Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 553–571 | Cite as

Structuring institutional analysis for urban ecosystems: A key to sustainable urban forest management

  • Sarah K. MinceyEmail author
  • Miranda Hutten
  • Burnell C. Fischer
  • Tom P. Evans
  • Susan I. Stewart
  • Jessica M. Vogt


A decline in urban forest structure and function in the United States jeopardizes the current focus on developing sustainable cities. A number of social dilemmas—for example, free-rider problems—restrict the sustainable production of ecosystem services and the stock of urban trees from which they flow. However, institutions, or the rules, norms, and strategies that affect human decision-making, resolve many such social dilemmas, and thus, institutional analysis is imperative for understanding urban forest management outcomes. Unfortunately, we find that the definition of institutions varies greatly across and within disciplines, and conceptual frameworks in urban forest management and urban ecosystems research often embed institutions as minor variables. Given the significance of institutional analysis to understanding sustainable rural resource management, this paper attempts to bring clarity to defining, conceptually framing, and operationally analyzing institutions in urban settings with a specific focus on sustainable urban forest management. We conclude that urban ecologists and urban forest management researchers could benefit from applying a working definition of institutions that uniquely defines rules, norms, and strategies, by recognizing the nested nature of operational, collective choice, and constitutional institutions, and by applying the Institutional Analysis and Development framework for analysis of urban social-ecological systems (SESs). Such work promises to spur the desired policy-based research agenda of urban forestry and urban ecology and provide cross-disciplinary fertilization of institutional analysis between rural SESs and urban ecosystems.


Urban forest management Urban forest policy Institutional analysis Ecosystem services Public goods Sustainability 



This research was funded in part by Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs Sustainability Grant, and Indiana University’s Center for Research in Environmental Science (CRES) Sustainability Grant. The first author was also supported by The Garden Club of America Zone VI Fellowship in Urban Forestry. The authors would like to thank Kerry Krutilla, Michael McGinnis, Michael Cox and Elinor Ostrom for their reviews of this manuscript.


