No abstract

No abstract

In the past decade, municipalities across North America have increased investment in their urban forests in an effort to maintain and enhance the numerous benefits provided by them. Some municipalities have now drafted long-term urban forest management plans that emphasize the planting of native trees, to improve ecological integrity, and participation of residents, since the majority of urban trees are typically located on residential property. Yet it is unclear if residents are familiar with native trees or municipalities' urban forest management goals. Through a case study of southern Ontario municipalities, we administered a survey exploring residents' ability to correctly label common tree species as native or non-native, as well as their knowledge of urban forest management plans to test four hypotheses: 1) residents in municipalities with an urban forest management plans will be more knowledgeable about the native status of common street trees; 2) residents who have lived in the area longer will have greater knowledge; 3) knowledge level will be correlated with education level, ethnicity, and income; and 4) residents' knowledge will be related to having planted trees on their property. Our results indicate that residents are better able to identify common native trees than correctly determine which trees are non-native, although knowledge levels are generally low. Knowledge was significantly related to length of residency and tree planting experience, supporting hypotheses 2 and 4. These results highlight the importance of experience and local knowledge acquisition in relation to basic knowledge about urban trees, and also point to the failures of resident outreach within the case study municipalities.

Many municipalities are working to protect and grow their urban forest, including adopting private tree regulations. Such regulations typically require property-owners to apply for a permit to remove trees and, if the permit is granted, plant replacement trees. Even with such regulations, many private trees are removed each year, particularly on residential property. Property-level construction activity, including expanding building footprints, replacing an older home with a new one, and increasing hardscaping, is emerging as a key driver of residential tree loss. This study addresses whether homeowners who receive a permit to remove one or more trees comply with the requirement to plant replacement trees to better understand the effect of private tree regulation. We explore this question through a written survey of homeowners who received a tree removal permit and site visits in Toronto (Ontario, Canada). While 70% of all survey participants planted the required replacement trees 2 to 3 years after receiving the permit, only 54% of homeowners whose permit was associated with construction planted. Additionally, most replacement trees were in good health but were dominated by a few genera. We also found significant differences in replacement planting and tree survival across the city’s 4 management districts. This study highlights that if resources supporting private tree regulations are limited, tree permits associated with construction should be prioritized for follow-up. Additionally, guidance about diverse species to plant should be communicated to ensure that private tree regulations are supporting the long-term protection of the urban forest.

No abstract