International approaches to protecting and retaining trees on private urban land

Most studies of urban forest management look at vegetation on public land. Yet, to meet ambitious urban forest targets, cities must attempt to maintain or increase trees and canopy cover on private urban land too. In this study, we review and evaluate international approaches to protecting and retaining trees on private urban land. Our study combines a systematic academic literature review, two empirical social science studies on the views of urban forest professionals, and a global case study review of innovative regulations and incentives aimed at protecting and retaining trees on private urban land. Case studies were evaluated for the extent they exceeded minimum standards or went beyond ?business-as-usual?. We found that the most innovative mechanisms combine many regulations, instead of relying on a single regulation, and use financial incentives to retain or plant trees in newly developed or re-developed sites, as well as private residences. We did not find any cases where appropriate monitoring was in place to determine the efficacy and efficiency of these mechanisms. We also found no single simple solution that could effectively and efficiently protect and retain trees on private land. Only by combining policies, planning schemes, local laws, and financial incentives with community engagement and stewardship will cities protect and retain trees on private land. Useful and innovative ways to protecting and retaining trees on private land involves providing solutions at multiple governments levels, embedding trees in existing strategic policy and management solutions, incentivising positive behavior, creating regulations that require payment up front, and engaging the broader community in private tree stewardship.Peer reviewe

Trees in Canadian Cities: Indispensable Life Form for Urban Sustainability

We argue that a healthy urban forest contributes immensely to the sustainability of cities. The argument is based on a comprehensive array of values elicited from Canadians in several cities. To begin, we define the urban forest as inclusive of all the trees in the city and thus representing the predominant contributor to a city’s green infrastructure. Then we enumerate and explain the broad diversity of ways in which urban people value trees in the city. We, thus, show the myriad pathways by which trees contribute positively to any city’s social, economic, and ecological sustainability. Following a short summary of the ways in which trees may detract from people’s quality of life, we present promising management directions for urban-forest improvement, as we understand the situation in Canada. We conclude that all cities can enhance their sustainability by improving the urban forest

Ecological integrity in urban forests

Ecological integrity has been an umbrella concept guiding ecosystem management for several decades. Though plenty of definitions of ecological integrity exist, the concept is best understood through related concepts, chiefly, ecosystem health, biodiversity, native species, stressors, resilience and self-maintenance. Discussions on how ecological integrity may be relevant to complex human-nature ecosystems, besides those set aside for conservation, are growing in number. In the case of urban forests, no significant effort has yet been made to address the holistic concept of ecological integrity for the urban forest system. Preliminary connections between goals such as increasing tree health, maintaining canopy cover, and reducing anthropogenic stressors and the general notion of integrity exist. However, other related concepts, such as increasing biodiversity, the planting of native species, and the full meaning of ecosystem health beyond merely tree health have not been addressed profoundly as contributors to urban forest integrity. Meanwhile, other concepts such as resilience to change and self-maintenance are not addressed explicitly. In this paper we reveal two camps of interpretation of ecological integrity for urban forests that in turn rely on a particular definition of the urban forest ecosystem and a set of urban forest values. Convergence and integration of these values is necessary to bring a constructive frame of interpretation of ecological integrity to guide urban forest management into the future

Greening practitioners worry about green gentrification but many don’t address it in their work

As cities attempt to ameliorate urban green inequities, a potential challenge has emerged in the form of green gentrification. Although practitioners are central to urban greening and associated gentrification, there has yet to be an exploration of practitioner perspectives on the phenomenon. We fill this gap with an online survey of 51 urban greening practitioners in Metro Vancouver and the Greater Toronto Area. Most respondents defined green gentrification as the displacement of vulnerable residents due to the installation or improvement of green space that attracts wealthy in-movers and increases property values. They were most likely to identify greening as driving green gentrification, with a minority identifying other systemic drivers with greening in a secondary role. Although 39 of 51 participants had some familiarity with green gentrification, most reported low confidence in their understanding of the concept, little evidence of using the concept in their work, and moderate concern that their work is implicated in green gentrification. The gentrification issues most encountered by practitioners were changes to neighbourhood character and uneven investment in public infrastructure, and those working in domains linked to planning, equity, and engagement were most likely to encounter gentrification issues. Practitioners experienced multiple barriers to addressing green gentrification, including limited institutional capacity, limited access to data and relevant information, policy/mandate restriction, and lack of engagement tools. Results indicate that practitioners have a moderate understanding of green gentrification but do not often use the concept in their work, despite their potential to contribute to or exacerbate it. This suggests some resistance to critiques of urban greening practice, a failure of scholarly critiques of urban greening to influence policy change, and the need for stronger research theory and research co-creation involving practitioners and academia

