Tree canopy cover and carbon density are different proxy indicators for assessing the relationship between forest structure and urban socio-ecological conditions

Abstract Forest canopy cover and carbon density are two pivotal biophysical parameters for assessing urban forest structure and its ecosystem services. While canopy cover (horizontal structure) has been extensively studied for understanding the relationship between socio-ecological dynamics and urban forests, carbon density (vertical structure) received little attention in the urban setting. The goal of this study was twofold: (i) exploring the differences between canopy cover and carbon density, and their relationships with socio-ecological factors across an urbanizing landscape, and (ii) assessing the effect of neighborhood category (i.e., low, medium and high development intensity) on the relationships at the neighborhood level. We used Mecklenburg County located in the Charlotte Metropolitan area of North Carolina, United States as a case study area, where rapid urban sprawl has fragmented the pine-oak-hickory dominated forests into a range of low to high housing density neighborhoods. We observed two major findings. First, canopy cover and carbon density demonstrated a generally weak correlation across various types of residential neighborhoods, although such relationship became relatively stronger in areas featuring a higher level of development intensity. Second, ecological factors (e.g., landscape spatial patterns) were found to dominate the statistical models explaining the variance in both canopy cover and carbon density compared to urban socioeconomic factors (e.g., income and age). However, the models and the explanatory factors were different for the two forest parameters, and they varied across neighborhoods of diverse development intensities. Based upon these findings, we argue that canopy cover and carbon density are different proxy indicators of forest functioning in the urban setting, and should be independently treated in urban forest management. The best management practices should be developed at the inner-city, neighborhood level, rather than the typical city level, owing to the significant, variable influence of socio-ecological conditions across neighborhood types.