,
building value, or building construction year (r2 =
0.0011, adjusted r2 = -0.014). See Table 3 for
5
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services
more comprehensive regression results. The
assumption that observations must be independent
associated with performing a regression was not
violated, as informed by the correlogram. The
correlogram showed that spatial autocorrelation
hovered around 0 at almost all distances, meaning
that crown condition was spatially random (Figure
14). Therefore, observations were independent.
Because observations were spatially random, a hot
spot analysis of crown condition revealed no
statistically significant hot or cold spots.
Discussion
Although honey locust and pin oaks are the most
frequent street tree species and have the highest
total economic benefits, the benefits given by
individuals of these tree species is are not high.
Because the leaf condition of the majority of these
trees ranges between good and fair, the low
benefits of individual trees could be attributed to
their small DBH. The small DBH can indicate that
these trees are young. However, it can also be an
indication that the trees do not have appropriate
conditions for growth. Since the age of the trees
are unknown, specific conclusions can not be
drawn as to why the economic benefits of
individual honey locusts and pin oaks are low.
There is potential for the trees in the Downtown
Neighborhood to provide greater benefits as they
grow in size. As the trees grow in size they have
the potential to intercept more runoff, provide
more shade, and sequester more carbon. In
addition there is potential for the trees to provide
greater benefits, in terms of energy savings, if
trees are planted in closer proximity to buildings.
Closer proximity can increase energy savings, as
the shade a tree provides may reduce the amount
of energy required for cooling a building during
warmer months.
The high proportion of trees in good health is most
likely due to Worcester DPW maintaining the
removal of unhealthy street trees. However, as
about ¼ of the data points collected were empty
tree pits, Worcester DPW is not rapidly replacing
the trees removed. The active removal of
unhealthy trees by Worcester DPW is likely why
there was no relationship between crown health
and the chosen explanatory variables.
The distribution and clustering of street trees in
downtown can be attributed to the fact that tree
planting locations are actively selected by people.
As can be observed, trees are clustered around
Mechanics Hall, the DCU Center, and St. Vincent
Hospital—locations that attract large amounts of
people to the downtown area. Tree pits are
clustered in the same areas where there is a high
density of street trees. This indicates that there are
pits located in areas the city has already invested
in planting trees.
Additionally, areas of low tree pit density also
correspond with areas of low street tree density. In
these areas, there is no space currently available
for the planting of street trees due to the
continuous sidewalk. The lack of tree pits and
street trees signal that these are areas where tree
presence was not prioritized in the planning
process. If trees are to be planted in these areas,
infrastructure would have to be developed to
accommodate new street trees.
Recommendations to Worcester Tree Initiative
At the completion of this study, recommendations
for WTI have been condensed into three main
points: 1) plant trees where there are currently tree
6
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services
pits, 2) attempt to diversify species to avoid
monoculture, and 3) develop street tree
infrastructure in areas where it does not already
exist.
After conducting a kernel density analysis, six
areas in the Downtown Neighborhood were found
to have high concentrations of tree pits. These
areas can be seen in Figure 15 and are primarily at
the intersections of Main Street and Myrtle Street
and High Street and Myrtle Street. Other areas are
along Summer Street by Saint Vincent’s Hospital,
near the intersection of Foster Street and Bridge
Street, on Major Taylor Boulevard in front of the
Worcester Police Station, on Main Street in front
of the Palladium, and on Martin Luther King Jr.
Blvd in front of Uno Pizzeria & Grill. We
recommend prioritizing replanting trees in these
high density tree pits areas because the
infrastructure and cutouts to support street trees
already exist.
Second, we recommend diversifying the species of
trees planted. Based on our findings, over a third
of the street trees downtown are honey locust.
Honey locusts are native to the Americas, fast-
growing, and can survive in most urban
environments, which makes them good candidates
for street trees (Arbor Day Foundation, 2018).
Nevertheless, based on Worcester’s past history
with the ALB significantly harming the city’s
maple tree monoculture, it is wise to avoid
widespread homogeneity in street tree species. As
previously mentioned, honey locust and pin oak
make up over half of the species of street trees in
Worcester’s Downtown Neighborhood.
Third, we recommend an expansion of plantable
areas where neither street trees nor street tree pits
exist. Kernel density mapping was used to
highlight high and low street tree density areas and
to draw attention to locations without street tree
infrastructure (Figure 16). Five out of six of these
regions are located west of Main Street.
Future work
Additional work like this study is necessary in
other neighborhoods of Worcester to complete the
street tree inventory for WTI. These studies should
also focus on the potential monetary benefits of
the street trees in Worcester neighborhoods in
order understand how the benefits of street trees
are spatially distributed throughout the city.
Inventories must also be updated over time to
account for tree losses and tree plantings
following these studies.
Further study of the street trees in the Downtown
Neighborhood can be conducted to understand the
socio-economic implications of the distribution of
street trees. Further analysis can be performed
using spatial statistics and interviews to determine
if there is correlation between street tree presence
or absence and different demographics of
Downtown residents like race, income, and
housing type. This type of study can help inform if
there is an equitable distribution of street trees in
the Downtown Neighborhood.
Conclusion
This study provides a benchmark for 2018 of the
location, condition, and monetary value of street
trees in the Downtown Neighborhood of
Worcester, MA. Street trees in the neighborhood
are small and limited in number. With many “tree
deserts” and the revitalization of the Downtown
Neighborhood, there is potential for street trees to
7
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services
be included in the development. Results, maps,
and analysis will be provided to WTI with the
purpose of using them to advocate for intelligent
tree planting so that neighbor may reap the
numerous street tree benefits.
References
Arbor Day Foundation. (2018). Thornless
Honeylocust: Gleditsia Triacanthos form
Inermis. Retrieved from
https://www.arborday.org/trees/treeguide/tr
eedetail.cfm?itemID=852
The City of Worcester. (2012, November).
CITY OF WORCESTER STREETSCAPE
POLICY (CWSP). Retrieved from
http://www.worcesterma.gov/uploads/d0/2
0/d0207e356785673bdd5f95176be009da/st
reetscape-policy.pdf
Danko III, J. J., Delauer, V., Martin, D.
G., & Rogan, J. (2016). Worcester,
Massachusetts: A History of Urban
Forestry Practices. Northeastern
Geographer, 8.
Freilicher, M. (2011). Tree by Tree, Yard
by Yard: Replanting Worcester’s Trees.
Arnoldia, 69(1), 1-12. Retrieved from
http://arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/pdf/a
rticles/2011-69-1-tree-by-tree-yard-by-
yard-replanting-worcester-s-trees.pdf
Freilicher, M., Kane, B.C., Ryan, H.D.P.,
& Bloniarz, D.V. (2008). A Report on the
Status of Street Trees in Worcester,
Massachusetts Trees in Peril: Responding
to the Asian Longhorned Beetle.” The City
of Worcester and Massachusetts
Department of Conservation and
Recreation.
GeoCzeh. (2018). My Geodata Converter.
Retrieved from
https://mygeodata.cloud/converter/
Heynen, N. C. (2003). The scalar
production of injustice within the urban
forest. Antipode, 35(5), 980-998.
Mass.gov. (n.d.). MassGIS (Bureau of
Geographic Information). Retrieved from
https://www.mass.gov/orgs/massgis-
bureau-of-geographic-information
McPherson, G., Center for Urban Forest
Research, Pacific Southwest Research
Station, & USDA Forest Service, Davis,
CA. (2007). Los Angeles One Million Tree
Canopy Cover Assessment Final Report.
Department of Land, Air, and Water
Resources, University of California Davis.
Retrieved from
https://www.sactree.com/assets/files/green
print/UrbanForestforCleanAir/psw_cufr68
9a_MillionTreesLA_final_web.pdf.
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (2014). DNRGPS (Version
6.1.0.6) [Computer software]. St. Paul,
MN: Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources. Available from
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mis/gis/DNR
GPS/DNRGPS.html
Ord, J. K., & Getis, A. (1995). Local
spatial autocorrelation statistics:
distributional issues and an application.
Geographical analysis, 27(4), 286-306.
Singh, R. (2017). Modeling Ecosystem
Services of Juvenile Trees in Worcester,
MA ALB Regulated Area using i-Tree
Eco. Worcester, MA: Clark University.
Worcester Redevelopment Authority.
Downtown Urban Revitalization Plan
Worcester, Massachusetts. April 2016.
8
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Retrieved from Retrieved from

