Comparison of Canadian urban forest perceptions indicates variations in beliefs and trust across geographic settings

References

• Avolio ML, Pataki DE, Pincetl S, Gillespie TW, Jenerette GD, McCarthy HR. 2015. Understanding preferences for tree attributes: the relative effects of socio-economic and local environmental factors. Urban Ecosyst. 18(1):73–18. doi: 10.1007/s11252-014-0388-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister CF, Gerstenberg T, Plieninger T, Schraml U. 2022. Geography of disservices in urban forests: public participation mapping for closing the loop. Ecosyst People. 18(1):44–63. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2021.2021289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridgman A, Nadeau R, Dietlind S. 2022. A distinct society? Understanding social distrust in Quebec. Can J Polit Sci. 55(1):107–127. doi: 10.1017/S0008423921000780.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman AF, Eisenman TS, Locke DH, Harper RW. 2023. Exploring links between resident satisfaction and participation in an urban tree planting initiative. Cities. 134:104195. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2023.104195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway TM, Bang E. 2014. Willing partners? Residential support for municipal urban forestry policies. Urban For Urban Greening. 13(2):234–243. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway TM, Hackworth J. 2007. Urban pattern and land cover variation in the Greater Toronto Area. Can Geogr. 51(1):43–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2007.00164.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coscieme L, Hyldmo HD, Fernández-Llamazaresc A, Palomo I, Mwampambae TH, Selomane O, Sitas N, Jaureguiberry P, Valle M, Lim M. 2020. Multiple conceptualizations of nature are key to inclusivity and legitimacy in global environmental governance. Environ Sci Policy. 104:36–42. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotter A. 2015. La confiance du public envers les institutions canadiennes. Mettre l’accent sur les Canadiens: résultats de l’Enquête sociale générale. Statistique Canada. https://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/statcan_confiance.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KM, Baste IA, Brauman KA. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science. 359(6373):270–272. doi: 10.1126/science.aap8826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. 2005. Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 30(1):335–372. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. 2014. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Fourth ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley and Sons, Inc; p. 528.
   Google Scholar
• Dobbs C, Nitschke CR, Kendal D, Davies ZG. 2014. Global drivers and tradeoffs of three urban vegetation ecosystem services. PLOS ONE. 9(11):e113000. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew-Smythe JJ, Davila YC, McLean CM, Hingee MC, Murray ML, Webb JK, Krix DW, Murray BR. 2023. Community perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices linked to urban tree plantings. Urban For Urban Greening. 82:127870. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egerer M, Ordóñez C, Lin BB, Kendal D. 2019. Multicultural gardeners and park users benefit from and attach diverse values to urban nature spaces. Urban For Urban Greening. 46:126445. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FAO. 2016. Guidelines on urban and peri-urban forestry. Forestry paper No. 178. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations; [accessed 2022 Dec]. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6210e.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gwedla N, Shackleton CM. 2019. Perceptions and preferences for urban trees across multiple socio-economic contexts in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Landsc Urban Plan. 189:225–234. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair JJ, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. 2014. Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition. 7th ed. pp. 846. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Jay M, Schraml U. 2009. Understanding the role of urban forests for migrants: uses, perception and integrative potential. Urban For Urban Greening. 8(4):283–294. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2009.07.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenerette GD, Clarke LW, Avolio ML, Pataki DE, Gillespie TW, Pincetl S, Nowak DJ, Hutyra LR, McHale M, McFadden JP, et al. 2016. Climate tolerances and trait choices shape continental patterns of urban tree biodiversity. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 25(11):1367–1376. doi: 10.1111/geb.12499.
   Google Scholar
• Jones RE, Davis KL, Bradford J. 2013. The value of trees: factors influencing homeowner support for protecting local urban trees. Environ Behav. 45(5):650–676. doi: 10.1177/0013916512439409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser HF. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 39(1):31–36. doi: 10.1007/BF02291575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazemipur A. 2006. A Canadian exceptionalism? Trust and diversity in Canadian Cities. J Int Migr Integr. 7(2):219–240. 22. doi: 10.1007/s12134-006-1010-4.
