Local government and urban forest governance: insights from Scotland

References

• Andersson K, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Axelsson R, Degerman E. 2013. Green infrastructures and intensive forestry: need and opportunity for spatial planning in a Swedish rural–urban gradient. Scand J For Res. 28:143–165. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2012.723740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atmiş E. 2016. Development of urban forest governance in Turkey. Urban For Urban Green. 19:158–166. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aylett A. 2013. The socio-institutional dynamics of urban climate governance: a comparative analysis of innovation and change in durban (KZN, South Africa) and Portland (OR, USA). Urban Stud. 50:1386–1402. doi: 10.1177/0042098013480968
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baycan-Levent T, Nijkamp P. 2009. Planning and management of urban green spaces in Europe: comparative analysis. J Urban Plan Dev. 135:1–12. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2009)135:1(1)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BBC. 2002. Council fined over falling tree deaths [Internet]. [Accessed 2017 Nov 21]. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2129673.stm.
   Google Scholar
• Bentsen P, Lindholst AC, Konijnendijk CC. 2010. Reviewing eight years of urban forestry & urban greening: taking stock, looking ahead. Urban For Urban Green. 9:273–280. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2010.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brasier C. 1996. New horizons in dutch elm disease control [Internet]. Report on Forest Research 1996, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. http://forums.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/New_horizons_DED.pdf/$FILE/New_horizons_DED.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Britt C, Johnston M. 2008. Trees in towns II: a new survey of urban trees and their condition and management. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• Brown RR, Farrelly MA, Loorbach DA. 2013. Actors working the institutions in sustainability transitions: the case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Glob Environ Chang. 23:701–718. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buijs AE, Mattijssen TJ, van der Jagt APN, Ambrose-Oji B, Andersson E, Elands BH, Steen Møller M. 2016. Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 22:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colding J, Barthel S. 2013. The potential of “urban green commons” in the resilience building of cities. Ecol Econ. 86:156–166. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway TM, Vander Vecht J. 2015. Growing a diverse urban forest: species selection decisions by practitioners planting and supplying trees. Landsc Urban Plan. 138:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doick KJ, Davies HJ, Handley P, Vaz Monteiro M, O’Brien L, Ashwood F. 2016. Introducing England’s urban forests [Internet]. Urban Forestry and Woodlands Advisory Committee’s (FWAC) Network. https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/IntroducingUrbanForest_FINAL_Sept16.pdf/$FILE/IntroducingUrbanForest_FINAL_Sept16.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Driscoll AN, Ries PD, Tilt JH, Ganio LM. 2015. Needs and barriers to expanding urban forestry programs: An assessment of community officials and program managers in the Portland – Vancouver metropolitan region. Urban For Urban Green. 14:48–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duinker PN, Ordóñez C, Steenberg JWN, Miller KH, Toni SA, Nitoslawski SA. 2015. Trees in canadian cities: indispensable life form for urban sustainability. Sustain. 7:7379–7396. doi: 10.3390/su7067379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elmendorf WF, Cotrone VJ, Mullen JT. 2003. Trends in urban forestry practices, programs, and sustainability: contrasting a Pennsylvania, U.S., study. J Arboric. 29:237–248.
   Google Scholar
• Forestry Commission. 2011. Protecting Britain’s forest and woodland trees against pests and diseases – the forestry commission’s strategy [Internet]. Forestry Commission, Farnham. https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/treehealthstrategyministers.pdf/$file/treehealthstrategyministers.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Forestry Commission Scotland. 2009. The Scottish government’s rationale for woodland expansion. Forestry Commission Scotland, Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Forestry Commission Scotland. 2010. The right tree in the right place: planning for forestry & woodlands [Internet]. Forestry Commission Scotland, Edinburgh. https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc129.pdf/$file/fcfc129.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Forestry Commission Scotland. 2013. Climate change programme [Internet]. Forestry Commission Scotland, Edinburgh. http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/climate-change-programme.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller L, Marzano M, Peace A, Quine CP, Dandy N. 2016. Public acceptance of tree health management: results of a national survey in the UK. Environ Sci Policy [Internet]. 59:18–25. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN. 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ. 86:235–245. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenspace Scotland. 2012. The second state of Scotland’s greenspace report [Internet]. Greenspace Scotland. http://greenspacescotland.org.uk/SharedFiles/Download.aspx?pageid=133&mid=129&fileid=278.