http://www.worcesterma.gov/development/ http://www.treeworcester.org/our-
wra story.html
Worcester Tree Initiative. (n.d.)
Rebuilding Worcester's Urban Forest.

9
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Street trees on Dale Street, Worcester downed by the 1938 hurricane (A). Current condition of
Dale Street (B).

10
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 2: Downtown Neighborhood study area

11
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 3: Locations of street trees and tree pits in the Downtown Neighborhood (A). Density of street trees
in the Downtown Neighborhood (B).

12
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 4: Locations of Street Tree Pits in the Downtown Neighborhood as of 2018

13
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 5: Tree species found in the Downtown Neighborhood. Species with counts of at least ten individuals
in the study area are included. Ten additional species with counts less than ten individuals in the study area
are categorized as ‘other.’

14
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 6: Histogram of species found in the Downtown Neighborhood. 17 different species of street trees
were found within the study area. Spp indicates species that were identified to the genus level.

15
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 7: DBH of street trees in the Downtown Neighborhood

16
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 8: Street tree crown condition in the Downtown Neighborhood

17
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 9: Total annual savings by species found in the Downtown Neighborhood. Total savings combine
values from carbon sequestration, avoided runoff, carbon avoided, pollution removal, and energy savings.

Figure 10: Average annual savings by tree species found in the Downtown Neighborhood. This figure shows
the amount of savings one individual of each species may provide. Total savings combine values from
carbon sequestration, avoided runoff, carbon avoided, pollution removal, and energy savings.

18
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 11: Top 20 performing juvenile tree species in Worcester in 2016, based on by species service
savings. The highest performing species are highlighted in the red box and include magnolia, beech, and
snow goose cherry. Underperforming species include American arborvitae and serviceberry (Singh, 2017).