   Google Scholar
• Keele L. 2007. Social capital and the dynamics of trust in government. Am J Pol Sci. 51(2):241–254. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00248.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendal D, Ford RM, Anderson NM, Farrar A. 2015. The VALS: a new tool to measure people’s general valued attributes of landscapes. J Environ Manage. 163(Supplement C):224–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.017.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kendal D, Ordóñez C, Davern M, Fuller RA, Hochili DF, van der Ree R, Livesley SJ, Threlfall CG. 2022. Public satisfaction with urban trees and their management: the role of values, beliefs, knowledge, and trust. Urban For Urban Greening. 73:127623. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick JB, Davison A, Daniels GD. 2012. Resident attitudes towards trees influence the planting and removal of different types of trees in eastern Australian cities. Landsc Urban Plan. 107(2):147–158. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krajter Ostoić S, Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC, Vuletić D, Stevanov M, Živojinović I, Mutabdžija-Bećirović S, Lazarević J, Stojanova B, Blagojević D, Stojanovska M, et al. 2017. Citizens’ perception of and satisfaction with urban forests and green space: results from selected Southeast European cities. Urban For Urban Greening. 23:93–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.02.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landry SM, Chakraborty J. 2009. Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environ Plan A. 41(11):2651–2670. doi: 10.1068/a41236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landry F, Dupras J, Messier C. 2020. Convergence of urban forest and socio-economic indicators of resilience: a study of environmental inequality in four major cities in eastern Canada. Landsc Urban Plan. 202:103856. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103856.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi M, Stoker L. 2000. Political trust and trustworthiness. Annu Rev Polit Sci (Palo Alto). 3(1):475–507. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohr V, Pearson-Mims C, Tarnai J, Dillman D. 2004. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Arboric Urban For. 30(1):28–35. doi: 10.48044/jauf.2004.004.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien LE, Urbanek RE, Gregory JD. 2022. Ecological functions and human benefits of urban forests. Urban For Urban Greening. 75:127707. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ordóñez Barona C, Wolf K, Kowalski JM, Kendal D, Byrne JA, Conway TM. 2022. Diversity in public perception of urban forests and trees: a critical review. Landsc Urban Plan. 226:104466. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham T-T-H, Apparicio P, Landry S, Lewnard J. 2017. Disentangling the effects of urban form and socio-demographic context on street tree cover: a multi-level analysis from Montréal. Landsc Urban Plan. 157:422–433. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proof Strategies. 2022. CanTrust index- 2022 report. https://proofagency.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Proof-Strategies-CanTrust-Index-2022.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Quinton J, Nesbitt L, Czekajlo A. 2022. Wealthy, educated, and … non-millennial? Variable patterns of distributional inequity in 31 Canadian cities. Landsc Urban Plan. 227:104535. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Rosner B, editor. 2015. Fundamentals of biostatistics 888. Boston (MA): BrooksCole.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi SD, Byrne JA, Pickering CM, Reser J. 2015. ‘Seeing red’ in national parks: how visitors’ values affect perceptions and park experiences. Geoforum. 66:41–52. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.09.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder H, Flannigan J, Coles R. 2006. Residents’ attitudes toward street trees in the UK and US communities. J Arboricult Urban For. 32(5):236–246. doi: 10.48044/jauf.2006.030.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz PW, Zelezny L. 1999. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J Environ Psychol. 19(3):255–265. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shackleton CM, Mograbi PJ. 2020. Meeting a diversity of needs through a diversity of species: urban residents’ favourite and disliked tree species across eleven towns in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Urban For Urban Greening. 48:126507. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistics Canada. 2021a. Citizenship, place of birth, and immigrant status for the population in private households of Canada in Census Metropolitan Areas, 2016. [accessed 2022 Dec]. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/ref/98-500/007/98-500-x2021007-eng.cfm.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics Canada. 2021b. Population and dwelling counts, Canada, provinces, and territories. [accessed 2022 Mar]. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=9810000101.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics Canada. 2021c. Visible minority person – definition and statistics. [accessed 2022 Jan]. https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3Var.pl?Function=DECandId=45152.
   Google Scholar
• Stern PC, Kalof L, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. 1995. Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects. J Appl Soc Psychol. 25(18):1611–1636. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02636.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su K, Ordóñez C, Regier K, Conway TM. 2022. Values and beliefs about urban forests from diverse urban contexts and populations in the Greater Toronto Area. Urban For Urban Greening. 72:127589. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor C. 1994. Multiculturalism 192. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Threlfall CG, Gunn LD, Davern M, Kendal D. 2022. Beyond the luxury effect: individual and structural drivers lead to ‘urban forest inequity’ in public street trees in Melbourne, Australia. Landsc Urban Plan. 218:104311. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tung VWS, Ritchie JRB. 2011. Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Ann Tour Res. 38(4):1367–1386. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner-Skoff JB, Cavender N. 2019. The benefits of trees for livable and sustainable communities. Plants People Planet. 1(4):323–335. doi: 10.1002/ppp3.39.
   Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen L, Ojala A, Korpela K, Lanki T, Tsunetsugu Y, Kagawa T. 2014. The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. J Environ Psychol. 38:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Berg MM, van Poppel M, van Kamp I, Ruijsbroek A, Triguero-Mas M, Gidlow C, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Gražulevičiene R, van Mechelen W, Kruize H. 2019. Do physical activity, social cohesion, and loneliness mediate the association between time spent visiting green space and mental health? Environ Behav. 51(2):144–166. doi: 10.1177/0013916517738563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitburn J, Linklater WL, Milfont TL. 2019. Exposure to urban nature and tree planting are related to pro-environmental behavior via connection to nature, the use of nature for psychological restoration, and environmental attitudes. Environ Behav. 51(7):787–810. doi: 10.1177/0013916517751009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf KL, Lam ST, McKeen JK, Richardson GR, van den Bosch M, Bardekjian AC. 2020. Urban trees and human health: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 17(12):4371. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaman S, Korpilo S, Horcea-Milcu A-I, Raymond C. 2022. Associations between landscape values, self-reported knowledge, and land-use: a public participation GIS assessment. Ecosyst People. 18(1):212–225. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2052749.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Zheng B. 2011. Assessments of citizen willingness to support urban forestry: an empirical study in Alabama. Arboric Urban For. 37(3):118–125. doi: 10.48044/jauf.2011.016.
   Google Scholar