   Google Scholar
• Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E, Artmann M, Borgström S, Breuste J, Gomez-Baggethun E, Gren Å, Hamstead Z, Hansen R, et al. 2014. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio. 43:413–433. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazell J. 2014. A tree owner’s responsibilities [Internet]. Jonathan Hazell independent arboricultural consultancy, Northampton. http://jhazell.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2014-08-04-A-Tree-Owners-Responsibilities.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchings T, Lawrence V, Brunt A. 2012. Estimating the ecosystem services value of Edinburgh’s trees: results of a 2011 survey [Internet]. Forest Research, Farnham. https://www.itreetools.org/resources/reports/Edinburgh_iTree_Report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs B, Mikhailovich N, Delaney C. 2014. Benchmarking Australia’s urban tree canopy: an i-tree assessment, prepared for horticulture Australia Limited by the Institute for Sustainable Futures [Internet]. University of Technology Sydney. http://202020vision.com.au/media/7141/final-report_140930.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Janse G, Konijnendijk CC. 2007. Communication between science, policy and citizens in public participation in urban forestry—experiences from the neighbourwoods project. Urban For Urban Green. 6:23–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.005
   Google Scholar
• Jim CY. 2002. Planning strategies to overcome constraints on greenspace provision in urban Hong Kong. Town Plan Rev. 73:127–152. doi: 10.3828/tpr.73.2.1
   Google Scholar
• Jim CY, Chen WY. 2009. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities. 26:187–194. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2009.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen A, Hitchmough J, Calvert T. 2002. Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landsc Urban Plan. 60:135–150. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00052-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konijnendijk CC. 2003. A decade of urban forestry in Europe. For Policy Econ. 5:173–186. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00023-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konijnendijk CC, Ricard RM, Kenney A, Randrup TB. 2006. Defining urban forestry – a comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban For Urban Green. 4:93–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2005.11.003
   Google Scholar
• Krajter Ostoić S, Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC. 2015. Exploring global scientific discourses on urban forestry. Urban For Urban Green. 14:129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronenberg J. 2015. Why not to green a city? institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. 12:218–227. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhns BMR, Lee B, Reiter DK. 2005. Characteristics of urban forestry programs in Utah, U.S. J Arboric. 31:285–295.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence A, Anglezarke B, Frost B, Nolan P, Owen R. 2009. What does community forestry mean in a devolved Great Britain? Int For Rev. 11:281–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence A, De Vreese R, Johnston M, Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC, Sanesi G. 2013. Urban forest governance: towards a framework for comparing approaches. Urban For Urban Green. 12:464–473. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence A, van der Jagt APN, Ambrose-Oji B, Stewart A. 2014. Local authorities in Scotland: a catalyst for community engagement in urban forests? Inst chart For trees, people built environ II conf; Birmingham, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Lindenmayer DB, Laurance WF, Franklin JF, Likens GE, Banks SC, Blanchard W, Gibbons P, Ikin K, Blair D, Mcburney L, et al. 2014. New policies for old trees: averting a global crisis in a keystone ecological structure. Conserv Lett. 7:61–69. doi: 10.1111/conl.12013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohr BVI, Pearson-Mims CH, Tarnai J, Dillman DA. 2004. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. J Arboric. 30:28–35.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews T, Lo AY, Byrne JA. 2015. Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landsc Urban Plan. 138:155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormick K, Anderberg S, Coenen L, Neij L. 2013. Advancing sustainable urban transformation. J Clean Prod. 50:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGovern M, Pasher J. 2016. Canadian urban tree canopy cover and carbon sequestration status and change 1990–2012. Urban For Urban Green [Internet]. 20:227–232. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffat AJ. 2015. Building resilience in Scotland’s urban tree populations [Internet]. Edinburgh: ClimateXChange. http://www.climatexchange.org.uk/index.php/download_file/571/342.
