Assessing residents' reactions to urban forest disservices: A case study of a major storm event

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 153, Issue , 2016, Pages 1-10

  Conway, Tenley M ^a   Yip, Vivian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Ecosystem disservices; Ice storm; Residential landscapes; Urban trees

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEMS; HOUSING; ICE; STORMS; SURVEYS;

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; GREATER TORONTO AREA; ICE STORM; PHYSICAL DAMAGES; RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPES; SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS; SUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT; URBAN TREES;

FORESTRY;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FUTURE PROSPECT; ICE STORM; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RESIDENTIAL LOCATION; RISK FACTOR; TREE; TREE PLANTING; URBAN FORESTRY;

CANADA; ONTARIO [CANADA]; TORONTO;

EID: 84966373332     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.016     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Agbenyega O., Burgess P.J., Cook M., Morris J. Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:551-557.
2. Alamenciak T. Toronto's trees continue to suffer ice storm damage. Toronto Star 2014, http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/06/18/torontos_trees_continue_to_suffer_ice:storm_damage.html Accessed 20.07.15.
3. Andrew C., Slater D. Why some UK homeowners reduce the size of their front garden trees and the consequences for urban forest benefits as assessed by i-Tree ECO. Arboricultural Journal: The International Journal of Urban Forestry 2014, 36:197-215.
4. Armenakis C., Nirupama N. Urban impacts of ice storms: Toronto December 2013. Natural Hazards 2014, 74(2):1291-1298.
5. Balmford A., Bond W. Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. Ecological Letters 2005, 8:1218-1234.
6. Baró F., Chaparro L., Gómez-Baggethun E., Langemeyer J., Nowak D.J., Terradas J. Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: the case of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio 2014, 43:466-479.
7. Camacho-Cervantes M., Schondube J.E., Castillo A., MacGregor-Fors I. How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city. Urban Ecosystems 2014, 17(3):761-773.
8. Chapin F.S., Zavalet E.S., Evine V.T., Naylor R.L., Vitousek P.M., Reynold H.L., et al. Consequences of changing diversity. Nature 2000, 405:234-242.
9. City of Toronto. Sustaining and expanding the urban forest: Toronto's strategic forest management plan. 2013, Urban Forestry, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, City of Toronto, Toronto.
10. City of Toronto. Every Tree Counts: A Portrait of Toronto's Urban Forest. no date. Urban Forestry, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, City of Toronto, Toronto.
11. Conway T.M. Tending their urban forest: residents' motivations for tree planting and removal. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2016, 17(1):23-32.
12. Conway T.M., Bang E. Willing partners? Residential support for municipal urban forestry policies. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2014, 13:234-243.
13. Davies Consulting The response of the Toronto-hydro system limited to the December 2013 ice storm 2014, Davies Consulting, Chevy Case, MD.
14. Delshammar T., Östberg J., Öxell C. Urban trees and ecosystem disservices-a pilot study using complaints records from three Swedish cities. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 2015, 41(4):187-193.
15. Dillman D. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method 2007, Wiley, New York, NY.
16. Dobbs C., Kendal D., Nitscke C.R. Multiple ecosystem services and disservices of the urban forest establishing their connections with landscape structure and sociodemographics. Ecological Indicators 2014, 43:44-55.
17. Dunn R.R. Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: the unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica 2010, 42(5):555-557.
18. Escobedo F.J., Kroeger T., Wagner J.E. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution 2011, 159:2078-2087.
19. Flannigan J. An evaluation of residents' attitudes to street trees in southwest England. A Rboricultural Journal: The International Journal of Urban Forestry 2005, 28(4):219-241.
20. Harrison P.A., Berry P.M., Simpson G., Haslett J.R., Blicharska M., Bucur M., et al. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosystem Services 2014, 9:191-203.
21. Jim C.Y., Chen W.Y. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities 2009, 26(4):187-194.
22. Kendal D., Dobbs C., Lohr V.I. Global patterns of diversity in the urban forest: is there evidence to support the10/20/30rule?. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2014, 13:411-417.
