Tree Removal / Care
While the perceived risk of death by falling trees (a part of the “tree risk” complex) is influenced by media and often hyped (the objective risk has been reported to be close to 1 : 10.000.000, almost as low as death by lightning),[5] singular events have encouraged a “proactive” stance so that even lightly damaged trees are likely to be removed in urban and public traffic surroundings.[3] As a tree ages and nears the end of its safe useful life expectancy (SULE),[6] it’s perceived amenity value is decreased greatly. A risk assessment normally carried out by local council’s arborist to determine the best course of action.[7][8] As with all public green spaces, trees in green urban spaces and their careful conservation is sometimes in conflict with aggressive urban development even though it is often understood how urban trees contribute to liveability of suburbs and cities both objectively (reduction of urban heat island effect, etc.) and subjectively.[9][10][11][12] Tree planting programs implemented by a growing number of cities, local councils and organizations is mitigating the losses and in most cases increasing the number of trees in suburbia.[13] Programs include the planting of 2 trees for every 1 tree removed, while some councils are paying land owners to keep trees instead of removing them for farming or construction.[14]
Tree care is the application of arboricultural methods like pruning, trimming, and felling/thinning[1] in built environments. Road verge, greenways, backyard and park woody vegetation are at the center of attention for the tree care industry. Landscape architecture and urban forestry[2][3] also set high demands on professional tree care. High safety standards against the dangers of tree care have helped the industry evolve. Especially felling in space-limited environments poses significant risks: the vicinity of power or telephone lines, insufficient protective gear (against falling dead wood, chainsaw wounds, etc.) and narrow felling zones with endangered nearby buildings, parking cars, etc.. The required equipment and experience usually transcends private means and is often considered too costly as a permanent part of the public infrastructure. In singular cases, traditional tools like handsaws may suffice, but large-scale tree care usually calls for heavy machinery like cranes, bucket trucks,harvesters, and woodchippers.
Road side trees are especially prone to biotic stress by exhaust fumes, toxic road debris, soil compaction, and drought which makes them susceptible to fungal infections and various plant pests.[4] When tree removal is not an option, because of road ecologyconsiderations, the main challenge is to achieve road safety (visibility of road signs, blockage-free lanes, etc.) while maintaining tree health.
Lebanon
Lebanon /ˈlɛbnən/ is the county seat of Wilson County, Tennessee, United States.[4]
The population was 26,190 at the 2010 census, 28,608 in 2013 and 32.372 following a special census conducted in 2016[5].
Lebanon is located in Middle Tennessee, approximately 25 miles (40 km) east of downtown Nashville. Lebanon is part of the Nashville Metropolitan Statistical Area.
The city was incorporated in 1801,[6] and was named after the biblical cedars of Lebanon.[7] Local residents have called Lebanon “Cedar City”, mostly a reference to the abundance of cedar trees in the area. The city is home to Cumberland University, a small, private four-year liberal arts institution.
As of the census[2] of 2000, there were 20,235 people, 7,987 households, and 5,319 families residing in the city. The population density was 692.0 people per square mile (267.2/km²). There were 8,693 housing units at an average density of 297.3 per square mile (114.8/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 82.89% White, 13.78% African American, 0.33% Native American, 0.82% Asian, 0.03% Pacific Islander, 1.00% from other races, and 1.15% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.26% of the population.
There were 7,987 households out of which 30.9% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 47.7% were married couples living together, 15.0% had a female householder with no husband present, and 33.4% were non-families. 28.5% of all households were made up of individuals and 11.1% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.41 and the average family size was 2.94.