  1. Anderies JM, Janssen M, Ostrom E (2004) A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol Soc 9(1):18Google Scholar
  2. Barthel S, Colding J, Folke C (2005) History and local management of a biodiversity-rich, urban, cultural landscape. Ecol Soc 10(2):10Google Scholar
  3. Beddoe R, Costanza R, Farley J, Garza E, Kent J, Kubiszewski I, Martinez L, McCowen T, Murphy K, Myers N, Ogden Z, Stapleton K, Woodward J (2009) Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. PNAS USA 106:2483–2489. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812570106 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benvie S (2005) A case for using adaptive platforms in the development and implementation of urban-centered adaptive management plans. Urban Ecosyst 8:285–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blood E (1994) Prospects for the development of integrated regional models. In: Groffman P, Likens G (eds) Integrated regional models: interactions between humans and their environment. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolund P, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ 29:293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boone CG, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Schwarz K, Buckley GL (2009) Landscape, vegetation characteristics, and group identity in an urban and suburban watershed: why the 60s matter. Urban Ecosyst 13:255–271. doi: 10.1007/s11252-009-0118-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyden S (1977) Integrated ecological studies of human settlements. Impacts of Sci on Soc 27:159–169Google Scholar
  9. Buckley G (2010) America's forest legacy: A Century of Saving Trees in the Old Line State. Center for American Places, Santa Fe, NMGoogle Scholar
  10. Burch W Jr, DeLuca D (1984) Measuring the social impact of natural resource policies. New Mexico University Press, AlburquerqueGoogle Scholar
  11. Calvert R (1995) Rational actors, equilibrium, and social institutions. In: Knight J, Sened I (eds) Explaining social institutions. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 57–94Google Scholar
  12. Chhatre A, Agrawal A (2009) Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. PNAS USA 106(42):17667–17670. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905308106 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark JR, Matheny N, Cross G, Wake V (1997) A model of urban forest sustainability. J Arboric 23(1):17–30Google Scholar
  14. Colding J, Lundberg J, Folke C (2006) Incorporating green user groups in urban ecosystem management. Ambio 35:237–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coleman J (1988) Free riders and zealots: the role of social networks. Sociol Theory 6:52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Commons JR (1986) Legal foundations of capitalism. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  17. Conway TM, Urbani L (2007) Variation in municipal urban forestry policy: a case study of Toronto, Canada. Urban For Urban Green 6:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cox M, Arnold G, Villamayor Tomás S (2010) A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecol Soc 15(4):38Google Scholar
  19. Crawford S, Ostrom E (1995) A grammar of institutions. Am Pol Sci Rev 89:582–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duany A, Speck J, Lydon M (2009) The smart growth manual. McGraw-Hill, Columbus, OHGoogle Scholar
  21. Dwyer JF, Nowak D, Noble M (2003) Sustaining urban forests. J Arboric 29(1):49–55Google Scholar
  22. Ernstson H, Sorlin S, Elmquist T (2008) Social movements and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 13:39Google Scholar
  23. Fischer BC, Steed B (2008) Street trees: a misunderstood common pool resource. In: Int ernational Society of Arboriculture: 84th Annual Conference and Trade Show, St. Louis, Missouri. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson CC, Andersson K, Ostrom E, Shivakumar S (2005) The samaritan’s dilemma: the political economy of development aid. Oxford University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibson CC, McKean M, Ostrom E (2000) People and forests: communities, institutions, and governance. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Grove JM (2009) Cities: managing densely settled social-ecological systems. In: Chapin FS, Kofinas G, Folke C (eds) Principles of ecosystem stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp 281–294Google Scholar
  27. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hardy SD, Koontz T (2010) Collaborative watershed partnership in urban and rural areas: different pathways to success? Landscape Urban Plan 95:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayek FA (1945) The use of knowledge in society. Am Econ Rev 35:519–530Google Scholar
  30. Hayek FA (1967) Studies in philosophy, politics and economics. University of Chicago press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  31. Hodgson G (2006) What are institutions? J Econ Issues 40:1–25Google Scholar
  32. Hohfeld W (1913) Some fundamental legal concepts as applied in the study of primitive law. Yale Law J 23:16–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IHDP (International Human Dimensions Programme) (2010) Urbanization and global environmental change project. IHDP Webpage,
  34. Jenkins V (1994) The lawn: A history of an American obsession. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Kiser L, Ostrom E (1982) The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: Ostrom E (ed) Strategies of political inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 179–222Google Scholar
  36. Knight J (1992) Institutions and social conflict. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  37. Lant CL, Ruhl J, Kraft S (2008) The tragedy of ecosystem services. Biosci 58(10):969–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Larsen L, Harlan S (2006) Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landscape Urban Plan 78(1–2):85–100. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Larson K, Casagrande D, Harlan S, Yabiku S (2009) Residents' yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Env Manag 44:921–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis DK (1969) Convention: a philosophical study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. Li F, Wang R, Liu X, Zhang X (2005) Urban forest in China: development patterns, influencing factors, and research prospects. Int J Sust Dev World 12:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lowe P, Whitman G, Phillipson S (2009) Ecology and social sciences. J Appl Ecol 46(2):297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Machlis G, Force J, Burch W Jr (1997) The human ecosystem part I: the human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Soc Nat Resour 10:347–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin C, Peterson K, Stabler L (2003) Residential landscaping in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.: practices and preferences relative to covenants, codes, and restrictions. J Arboric 29:9–16Google Scholar
  45. McDonnell M, Pickett S (1993) Humans as components of ecosystems: the ecology of subtle human effects and populated areas. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McGinnis M (2011) Networks of adjacent action situations in polycentric governance. Pol Stud J 39(1):51–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McIntyre N, Knowles-Yanez K, Hope D (2000) Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: the differences in the use of “urban” between social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosyst 4:5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McPherson EG (2001) Sacramento’s parking lot shading ordinance: environmental and economic costs of compliance. Landscape Urban Plan 57(2):105–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McPherson EG (2006) Urban forestry in North America. Renew Resour J 24(3):8–12Google Scholar