Figure 12: Forecast of the top 20 performing tree species in Worcester in 2046, based on by species service
savings. The highest performing species are highlighted in the red box and include Norway spruce, tulip,
and snow goose cherry. American arborvitae remains the lowest performing species (Singh, 2017).

19
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 13: Hot spot analysis of total annual benefits of individual trees. Hot spots indicate statistically
significant clusters of high monetary benefits. Cold spots indicate statistically significant clusters of low
monetary benefits.

20
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 14: Correlogram of street tree crown condition, depicting how the spatial autocorrelation changes
with distance (top). Histogram showing the number of pairs of observations in each distance bin (bottom).

21
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 15: Recommended areas for street tree planting based on the resuscitation of existing tree pits. These
recommendations are areas in the Downtown Neighborhood with the highest tree pit density.

22
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Figure 16: Recommended new planting sites. These sites have low street tree density and have few tree pits
present. New infrastructure would be required to plant new trees in these areas.

23
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Table 1: Total savings of ecosystem services by species. This table depicts the estimated savings of all
street trees by species in the Downtown Neighborhood.
Total Annual Savings of Ecosystem Services by Species
Total Gross Total Total Total
Carbon Avoided Carbon Pollution
Sequestration Runoff Avoided Removal Total Energy Total Annual
Species ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) Savings ($/yr) Benefits ($/yr)
Honey locust 73.22 30.58 223.85 128.37 924.05 915.92
Pin oak 48.14 24.51 89.17 103.04 491.82 756.69
Linden 20.02 20.71 3.97 87.12 60.83 192.61
Callery pear 23.76 8.25 9.52 34.66 33.31 23.85
crabapple 7.15 4.47 15.96 18.83 70.01 55.47

Japanese zelkova 5.16 3.1 1.2 13.03 1.67 21.75

Tulip tree 1.01 1.38 3.13 5.72 19.79 31.02
Ginkgo 4.59 2.39 24.32 10.09 114.7 156.07
Japanese cherry 3.07 1.69 9.51 7.1 45.54 66.94
maple spp 12.96 12.01 17.53 50.44 96.8 189.71
ash spp 2.32 1.67 9.8 6.96 53.21 73.97
dogwood spp 0.82 0.63 4.3 2.66 19.08 19.27
hornbeam spp 1.13 1.22 1.64 5.14 8.61 17.75
American elm 1.04 1.15 1.56 4.83 9.2 17.77
fir spp 0.13 0.07 0.78 0.29 3.54 3.83

London planetree 2.97 1.87 9.41 7.85 43.92 66.02

serviceberry spp 0.12 0.06 0.49 0.26 2 2.04

24
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Table 2: Average savings of ecosystem services by species. This table depicts the estimated savings of an
individual of each species in the Downtown Neighborhood.

Average Annual Savings of Ecosystem Services by Species

Average
Gross Average Average Average
Carbon Avoided Carbon Average Energy Average Annual
Sequestratio Runoff Avoided Pollution Savings Benefits
Species n ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) Removal ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr)
Honey locust 0.5905 0.2466 1.8052 1.0352 7.452 7.3865
Pin oak 1.3993 0.7002 3.1877 2.9431 17.8381 26.0686
Linden 0.9275 0.8905 0.1677 3.7432 2.4902 8.2149
Callery pear 0.8486 0.2946 0.34 1.2379 1.1896 0.8518
Crabapple 0.3763 0.2353 0.84 0.9911 3.6847 2.9195

Japanese zelkova 0.2867 0.1722 0.0667 0.7239 0.0928 1.2083

Tulip tree 0.0918 0.1255 0.2845 0.52 1.7991 2.82
Ginkgo 0.51 0.2656 2.7022 1.1211 12.7444 17.3411

Japanese cherry 0.3838 0.2113 1.1887 0.8875 5.6925 8.3675

maple spp 3.1693 3.0887 4.2767 12.9773 23.624 47.1287
ash spp 0.3867 0.2783 1.6333 1.16 8.8683 12.3283
dogwood spp 0.205 0.1575 1.075 0.665 4.77 4.8175
hornbeam spp 0.565 0.61 0.82 2.57 4.305 8.875
American elm 1.04 1.15 1.56 4.83 9.2 17.77
fir spp 0.13 0.07 0.78 0.29 3.54 3.83

London planetree 2.97 1.87 9.41 7.85 43.92 66.02

serviceberry spp 0.12 0.06 0.49 0.26 2 2.04

25
An Analysis of Street Tree Health and Neighborhood Ecosystem Services

Table 3: Ordinary least squares regression results

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t- Statistic Probability

CONSTANT 86.3417 2.00147 43.1391 0.00000

LAND VALUE 4.72938e-008 2.86429e-007 0.165115 0.86894

BUILDING 3.07848e-009 3.91108e-008 0.0787117 0.93730

VALUE

YEAR BUILDING -5.96354e-005 0.000977249 -0.0610237 0.95138

BUILT

R-squared: 0.001065
Adjusted R-squared : -0.014209
Akaike info criterion : 2611.42

26