The role of diverse cultural identities in the perceived value of urban forests in Melbourne, Australia, and implications for urban ecosystem research and practice

Urban nature management is usually guided by the most common, frequently mentioned, or easily elicited perceptions expressed by a dominant cultural group. This is unlikely to encourage widespread community support or foster urban nature stewardship in the long run. Considering how people representing diverse cultural identities perceive the value of urban nature is key to meeting diverse community needs. In this study we explore how people not born in Australia, people who speak a language-other-than-English (LOTE), and people who self-identify as speaking a minority language, perceive the value of urban treed sites, trees at these sites, and the wildlife at these sites. We used an intercept questionnaire to collect empirical perception data, delivered in 12 different sites, including parks and streets, located in and near the Greater Melbourne Area, an ethno-culturally diverse urban area in the state of Victoria, Australia. We analyzed 1127 responses collected over 2 years using contingency- and regression-based procedures. We found that people who were not born in Australia rated the importance of treed sites and trees at these sites higher than other respondents, and LOTE respondents rated the importance of treed sites and trees at these sites lower than other respondents. Also, LOTE and some language minority respondents associated more psychological themes (i.e., stress reduction, feeling good) with treed sites than other respondents. These differences account for the influence of other cognitive, behavioral, and social-ecological context factors, such as nature relatedness, knowledge of trees, exposure to trees, demographics, and type of site (i.e., parks or streets). We discuss what these results mean for urban nature research with consideration of diverse cultural communities in cities, including integrating cultural diversity as a complement to the dominant consideration of socioeconomic patterns for understanding urban nature dynamics, accounting for conflicting values, and better communicating with and engaging these communities

Trends in Urban Forestry Research in Latin America & The Caribbean: A Systematic Literature Review and Synthesis

Research on urban forests has expanded in the last 30 years in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia. Nonetheless, urban forestry has been explored to much less extent in the Latin America and the Caribbean region, despite being one of the most urbanized and biodiverse regions in the world. We address this gap by providing a baseline understanding of urban forest research in the region based on a systematic review of the academic literature. Of the 55,000 studies found, 195 were selected for review, and 182 were analysed and synthesized. These studies came from 13 countries and were published from 1970 to mid-2018 (inclusive) in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Almost half of the studies were based in Brazil, followed by Mexico and Chile. To comparatively assess article output by country, we accounted for country population and Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, and Puerto Rico had higher than average per capita article output. Most articles were ecological studies (64%) that used field surveys (58%) to research urban vegetation diversity. Most ecological studies did not include any social or management considerations. Only a few studies focused on spatiotemporal dynamics (12%) or the direct opinions of stakeholders (9%). We observed a notable increase in article output from the region during the last decade. The units of analysis targeted by these studies mostly focused on single trees in public areas (streets and parks). Understanding urban forests regionally could be strengthened by scaling up research across multiple units of analysis and across regional cities, which could provide a better understanding of regional spatiotemporal dynamics. To respond to current global trends and nurture regional strengths, research could also focus on a wider range of ecosystem services provided by urban forests, and the relationship of urban forests with poverty, crime, climate vulnerability, biodiversity loss, and social equity. These findings can inform key stakeholders in the region managing urban forests and trees about research trends and gaps to be filled. This article shows that the region indeed has an important body of research in urban forestry that should be recognized in global assessments. © 2019 Elsevier Gmb

Beyond ‘trees are good’: Disservices, management costs, and tradeoffs in urban forestry

The provision of ecosystem services is a prominent rationale for urban greening, and there is a prevailing mantra that ‘trees are good’. However, understanding how urban trees contribute to sustainability must also consider disservices. In this perspective article, we discuss recent research on ecosystem disservices of urban trees, including infrastructure conflicts, health and safety impacts, aesthetic issues, and environmentally detrimental consequences, as well as management costs related to ecological disturbances and risk management. We also discuss tradeoffs regarding species selection and local conservation concerns, as well as the central role of human perception in the interpretation of ecosystem services and disservices, particularly the uncritical assertion that ‘everybody loves trees’. Urban forestry decision-making that fails to account for disservices can have unintended negative consequences for communities. Further research is needed regarding life cycle assessments, stakeholder decision-making, return-on-investment, and framings of services and disservices in urban forestry