Neighborhood Tree CanopyNeighborhood Tree CanopyNeighborhood Tree CanopyNeighborhood Tree Canopy

The purpose of this poster is to examine the neighborhoods of College Station, TX to determine which contains the highest percentage of tree canopy: an indicator of biodiversity and human well-being.

•Digital Orthographic Quarter Quadrangle photographs were obtained from the TNRIS website for the area within College Station’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). •The photographs were mosaicked using ERDAS Imagine software, and a supervised classification was performed to isolate the tree canopy in the photograph•Zonal attributes of the canopy image (canopy=1, all other features=3) were applied to the subdivision boundaries to obtain a percentage of canopy cover for each subdivision.

LAND 640 Final ProjectLAND 640 Final ProjectLAND 640 Final ProjectLAND 640 Final Project AprilApril 29, 2008, Mike Droske29, 2008, Mike DroskeAprilApril 29, 2008, Mike Droske29, 2008, Mike Droske

Introduction

Methods

Literature

Results

Relevance Finding Source

Ecology Tree canopy density is an indicator of biodiversity.

Noss, 1990; Noss & Harris, 1986

Ecology and Well-Being

Tree canopy provides habitat, reduces energy consumption, improves air and water quality, and reduces stormwater runoff.

Plotnik, 2000

Well-being

Views of vegetation provide benefits in psychological and physical health.

Ulrich, 1984

Smallest subdivision:

Plumtree Condos- 0.19 acres.

% Canopy: 40.9%

Largest subdivision:

Franklin Estates- 1480.46 acres.

% Canopy: 71.9%

Tree Canopy and Subdivision Area

TC = 0.0079a + 53.014

R2 = 0.0041

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00

Subdivision Area (In Acres)

Pe

rce

nt

Tre

e C

an

op

y

Subdivision Name Area (in Acres) % Canopy

CREEKSIDE TERRACE 2.56 100

CARTER LAKE MCGEE 2.58 99.7

SPRINGBROOK-COMMON AREA 18.55 96.9

LAKE PLACID EAST 4.96 96.2

BAKER 1.66 94.3

Subdivision Name Area (in Acres) % Canopy

BRANDYWINE 10.52 20.2

404 UNIVERSITY CENTER 2.49 24.6

CSISD WILLOW BRANCH & OAKWOOD SCHOOL SITES 31.78 28.9

CORNERSTONE COMMERCIAL 8.56 29.4

STONE FOREST 35.16 29.9

Top 5 Subdivisions in Percent Canopy

Bottom 5 Subdivisions in Percent Canopy

All subdivisions within the study area contained at least 20% canopy, and one contained 100%. There does not appear to be a strong correlation between percent canopy and subdivision area.References:Noss, R.F. “Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical approach.” Conservation Biology. Vol. 4 #4. December 1990. p. 355-364.Noss, Reed F.; Harris, Larry D. “Nodes, networks, and MUMs: Preserving diversity at all scales.” Environmental Management. Vol. 10, No 3. May,1986.Plotnik, Arthur, "The Urban Tree Book: An Uncommon Field Guide For City and Town", Three Rivers Press, NY, 2000, 7-8.Ulrich, Roger S. “View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery.” Science, Vol. 224. April 27, 1984. p. 420-421.

Conclusion

Neighborhood Tree CanopyNeighborhood Tree CanopyNeighborhood Tree CanopyNeighborhood Tree CanopyLAND 640 Final ProjectLAND 640 Final ProjectLAND 640 Final ProjectLAND 640 Final Project AprilApril 29, 2008, Mike Droske29, 2008, Mike DroskeAprilApril 29, 2008, Mike Droske29, 2008, Mike Droske

Tree Canopy and Residential Tenure

y = 0.0002x + 53.78

R2 = 6E-09

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Residential Tenure (in Years)

Pe

rce

nt

Tre

e C

an

op

y

Correlation With Other Factors

As an exploration of the relationship between tree canopy coverage and well-being, I plotted residential tenure against percent tree canopy. However, there was no apparent relationship between the two factors.