Studies have shown that natural environments can enhance health and here we build upon that work by examining the associations between comprehensive greenspace metrics and health. We focused on a large urban population center (Toronto, Canada) and related the two domains by combining high-resolution satellite imagery and individual tree data from Toronto with questionnaire-based self-reports of general health perception, cardio-metabolic conditions and mental illnesses from the Ontario Health Study. Results from multiple regressions and multivariate canonical correlation analyses suggest that people who live in neighborhoods with a higher density of trees on their streets report significantly higher health perception and significantly less cardio-metabolic conditions (controlling for socio-economic and demographic factors). We find that having 10 more trees in a city block, on average, improves health perception in ways comparable to an increase in annual personal income of $10,000 and moving to a neighborhood with $10,000 higher median income or being 7 years younger. We also find that having 11 more trees in a city block, on average, decreases cardio-metabolic conditions in ways comparable to an increase in annual personal income of $20,000 and moving to a neighborhood with $20,000 higher median income or being 1.4 years younger.

No abstract

Policy-makers ideally pursue well-informed, socially just means to make environmental decisions. Indigenous peoples have used Indigenous knowledge (IK) to inform decisions about environmental management for millennia. In the last 50 years, many western societies have used environmental assessment (EA) processes to deliberate on industrial proposals, informed by scientific information. Recently EA processes have attempted to incorporate IK in some countries and regions, but practitioners and scholars have criticized the ability of EA to meaningfully engage IK. Here we consider these tensions in Canada, a country with economic focus on resource extraction and unresolved government-to-government relationships with Indigenous Nations. In 2019, the Canadian government passed the Impact Assessment Act, reinvigorating dialogue on the relationship between IK and EA. Addressing this opportunity, we examined obstacles between IK and EA via a systematic literature review, and qualitative analyses of publications and the Act itself. Our results and synthesis identify obstacles preventing the Act from meaningfully engaging IK, some of which are surmountable (e.g., failures to engage best practices, financial limitations), whereas others are substantial (e.g., knowledge incompatibilities, effects of colonization). Finally, we offer recommendations for practitioners and scholars towards ameliorating relationships between IK and EA towards improved decision-making and recognition of Indigenous rights.

Nature-based solutions (NbS) to climate change mitigation-such as ecosystem protection or conservation, improved forest management practices, as well as afforestation-can significantly reduce global net emissions (Griscom et al. 2017; Seddon 2019). This is particularly the case when NbS are paired with emissions reductions and clean energy solutions (Anderson et al. 2019; Griscom et al. 2019; IPCC 2019). NbS could provide 30%-40% of the CO 2 mitigation required by 2030 to help ensure warming is capped at under 2°C (Seddon 2019). While holding great potential for effective climate change policy, some NbS measures such as protected areas and forest plantations can negatively impact Indigenous Peoples globally through displacement, livelihood restrictions, and ensuing cultural impacts (e.g., Osborne 2015; Vanclay 2017) and thus must be designed and implemented with Indigenous participation and consent if they are to be successful. These impacts intensify the disadvantages already faced by Indigenous communities, including human rights violations, discrimination, and poverty (Chatty and Colchester 2002; Dowie 2009; United Nations 2009). Indigenous Peoples are also more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change including food insecurity; displacement as a result of catastrophic flooding, drought, and fires; and threats to critical infrastructure (Havemann 2009; Ford 2012; Williams 2012; Lynn et al. 2013). Given the twin vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples to both the impacts and potential solutions to climate change, we contend that questions about how NbS are developed, on whose territories, and with what outcomes matter deeply to the success of climate change policy as well as to the rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is of particular relevance in Canada, which has extensive carbon sinks (Kurz et al. 2013; Price et al. 2013) and is home to over 630 distinct First Nations communities, as well as Métis and Inuit (Government of Canada 2017). Many of the high carbon density forests and peatlands that are prioritized for NbS globally are found within the traditional territories of Indigenous Nations across the country, such as Canada's expansive Boreal Forest biome (Carlson et al. 2010; Wells 2020). Canada, like other settler colonial states, is layered with multiple territorial claims, jurisdiction (state and recognized and asserted Indigenous title), and systems of governance (state and Indigenous hereditary and elected) (Borrows 1999, 2015). This complexity-and the conflicts inherent to it-complicates environmental governance and can hinder state-Indigenous collaborative efforts in conservation and climate change mitigation (e.g., Van Schie and Haider 2015; Willow 2016). Despite the devastating impacts of colonialism (TRC 2015), most Indigenous Peoples in Canada have long histories of sustainable coexistence with their territories (Stephenson et al. 2014; Turner 2014).

No abstract