   Google Scholar
• Moffat AJ. 2016. Communicating the benefits of urban trees: a critical review. Arboric J. 38:64–82. doi: 10.1080/03071375.2016.1163111
   Google Scholar
• Molin JF, Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC. 2014. Between big ideas and daily realities – the roles and perspectives of Danish municipal green space managers on public involvement in green space maintenance. Urban For Urban Green. 13:553–561. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen AB, Konijnendijk CC, Wiström B, Jensen RB. 2013. Municipal woodland in Denmark: resources, governance and management. Scand J For Res. 28:49–63. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2012.693193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowak DJ, Dwyer JF. 2007. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: Kuser JE, editor(s). Urban and community forestry in the northeast. Springer, Dordrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Nowak DJ, Greenfield EJ. 2012. Tree and impervious cover in the United States. Landsc Urban Plan [Internet]. 107:21–30. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.11.005 doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pauleit S, Jones N, Garcia-Martin G, Garcia-Valdecantos JL, Rivière LM, Vidal-Beaudet L, Bodson M, Randrup TB. 2002. Tree establishment practice in towns and cities – results from a European survey. Urban For Urban Green. 1:83–96. doi: 10.1078/1618-8667-00009
   Google Scholar
• Randrup TB, Östberg J, Wiström B. 2017. Swedish green space management – the managers perspective. Urban For Urban Green [Internet]. 28:103–109. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.10.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ries PD, Reed AS, Kresse SJ. 2007. The impact of statewide urban forestry programs: A survey of cities in Oregon, U.S. Arboric Urban For. 33:168–175.
   Google Scholar
• Rines D, Kane B, Dennis H, Ryan P, Kittredge DB. 2010. Urban forestry priorities of Massachusetts (USA) tree wardens. Urban For Urban Green. 9:295–301. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2010.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy S, Byrne J, Pickering C. 2012. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban For Urban Green. 11:351–363. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rumble H, Rogers K, Doick K, Albertini A, Hutchings T. 2015. Valuing urban trees in glasgow [Internet]. Farnham: Forest Research. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FR_Doick_GlasgowItreereportFINAL.pdf/$FILE/FR_Doick_GlasgowItreereportFINAL.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Executive. 2006. The Scottish forestry strategy. Forestry Commission Scotland, Edinburgh. http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/images/corporate/pdf/scottish-forestry-strategy-2006.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Government. 2012. Urban rural classification 2011-2012 population tables in .xls format [Internet]. [Accessed 2017 Nov 21]. http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/About/Methodology/UrbanRuralClassification/Urban-Rural-Classification-2011-12/Urban-Rural-2011-2012.
   Google Scholar
• Silvera Seamans G. 2013. Mainstreaming the environmental benefits of street trees. Urban For Urban Green. 12:2–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sipilä M, Tyrväinen L. 2005. Evaluation of collaborative urban forest planning in Helsinki, Finland. Urban For Urban Green. 4:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2005.06.002
   Google Scholar
• SNH. 2018. Enjoy Scotland’s outdoors [Internet]. Inverness. https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/sites/soac/files/docs/know_the_code_leaflet.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson TR, Gerhold HD, Elmendorf WF. 2008. Attitudes of municipal officials toward street tree programs in Pennsylvania, U.S. Arboric Urban For. 34:144–151.
   Google Scholar
• Stobbart M, Johnston M. 2012. A survey of urban tree management in New Zealand. Arboric Urban For. 38:247–254.
   Google Scholar
• Treiman T, Gartner J. 2004. Community forestry in Missouri, U.S.: attitudes and knowledge of local officials. J Arboric. 30:205–213.
   Google Scholar
• Tubby KV, Webber JF. 2010. Pests and diseases threatening urban trees under a changing climate. Forestry. 83:451–459. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpq027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen L. 2001. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. J Environ Manage. 62:75–92. doi: 10.1006/jema.2001.0421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen L, Pauleit S, Seeland K, DeVries S. 2005. Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In: Urban For trees. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin; p. 81–114.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf KL. 2003. Public response to the urban forest in inner-city business districts. J Arboric. 29:117–126.
   Google Scholar
• Young RF. 2013. Mainstreaming urban ecosystem services: a national survey of municipal foresters. Urban Ecosyst. 16:703–722. doi: 10.1007/s11252-013-0287-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar