Abstract:

Urban and forest seem in our traditional view of each term to be rather contradictory, and yet it is in this contradiction that can be found the underlying significance of what is meant by urban forest. There could be various definitions of the urban forest. This often has to do with difference in perception and values with respect to cities and their relationship with nature. However, what is common in all definitions is the interdependency of the forest and the city. An urban forest does not occur naturally, it is affected both in adverse and positive ways by the city it is in or connected to. As much as it is challenged by the urban environment, the urban forest requires continuous care if it is to survive.

The intent of this research is to understand the meaning of urban forest, as it has been shaped by context or cultural perception, by studying its qualities and benefits demonstrated in case studies where its definition differs. Two cases in Germany and the United States each will be studied. In the cities of Frankfurt and Berlin, the urban forests have been an integral part of the city for centuries, and the concept of managed forests for the benefit of the city is well established. In the cities of Los Angeles and Washington, with the help of, among others, organizations such as the Tree People and Casey Trees Endowment, the urban forest is beginning to be regarded as a crucial layer of the city infrastructure. In spite of very different definitions and morphology, the urban forests both in the German cases and the American cases serve many of the same purposes.

Can cities and urban forests develop in unison, nurturing one another symbiotically in the process? Keeping this question in mind with respect to the various case studies, I will try to understand how to break the obstacle of the contradictory perceptions of urban forest and city, and imagine how it may be possible for one to compliment the other.