Community groups and urban forestry activity: Drivers of uneven canopy cover?

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 101, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 321-329

  Conway, Tenley M ^a   Shakeel, Tooba ^a   Atallah, Joanna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Business improvement areas; Environmental inequality; Resident associations; Urban forest

Indexed keywords

HOUSING; TIMBER;

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUALITY; GREATER TORONTO AREA; HOUSEHOLD INCOME; METROPOLITAN AREA; SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS; SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTOR; URBAN FORESTS;

FORESTRY;

CANOPY; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; ETHNIC GROUP; HOUSEHOLD INCOME; METROPOLITAN AREA; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; URBAN ECONOMY; URBAN FORESTRY;

FORESTRY; FORESTS; HOUSINGS;

CANADA; ONTARIO [CANADA]; TORONTO;

EID: 79956266646     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.037     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Anderson L.M., Cordell H.K. Influence of trees on residential property values in Athens, Georgia (USA): a survey based on actual sales prices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 15:153-164.
2. The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society 2002, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. D.T. Beito, P. Gordon, A. Tabarrok (Eds.).
3. Boone C.G., Cadenasso M.L., Grove J.M., Schwarz K., Buckley G.L. Landscape, vegetation characteristics, and group identify in an urban and suburban watershed: why the 60s matter. Urban Ecosyst. 2010, 13:255-271.
4. Briffault R. A government for our time? Business Improvement Districts and urban governance. Columbia Law Rev. 1999, 99(2):365-477.
5. CAL An Introduction to Community Association Living 2003, Community Associations Institute, Alexandria, VA.
6. Conway T.M., Hackworth J. Urban pattern and land cover variation. Can. Geogr. 2007, 51(1):43-57.
7. Conway T.M., Urbani L. Variations in municipal urban forestry policies: a case study of Toronto, Canada. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6(3):181-192.
8. Donovan G.H., Butry D.T. Trees in the city: valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 94(2):77-83.
9. Emmanuel R. Urban vegetation change as an indicator of demographic trends in cities: the case of Detroit. Environ. Plann. B 1997, 42:415-426.
10. FitzGiggon J., Summers S. Report on tree conservation by-laws in southern Ontario 2002, School of Rural Planning and Development, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON.
11. Fraser E.D.G., Kenney W.A. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. J. Arbor. 2000, 26(2):106-113.
12. Fung T., Sui W. Environmental quality and its changes, an analysis using NDVI. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2000, 21:1011-1024.
13. Grineski S., Bolin B., Boone C. Criteria air pollution and marginalized populations: environmental inequity in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona. Soc. Sci. Q. 2007, 88(2):535-554.
14. Grove J.M., Cadenasso M.L., Burch W.R., Pickett S.T.A., Schwarz K., O'Neil-Dunne J., Wilson M., Troy A., Boone C. Data and methods comparing social structure and vegetation structure of urban neighbourhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2006, 19(2):117-136.
15. Heynen N. Green urban political ecologies: toward a better understanding of inner-city environmental change. Environ. Plann. A 2006, 38:499-516.
16. Heynen N.C., Lindsay G. Correlates of urban forest canopy cover: implications for local public works. Public Works Manage. Policy 2003, 8(1):33-47.
17. Heynen N., Perkins H.A., Roy P. The political ecology of uneven green space: the impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Aff. Rev. 2006, 42(1):3-25.
18. Hope D., Gies C., Zhu W., Fagab W.F., Redman C.L., Grimm N.B., Nelson A.L., Martin C., Kinzig A. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2003, 100(15):8788-8792.
19. Hoyt L., Gopal-Agge D. The Business Improvement District model: a balanced review of contemporary debates. Geogr. Compass 2007, 1(4):946-958.
20. Iverson L.R., Cook E.A. Urban forest cover of the Chicago region and its relation to household density and income. Urban Ecosyst. 2000, 4:105-124.
21. Landry S.M., Chakraborty J. Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environ. Plann. A 2009, 41:2651-2670.
22. Martin C.A., Warren P.S., Kinzig A.P. Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69:355-368.
23. McDonnell M.J., Pickett S.T.A. Ecosystem structure and function along urban rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 1990, 71(4):1232-1237.
24. Merse C.J., Buckley G.L., Boone C.G. Street trees and urban renewal: a Baltimore case study. Geogr. Bull. 2009, 50:65-81.
25. Mitchell J. Business Improvement Districts and innovation service delivery. New Ways of Doing Business, IBM Endowment for the Business of Government 2003, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Maryland, USA. M.A. Abramson, A.M. Kieffaber (Eds.).
26. Morales D., Boyce B.N., Favretti R.J. The contribution of trees to residential property values: Manchester, Connecticut. Valuation 1976, 23(2):26-43.
27. Nelson R.H. Private Neighborhoods and the Transformation of Local Government 2005, Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC.
28. Nowak D.J., Noble M.H., Sisinni S.M., Dwyer J.F. People and trees: assessing the US urban forest resource. J. Forest. 2001, 99(3):37-42.
29. Payton S., Lindsey G., Wilson J., Ottensmann J.R., Man J. Valuing the benefits of the urban forest; a spatial hedonic approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 2008, 51(6):717-736.
30. Pedlowski M.A., Adell J.J.C., Heynen N.C. Urban forest and environmental inequality in Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Urban Ecosyst. 2002, 6:9-20.
31. Perkins H.A., Heynen N., Wilson J. Inequitable access to urban reforestation: the impact of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests. Cities 2004, 21(4):291-299.
32. Schaller S., Modan G. Contesting public space and citizenship: implications for neighborhood Business Improvement Districts. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2005, 24(4):394-407.
33. Smardon R.C. Perception and aesthetics of the urban reforestation: the impact of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests. Cities 1988, 21(4):291-299.
34. Smith R.M., Gaston K.J., Warren P.H., Thompson K. Urban domestic gardens (V): relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 2005, 20(2):235-253.
35. Stokes R. Business Improvement Districts and small business advocacy: the case of San Diego's citywide BID program. Econ. Dev. Q. 2007, 21(3):278-291.
36. Stone B. Paving over paradise: how land use regulations promote residential imperviousness. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69:101-113.
37. TABIA, 2007. TABIA: Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas. (accessed 08.08.10). http://www.toronto-bia.com/.
38. Talarchek G.M. The urban forest of New Orleans - an exploratory analysis of relationships. Urban Geogr. 1990, 11:65-86.
39. Troy A.R., Grove J.M., O'Neil-Dunne J.P.M., Pickett S.T.A., Cadenasso M.L. Predicting opportunities for greening and patterns of vegetation on private urban lands. Environ. Manage. 2007, 40:394-412.
40. Wakefield S., Bienefeld M., Jermyn L. Preliminary Report of the Multicultural Yard, Health and Environment Project (MYHEP) 2007, Centre for Urban Health Initiatives, University of Toronto, Toronto.
41. Wall B.W., Straka T.J., Miller S.E. An econometric study of the factors influencing participation in urban and community forestry programs in the United States. Arboric. Urban For. 2006, 32(5):221-228.
42. Ward K. Business Improvement Districts: policy origins, mobile policies and urban livability. Geogr. Compass 2007, 1(3):657-672.
43. Wickware G.M., Rubec C.D.A. Ecoregions of Ontario. Ecological Land Classification Series, No. 26 1989, Sustainable Development Branch, Environment Canada, Ottawa.