23. Kirkpatrick J.B., Davison A., Daniels G.D. Resident attitudes towards trees influence the planting and removal of different types of trees in eastern Australian cities. Landscape Urban Planning 2012, 107:147-158.
24. Kirkpatrick J.B., Davison A., Daniels G.D. Sinners, scapegoats or fashion victims? Understanding the deaths of trees in the green city. Geoforum 2013, 48:165-176.
25. Kronenberg J. Why not to green a city? Institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 2015, 12:218-227.
26. Landry S.M., Chakraborty J. Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environment and Planning A 2009, 41:2651-2670.
27. Larson K.L., Cook E., Strawhacker C., Hall S.J. The influence of diverse values, ecological structure, and geographic context on residents' multifaceted landscaping decisions. Human Ecology 2010, 38:747-761.
28. Lyytimäki J. Bad nature: newspaper representations of ecosystem disservices. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2014, 13(3):418-424.
29. Lyytimäki J. Ecosystem disservices: embrace the catchword. Ecosystem Services 2015, 12:136.
30. Lyytimäki J., Sipilä M. Hopping on one leg: the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2009, 8:309-315.
31. Lyytimäki J., Petersen L.K., Normander B., Bezák P. Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environmental Sciences 2008, 5(3):161-172.
32. McPherson E.G. Structure and sustainability of Sacramento's urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 1998, 24:174-189.
33. McPherson E.G., Scott K.I., Simpson J.R. Estimating cost effectiveness of residential yard trees for improving air quality in Sacramento, California using existing models. Atmospheric Environment 1998, 32:75-84.
34. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
35. Nowak D.J., Dwyer J.F. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. Handbook of urban and community forestry in the Northeast 2007, 11-25. Plenum Publishers, New York. 2nd edn. J. Kuser (Ed.).
36. Nowak D.J., Stevens J.C., Sisinni S.M., Luley C.J. Effects of urban tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Arboriculture 2002, 28(3):113-122.
37. Ordóñez C., Duinker P.N. An analysis of urban forest management plans in Canada: implications for urban forest management. Landscape and Urban Planning 2013, 116:36-47.
38. Ostoić S.K., Konijnendijk van den Bosch C.C. Exploring global scientific discourses on urban forestry. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2015, 14:129-138.
39. Pearce L.M., Kirkpatrick J.B., Davison A. Using size class distributions of species to deduce the dynamics of the private urban forest. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 2013, 39(2):74-84.
40. Sæbø A., Benedikz T., Randrup T.B. Selection of trees for urban forestry in the Nordic countries. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2003, 2(2):101-114.
41. Sandbrook C.G., Burgess N.D. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: not all positive. Ecosystem Services 2015, 12:29.
42. Shakeel T., Conway T.M. Individual households and their trees: fine-scale characteristics shaping urban forests. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2014, 13:136-144.
43. Shapiro J., Báldi A. Accurate accounting: how to balance ecosystem services and disservices. Ecosystem Services 2014, 7:201-202.
44. Silvera Seamans G. Mainstreaming the environmental benefits of street trees. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2013, 12:2-11.
45. Statistics Canada NHS Profile, Toronto, CMA, Ontario, 2011 2015, http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dppd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMA&Code1=535&Data=Count&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=All&B1=All&TABID=1 Accessed 11.04.16.
46. Statistics Canada NHS: data quality 2015, http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/NHS-ENM/2011/ref/about-apropos/nhs-enm_r005-eng.cfm Accessed 28.07.15.
47. Statistics Canada Census profiles 2015, https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E Accessed 28.07.15.
48. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems, Biodiversity) TEEB manual for cities: ecosystem services in urban management 2011, United Nations Environment Program, Geneva, Switzerland.
49. TRCA Peel urban forestry strategy 2011, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Toronto.
50. Turgeon C. How much would it cost to bury all of the power lines in Toronto? $15-billion. National Post 2014, (January).
51. Villa F., Bagstad K.J., Voigt B., Johnson G.W., Athanasiadis I.N., Balbi S. The misconception of ecosystem disservices: how a catchy term may yield the wrong message for science and society. Ecosystem Services 2014, 10:52-53.
52. von Döhren P., Haase D. Ecosystem disservices research: a review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecological Indicators 2015, 52:490-497.