  50. McPherson EG, Nowak D, Heisler G, Grimmond S, Souch C, Grant R, Rowntree (1997) Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban Ecosyst 1:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Menger C (1963) Problems of economics and sociology: (Untersuchungen über die Methode der Socialwissenschaften und der politischen Oekonomie insbesondere), Schneider L (ed), Nock FJ (trans). University of Illinois Press, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  52. Michalos AC (1997) Combining social, economic, and environmental indicators to measure sustainable human well-being. Soc Indic Res 40:221–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moran E (2005) Human-environment interactions in forest ecosystems: an introduction. In: Moran E, Ostrom E (eds) Seeing the forest and the trees: human interactions in forest ecosystems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  54. Munger M (2010) Endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful: Elinor Ostrom and the diversity of institutions. Public Choice 143:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nagendra H, Gopal D (2011) Tree diversity, distribution, history and change in urban parks: studies in Bangalore, India. Urban Ecosyst 14(2):211–223. doi: 10.1007/s11252-010-0148-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nilsson K, Konijnendijk C, Randrup T (1999). Urban forestry: where people meet trees. In: Heeley T (ed) Community forestry - a change for the better: conference proceedings, December 7–8, 1999, London. Forestry Commission and the Countryside Agency, Cheltenham, UK, pp 28–31Google Scholar
  57. North DC (1986) The new institutional economics. J Inst Theor Econ 142:230–237Google Scholar
  58. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  59. Nowak DJ, Dwyer J (2000) Understanding the benefits and costs if urban forest ecosystems. In: Kuser J (ed) Urban and community forestry in the Northeast. Plenum Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Nowak DJ, Greenfield EJ (2012) Tree and impervious cover change in U.S. cities. Urban For Urban Green 11:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nowak DJ, Walton J (2005) Projected urban growth (2000–2050) and its estimated impact on the US forest resources. J Forest 103:383–389Google Scholar
  62. Nowak DJ, Crane D, Stevens J, Hoehn R, Walton J, Bond J (2008) A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboric Urban Forest 34:347–358Google Scholar
  63. Oakerson R, Parks R (1988) Citizen voice and public entrepreneurship: the organizational dynamic of a complex metropolitan county. Publicus 18:91–112Google Scholar
  64. Ostrom V (1980) Artisan and artifact. Public Adm Rev 40:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ostrom E (1986) An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice 48:3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  68. Ostrom E, Baugh WH (1973) Community organization and the provision of police services. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  69. Ostrom V, Tiebout C, Warren R (1961) The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. Am Pol Sci Rev 55:831–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ostrom E, Parks R, Whitaker G (1974) Do we really want to consolidate urban police forces? A reappraisal of some old assertions. Public Adm Rev 33(5):423–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  72. Pickett STA, Burke IC, Dale VC, Gosz JR, Lee RG, Pacala SW, Shachak M (1994) Integrated models of forested regions. In: Groffman P, Likens G (eds) Integrated regional models: interactions between humans and their environment. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 120–141Google Scholar
  73. Pickett STA, Burch WR Jr, Dalton SE, Foresman TW, Grove JM, Rowntree R (1997) A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst 1:185–199Google Scholar
  74. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove, JM (2008) Beyond urban legends: an emerging framework of urban ecology, as illustrated by the Baltimore Ecosystem Study. BioSci 58(2):139–150Google Scholar
  75. Plott C (1986) Rational choice in experimental markets. J Bus 59:301–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Riker W (1980) Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. Am Pol Sci Rev 74:432–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Robbins P, Sharp J (2003) Producing and consuming chemicals: the moral economy of the American lawn. Econ Geogr 79:425–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Roy Chowdhury R, Larson K, Grove M, Polsky C, Cook E, Onsted J, Ogden L (2011) A multiscalar approach to theorizing socio-ecological dynamics of urban residential landscapes. Cities and the Env 4(1):6,
  79. Sanesi G, Gallis C, Kasperidus HD (2011) Urban forests and their ecosystem services in relation to human health. In: Nilsson K (ed) Forests, trees, and human health. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schotter A (1981) The economic theory of social institutions. Cambridge University Press, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shepsle K (1975) Congressional committee assignments: an optimization model with institutional constraints. Public Choice 22:55–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shepsle K (1979) Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. Am J Pol Sci 23:27–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shepsle K (1989) Studying institutions: some lessons from the rational choice approach. J Theor Polit 1:131–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shepsle K, Weingast B (1984) When do rules of procedure matter? J Pol 46:206–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shepsle K, Weingast B (1987) The institutional foundations of committee power. Am Pol Sci Rev 81:85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tidball KG, Krasny M, Svendsen E, Campbell L, Helphand K (2010) Stewarship, learning, and memory in disaster resilience. Env Educ Res 16(5–6):591–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tucker C (2009) Exploring forest governance: insights, challenges, and lessons learned. Prepared for the Workshop on the Workshop IV, Bloomington, Indiana, June 3–5, 2009,
  88. Ullmann-Margalit E (1977) The emergence of norms. Clarendon, Oxford University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  89. USDA-FS (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service) (2009) STEW-MAP: the stewardship mapping and Assessment Project. USDA-FS Northern Research Station Webpage.
  90. Van Wassenaer P, Kenney A (2010) Sustainable urban forest management: planning using criteria and indicators. Urban Natural Resources Institute Webcast Resources.
  91. Wake MH (2008) Integrative biology: science for the 21st century. BioSci 58(4):349–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Williamson O (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  93. Wolf K (2004) Economics and public value of urban forests. Urban Agric Mag 13:31–33Google Scholar
  94. Wolf K (2005) Business district streetscapes, trees, and consumer response. J Forest 103:396–400Google Scholar
  95. Wolf K, Kruger L (2010) Urban forestry research needs: a participatory assessment process. J Forest 108:39–44Google Scholar
  96. Wu J (2008) Toward a landscape ecology of cities: beyond buildings, trees, and urban forests. In: Carreiro M et al (eds) Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests: international perspectives. Springer, New York, pp 10–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ye W (1997) Discussion of several problems of urban forest planning and construction (continued). Guangdong Forest 2:29–30Google Scholar
  98. Young RF, Wolf SA (2006) Goal attainment in urban ecology research: a bibliometric review 1975–2004. Urban Ecosyst 9:179–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zhang Y, Zheng B, Allen B, Letson N, Sibley J (2009) Tree ordinances as public policy and participation tools: development in Alabama. Arboric Urban Forest 35(3):166–172Google Scholar
  100. Zipperer W, Sissinni S, Pouyat R, Foresman T (1997) Urban tree cover: an ecological perspective. Urban Ecosyst 1:229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah K. Mincey
    • 1
    Email author
  • Miranda Hutten
    • 2
  • Burnell C. Fischer
    • 3
  • Tom P. Evans
    • 4
  • Susan I. Stewart
    • 5
  • Jessica M. Vogt
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change (CIPEC)Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.USDA Forest Service Northeastern AreaDurhamUSA
  3. 3.School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Geography, Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change (CIPEC)Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  5. 5.USDA Forest ServiceEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations