Why Can’t We All Just Get Along? Conflict and Collaboration in Urban Forest Management | Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

LITERATURE CITED

↵
1. Aasetre J,
2. Gundersen V,
3. Vistad OI,
4. Holtrop EJ.
2016. Recreational preferences along a naturalness-development continuum: Results from surveys in two unequal urban forests in Europe. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 16:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2016.09.006
OpenUrl
↵
1. Alexander K,
2. Truslove M,
3. Davis R,
4. Stephens S,
5. Zentz R.
2020. A collaborative approach to preparing for and reacting to emerald ash borer: A case study from Colorado. Forestry. 93(2):239–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpz070
OpenUrl
↵
1. Ballantyne M,
2. Gudes O,
3. Pickering CM.
2014. Recreational trails are an important cause of fragmentation in endangered urban forests: A case-study from Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning. 130:112–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.07.004
OpenUrl
↵
1. Bierzychudek P.
2020. Passive recovery of an urban forest in the Pacific Northwest after removal of invasive plants. Urban Ecosystems. 23:1023–1038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00966-8
OpenUrl
↵
1. Bonilla-Duarte S,
2. González CC,
3. Rodríguez LC,
4. Jáuregui-Haza UJ,
5. García-García A.
2021. Contribution of urban forests to the ecosystem service of air quality in the city of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Forests. 12(9):1249. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091249
OpenUrl
↵
1. Breuste JH.
2013. Investigations of the urban street tree forest of Mendoza, Argentina. Urban Ecosystems. 16:801–818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0255-2
OpenUrl
↵
1. Brown H,
2. Proust K,
3. Newell B,
4. Spickett J,
5. Capon T,
6. Bartholomew L.
2018. Cool communities—Urban density, trees, and health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 15(7):1547. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071547
OpenUrl
↵
1. Cadaval S,
2. Clarke M,
3. Roman LA,
4. Conway TM,
5. Koeser AK,
6. Eisenman TS.
2024. Managing urban trees through storms in three United States cities. Landscape and Urban Planning. 248:105102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105102
OpenUrl
↵
1. Carmichael CE,
2. McDonough MH.
2018. The trouble with trees? Social and political dynamics of street tree-planting efforts in Detroit, Michigan, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 31:221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.009
OpenUrl
↵
1. Carmichael CE,
2. McDonough MH.
2019. Community stories: Explaining resistance to street tree-planting programs in Detroit, Michigan, USA. Society & Natural Resources. 32(5): 588–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1550229
OpenUrl
↵
1. Cheng Z,
2. Nitoslawski S,
3. Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC,
4. Sheppard S,
5. Nesbitt L,
6. Girling C.
2021. Alignment of municipal climate change and urban forestry policies: A Canadian perspective. Environmental Science & Policy. 122:14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.04.005
OpenUrl
↵
1. Clark C,
2. Ordóñez C,
3. Livesley SJ.
2020. Private tree removal, public loss: Valuing and enforcing existing tree protection mechanisms is the key to retaining urban trees on private land. Landscape and Urban Planning. 203:103899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103899
OpenUrl
↵
1. Clark JR,
2. Matheny NP.
1998. A model of urban forest sustainability: Application to cities in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture. 24(2):112–120. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1998.014
OpenUrl
↵
1. Conway TM,
2. Bang E.
2014. Willing partners? Residential support for municipal urban forestry policies. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 13(2):234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.02.003
OpenUrl
↵
1. Davies HJ,
2. Doick KJ,
3. Hudson MD,
4. Schaafsma M,
5. Schreckenberg K,
6. Valatin G.
2018. Business attitudes towards funding ecosystem services provided by urban forests. Ecosystem Services. 32:159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.07.006
OpenUrl
↵
1. Day K,
2. Patel Z.
2021. Speaking for the trees: A study of the relationship between discourse, power and organisational culture in competing constructions of nature. Social Dynamics. 47(1): 172–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2021.1904493
OpenUrl
↵
1. De Smet A,
2. Van Reusel H.
2018. How one tree can change the future of a neighbourhood: The process behind the creation of the Boerenhof Park as an example for tactical urban planning. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 30:286–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.09.001
OpenUrl
↵
1. Devisscher T,
2. Ordóñez-Barona C,
3. Dobbs C,
4. Baptista MD,
5. Navarro NM,
6. Aguilar LAO,
7. Perez JFC,
8. Mancebo YR,
9. Escobedo FJ.
2022. Urban forest management and governance in Latin America and the Caribbean: A baseline study of stakeholder views. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 67:127441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127441
OpenUrl
↵
1. Dilley J,
2. Wolf KL.
2013. Homeowner interactions with residential trees in urban areas. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 39(6): 267–277. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2013.034
OpenUrl
↵
1. Doucet TC,
2. Duinker PN,
3. Zurba M,
4. Steenberg JW,
5. Charles JD.
2024. Perspectives of successes and challenges in collaborations between non-governmental organization and local government on urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 93:128220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128220
OpenUrl
↵
1. Driscoll CT,
2. Lambert KF,
3. Chapin III FS,
4. Nowak DJ,
5. Spies TA,
6. Swanson FJ,
7. Kittredge DB,
8. Hart CM.
2012. Science and society: The role of long-term studies in environmental stewardship. BioScience. 62(4):354–366. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.4.7
OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science
↵
1. Dupéy LN,
2. Dettenmaier M,
3. Kuhns MR,
4. McAvoy D,
5. Brunson MW.
2021. Paving the way: A plan for tackling urban forestry challenges and gaining public support. Journal of Extension. 57(6):3. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.57.06.03
OpenUrl
↵
1. Elmendorf WF,
2. Luloff AE.
2001. Using qualitative data collection methods when planning for community forests. Journal of Arboriculture. 27(3):139–151. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2001.016
OpenUrl
↵
1. Fernandes CO,
2. da Silva IM,
3. Teixeira CP,
4. Costa L.
2019. Between tree lovers and tree haters. Drivers of public perception regarding street trees and its implications on the urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 37:97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.014
OpenUrl
↵
1. Foo K.
2018. Examining the Role of NGOs in urban environmental governance. Cities. 77:67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.002
OpenUrl
↵
1. Foster A,
2. Dunham IM,
3. Kaylor C.
2017. Citizen science for urban forest management? Predicting the data density and richness of urban forest volunteered geographic information. Urban Science. 1(3):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci1030030
OpenUrl
↵
1. Frantzeskaki N,
2. Bush J.
2021. Governance of nature-based solutions through intermediaries for urban transitions—A case study from Melbourne, Australia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 64:127262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127262
OpenUrl
↵
1. Fraser ED,
2. Kenney WA.
2000. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture. 26(2):106–113. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2000.013
OpenUrl
↵
1. Garrison JD.
2019. Seeing the park for the trees: New York’s “Million Trees” campaign vs. the deep roots of environmental inequality. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. 46(5):914–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317737071
OpenUrl
↵
1. Gasson PE,
2. Cutler DF.
1998. Can we live with trees in our towns and cities? Arboricultural Journal. 22(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.1998.9747188
OpenUrl
↵
1. Gasul D,
2. Shmueli DF.
2016. Establishing a “community forest”: Insights from the collaborative process in Migdal HaEmek, Israel. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. 9(3):220–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12075
OpenUrl
↵
1. Gillespie J,
2. Nguyen QH.
2019. Between authoritarian governance and urban citizenship: Tree-felling protests in Hanoi. Urban Studies. 56(5):977–991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018784865
OpenUrl
↵
1. Gundersen V,
2. Frivold LH,
3. Myking T,
4. Øyen BH.
2006. Management of urban recreational woodlands: The case of Norway. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 5(2):73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.06.003
OpenUrl
↵
1. Gutsch M,
2. Larondelle N,
3. Haase D.
2019. Of bugs and men: How forest pests and their management strategies are perceived by visitors of an urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 41:248–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.003
OpenUrl
↵
1. Harper RW,
2. Huff ES,
3. Bloniarz DV,
4. DeStefano S,
5. Nicolson CR.
2018. Exploring the characteristics of successful volunteer-led urban forest tree committees in Massachusetts. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 34:311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.006
OpenUrl
↵
1. Hilbert DR,
2. Koeser AK,
3. Andreu M,
4. Clarke M,
5. Hansen G,
6. Roman LA,
7. Thetford M.
2023. Expanding urban tree species diversity in Florida (USA): Challenges and opportunities for practitioners. Society & Natural Resources. 36(8):891–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2023.2175285
OpenUrl
↵
1. James P,
2. Maslin M,
3. Pringle S,
4. Van Clief B.
2009. University green: How urban forestry partnerships plant more than trees. Metropolitan Universities. 20(4):75–86. https://journals.indianapolis.iu.edu/index.php/muj/article/view/20410
OpenUrl
↵
1. Jankovska I,
2. Straupe I,
3. Panagopoulos T.
2010. Professionals awareness in promotion of conservation and management of urban forests as green infrastructure of Riga, Latvia. WSEAS Transactions of Environment and Development. 6(8):614–623. http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/environment/2010/88-205.pdf
OpenUrl
↵
1. Jorgensen A,
2. Anthopoulou A.
2007. Enjoyment and fear in urban woodlands—Does age make a difference? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 6(4):267–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.05.004
OpenUrl
↵
1. Kirkpatrick JB,
2. Davison A,
3. Harwood A.
2013. How tree professionals perceive trees and conflicts about trees in Australia’s urban forest. Landscape and Urban Planning. 119:124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.009
OpenUrl
↵
1. Kjær AM.
2004. Governance. Cambridge and Malden (MA, USA): Polity Press. 240 p.
↵
1. Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC.
2015. From government to governance: Contribution to the political ecology of urban forestry. In: Anders Sandberg L, Bardekjian A, Butt S, editors. Urban forests, trees, and greenspace. Abingdon-on-Thames (United Kingdom): Routledge. p. 35–46.
↵
1. Köse M,
2. Kirca S,
3. Gürbey AP,
4. Saglam S,
5. Cinar HS,
6. Özdemir E,
7. Kul AA,
8. Altincekic TH,
9. Gümüs C.
2021. A model for urban forest management planning: Istanbul case study. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal. 20(7):1173–1182. http://89.44.47.69/index.php/EEMJ/article/view/4360
OpenUrl
↵
1. Kozová M,
2. Dobšinská Z,
3. Pauditšová E,
4. Tomčíková I,
5. Rakytová I.
2018. Network and participatory governance in urban forestry: An assessment of examples from selected Slovakian cities. Forest Policy and Economics. 89:31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.016
OpenUrl
↵
1. Kraxner F,
2. Aoki K,
3. Kindermann G,
4. Leduc S,
5. Albrecht F,
6. Liu J,
7. Yamagata Y.
2016. Bioenergy and the city—What can urban forests contribute? Applied Energy. 165:990–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.121
OpenUrl
↵
1. Kronenberg J.
2015. Why not to green a city? Institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. 12:218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.002
OpenUrl
↵
1. Kuchelmeister G.
2000. Trees for the urban millennium: Urban forestry update. UNASYLVA. 51(200):49–55. https://www.fao.org/4/X3989e/x3989e09.htm
OpenUrl
↵
1. Kuhns MR,
2. Bragg HA,
3. Blahna DJ.
2002. Involvement of women and minorities in the urban forestry profession. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(1):27–34. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2002.004
OpenUrl
↵
1. Lawrence A,
2. Ambrose-Oji B.
2015. Beauty, friends, power, money: Navigating the impacts of community woodlands. The Geographical Journal. 181(3):268–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12094
OpenUrl
↵
1. Lawrence A,
2. De Vreese R,
3. Johnston M,
4. Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC,
5. Sanesi G.
2013. Urban forest governance: Towards a framework for comparing approaches. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 12(4):464–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.05.002
OpenUrl
↵
1. Leibowitz R.
2012. Urban tree growth and longevity: An international meeting and research symposium white paper. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 38(5):237–241. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2012.032
OpenUrl
↵
1. Lopes AV,
2. Farias JS.
2020. How can governance support collaborative innovation in the public sector? A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 88(1):114–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852319893444
OpenUrl
↵
Lumivero. 2020. NVivo [software]. Release 1.0. Denver (CO, USA): Lumivero. https://lumivero.com/products/nvivo
↵
1. Madureira H,
2. Monteiro A.
2021. Going green and going dense: A systematic review of compatibilities and conflicts in urban research. Sustainability. 13(19):10643. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910643
OpenUrl
↵
1. Maruna M,
2. Crnčević T,
3. Milojević MP.
2019. The institutional structure of land use planning for urban forest protection in the post-socialist transition environment: Serbian experiences. Forests. 10(7):560. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10070560
OpenUrl
↵
1. Mattila O,
2. Häyrinen L,
3. Tervo M,
4. Toppinen A,
5. Berghäll S.
2015. Challenges of municipal greening and multifunctional forest management: The case of Finland. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 14(4):982–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.09.007
OpenUrl
↵
1. McGrath D,
2. Plummer R,
3. Bowen A.
2021. Cultivating our urban forest future: A value-chain perspective. FACETS. 6(1):2084–2109. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0076
OpenUrl
↵
1. McMillen H,
2. Campbell LK,
3. Svendsen ES.
2019. Weighing values and risks of beloved invasive species: The case of the survivor tree and conflict management in urban green infrastructure. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 40:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.023
OpenUrl
↵
1. McPherson EG.
2003. Urban forestry: The final frontier? Journal of Forestry. 101(3):20–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/101.3.20
OpenUrl
↵
1. Moher D,
2. Liberati A,
3. Tetzlaff J,
4. Altman DG.
2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. 6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
OpenUrl
↵
1. Morgenroth J,
2. Santos B,
3. Cadwallader B.
2015. Conflicts between landscape trees and lawn maintenance equipment—The first look at an urban epidemic. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 14(4):1054–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.10.002
OpenUrl
↵
1. Moskell C,
2. Allred SB.
2013. Residents’ beliefs about responsibility for the stewardship of park trees and street trees in New York City. Landscape and Urban Planning. 120:85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.08.002
OpenUrl
↵
1. Muller RN,
2. Bornstein C.
2010. Maintaining the diversity of California’s Municipal Forests. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 36(1):18–27. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2010.003
OpenUrl
↵
1. Nannini DK,
2. Sommer R,
3. Meyers LS.
1998. Resident involvement in inspecting trees for Dutch elm disease. Journal of Arboriculture. 24(1):42–46. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1998.006
OpenUrl
↵
1. Nesbitt L,
2. Meitner MJ,
3. Girling C,
4. Sheppard SR.
2019. Urban green equity on the ground: Practice-based models of urban green equity in three multicultural cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 44:126433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126433
OpenUrl
↵
1. Nguyen VD,
2. Roman LA,
3. Locke DH,
4. Mincey SK,
5. Sanders JR,
6. Fichman ES,
7. Duran-Mitchell M,
8. Tobing SL.
2017. Branching out to residential lands: Missions and strategies of five tree distribution programs in the US. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 22:24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.01.007
OpenUrl
↵
1. Nordström EM,
2. Eriksson LO,
3. Öhman K.
2010. Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics. 12(8):562–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.07.006
OpenUrl
↵
1. O’Brien EA.
2005. Publics* and woodlands in England: Well-being, local identity, social learning, conflict and management. Forestry. 78(4):321–336. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpi042
OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science
↵
1. O’Callaghan AM,
2. Skelly J.
2013. Community involvement to reduce insect threats to urban forests. The Journal of Extension. 51(6):33. https://archives.joe.org/joe/2013december/tt8.php
OpenUrl
↵
1. Ordóñez C,
2. Eleuterio AA,
3. Vasquez A,
4. Devisscher T,
5. Baptista MD,
6. Dobbs C,
7. Aguilar LAO,
8. Meléndez-Ackerman E.
2023. Views of government and non-government actors on urban forest management and governance in ten Latin-American capital cities. Land Use Policy. 129:106635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106635
OpenUrl
↵
1. Ordóñez C,
2. Kendal D,
3. Threlfall CG,
4. Hochuli DF,
5. Davern M,
6. Fuller RA,
7. van der Ree R,
8. Livesley SJ.
2020a. How urban forest managers evaluate management and governance challenges in their decision-making. Forests. 11(9):963. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11090963
OpenUrl
↵
1. Ordóñez C,
2. Threlfall CG,
3. Kendal D,
4. Hochuli DF,
5. Davern M,
6. Fuller RA,
7. van der Ree R,
8. Livesley SJ.
2019. Urban forest governance and decision-making: A systematic review and synthesis of the perspectives of municipal managers. Landscape and Urban Planning. 189:166–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.020
OpenUrl
↵
1. Ordóñez C,
2. Threlfall CG,
3. Livesley SJ,
4. Kendal D,
5. Fuller RA,
6. Davern M,
7. van der Ree R,
8. Hochuli DF.
2020b. Decisionmaking of municipal urban forest managers through the lens of governance. Environmental Science & Policy. 104:136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.11.008
OpenUrl
↵
1. Page MJ,
2. McKenzie JE,
3. Bossuyt PM,
4. Boutron I,
5. Hoffmann TC,
6. Mulrow CD,
7. Shamseer L,
8. Tetzlaff JM,
9. Akl EA,
10. Brennan SE,
11. Chou R,
12. Glanville J,
13. Grimshaw JM,
14. Hróbjartsson A,
15. Lalu MM,
16. Li T,
17. Loder EW,
18. Mayo-Wilson E,
19. McDonald S,
20. McGuinness LA,
21. Stewart LA,
22. Thomas J,
23. Tricco AC,
24. Welch VA,
25. Whiting P,
26. Moher D.
2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
↵
1. Pincetl S.
2010. Implementing municipal tree planting: Los Angeles million-tree initiative. Environmental Management. 45:227–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9412-7
OpenUrl PubMed Web of Science
↵
1. Pincetl S,
2. Gillespie T,
3. Pataki DE,
4. Saatchi S,
5. Saphores JD.
2013. Urban tree planting programs, function or fashion? Los Angeles and urban tree planting campaigns. GeoJournal. 78:475–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-012-9446-x
OpenUrl CrossRef
↵
1. Pinkerton E,
2. Rutherford M.
2021. Evaluating British Columbia’s municipally owned community forest corporations as governance structures. Environmental Management. 67(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01384-4
OpenUrl
↵
1. Pinto M,
2. Almeida C,
3. Pereira AM,
4. Silva M.
2016. Urban forest governance: FUTURE—The 100,000 Trees Project in the Porto Metropolitan Area. In: Castro P, Azeiteiro U, Bacelar-Nicolau P, Leal Filho W, Azul A, editors. Biodiversity and education for sustainable development. Cham (Switzerland): Springer. p. 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32318-3_12
↵
1. Reams MA,
2. Haines TK,
3. Renner CR,
4. Wascom MW,
5. Kingre H.
2005. Goals, obstacles and effective strategies of wildfire mitigation programs in the wildland–urban interface. Forest Policy and Economics. 7(5):818–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.03.006
OpenUrl
↵
1. Referowska-Chodak E.
2019. Management and social problems linked to the human use of European urban and suburban forests. Forests. 10(11):964. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10110964
OpenUrl
↵
1. Rodriguez M,
2. Bodini A,
3. Escobedo FJ,
4. Clerici N.
2021. Analyzing socio-ecological interactions through qualitative modeling: Forest conservation and implications for sustainability in the peri-urban bogota (Colombia). Ecological Modelling. 439: 109344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109344
OpenUrl
↵
1. Roman LA,
2. Conway TM,
3. Eisenmann TS,
4. Koeser AK,
5. Ordóñez Barona C,
6. Locke DH,
7. Jenerette GD,
8. Östberg J,
9. Vogt J.
2021. Beyond ‘trees are good’: Disservices, management costs, and tradeoffs in urban forestry. Ambio. 50(3):615–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01396-8
OpenUrl
↵
1. Romolini M,
2. Grove JM,
3. Locke DH.
2013. Assessing and comparing relationships between urban environmental stewardship networks and land cover in Baltimore and Seattle. Landscape and Urban Planning. 120:190–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.08.008
OpenUrl
↵
1. Ruliffson JA,
2. Gobster PH,
3. Haight RG,
4. Homans FR.
2002. Niches in the urban forest: Organizations and their role in acquiring metropolitan open space. Journal of Forestry. 100(6):16–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/100.6.16
OpenUrl
↵
1. Ryu J,
2. Chi SH.
2021. Slope matters: Anti-sprawl and construction of urban nature in Yongin, South Korea. Sustainability. 13(22):12401. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212401
OpenUrl
↵
1. Shapira A,
2. Shoshany M,
3. Nir-Goldenberg S.
2013. Combining analytical hierarchy process and agglomerative hierarchical clustering in search of expert consensus in green corridors development management. Environmental Management. 52:123–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0064-2
OpenUrl
↵
1. Shimada LD,
2. Johnston M.
2013. Tracing the Troubles through the trees: Conflict and peace in the urban forest of Belfast, Northern Ireland. Journal of War & Culture Studies. 6(1):40–57. https://doi.org/10.1179/1752627212Z.0000000004
OpenUrl
↵
1. Sipilä M,
2. Tyrväinen L.
2005. Evaluation of collaborative urban forest planning in Helsinki, Finland. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 4(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2005.06.002
OpenUrl
↵
1. Sotirov M,
2. Blum M,
3. Storch S,
4. Selter A,
5. Schraml U.
2017. Do forest policy actors learn through forward-thinking? Conflict and cooperation relating to the past, present and futures of sustainable forest management in Germany. Forest Policy and Economics. 85:256–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.11.011
OpenUrl
↵
1. Steenberg JWN,
2. Duinker PN,
3. Nitoslawski SA.
2019. Ecosystembased management revisited: Updating the concepts for urban forests. Landscape and Urban Planning. 186:24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.006
OpenUrl
↵
1. Stobbart M,
2. Johnston M.
2012. A survey of urban tree management in New Zealand. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 38(6):247–254. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2012.033
OpenUrl
↵
1. Svendsen ES,
2. Campbell LK,
3. Plitt S,
4. Johnson ML.
2021. Open for All: How are federal and municipal land management agencies adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic alongside increased societal recognition of racial injustice. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities. 3:25620. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.725620
OpenUrl
↵
1. Tyrväinen L,
2. Silvennoinen H,
3. Kolehmainen O.
2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 1(3):135–149. https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00014
OpenUrl
↵
1. Ugolini F,
2. Massetti L,
3. Sanesi G,
4. Pearlmutter D.
2015. Knowledge transfer between stakeholders in the field of urban forestry and green infrastructure: Results of a European survey. Land Use Policy. 49:365–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.019
OpenUrl
↵
1. Ugolini F,
2. Sanesi G,
3. Steidle A,
4. Pearlmutter D.
2018. Speaking “green”: A worldwide survey on collaboration among stakeholders in urban park design and management. Forests. 9(8):458. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9080458
OpenUrl
↵
United Nations. 2018. World Urbanization Prospects 2018. New York (NY, USA): United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. [Accessed 2024 January 12]. https://population.un.org/wup/Maps
↵
1. van der Jagt APN,
2. Lawrence A.
2018. Local government and urban forest governance: Insights from Scotland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 34(1):53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2018.1532018
OpenUrl
↵
1. Vazquez-Brust D,
2. Piao RS,
3. de Melo MFDS,
4. Yaryd RT,
5. Carvalho MM.
2020. The governance of collaboration for sustainable development: Exploring the “black box”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 256:120260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120260
OpenUrl
↵
1. Watkins SL,
2. Vogt J,
3. Mincey SK,
4. Fischer BC,
5. Bergmann RA,
6. Widney SE,
7. Westphal LM,
8. Sweeney S.
2018. Does collaborative tree planting between nonprofits and neighborhood groups improve neighborhood community capacity? Cities. 74:83–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.11.006
OpenUrl
↵
1. Wilkes-Allemann J,
2. Pütz M,
3. Hirschi C.
2015a. Governance of forest recreation in urban areas: Analyzing the role of stakeholders and institutions using the institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Policy and Governance. 25(2):139–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1668
OpenUrl
↵
1. Wilkes-Allemann J,
2. Pütz M,
3. Hirschi C,
4. Fischer C.
2015b. Conflict situations and response strategies in urban forests in Switzerland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 30(3):204–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.1002217
OpenUrl
↵
1. Wirtz Z,
2. Hagerman S,
3. Hauer RJ,
4. Konijnendijk CC.
2021. What makes urban forest governance successful?—A study among Canadian experts. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 58:126901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126901
OpenUrl
↵
1. Wu Z,
2. Chen R,
3. Meadows ME,
4. Sengupta D,
5. Xu D.
2019. Changing urban green spaces in Shanghai: Trends, drivers and policy implications. Land Use Policy. 87:104080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104080
OpenUrl
↵
1. Yamaki K.
2016. Role of social networks in urban forest management collaboration: A case study in northern Japan. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 18:212–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.009
OpenUrl
↵
1. Yao N,
2. Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC,
3. Yang J,
4. Devisscher T,
5. Wirtz Z,
6. Jia L,
7. Duan J,
8. Ma L.
2019. Beijing’s 50 million new urban trees: Strategic governance for large-scale urban afforestation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 44:126392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126392
OpenUrl
↵
1. Young RF.
2011. Planting the living city: Best practices in planning green infrastructure—Results from major U.S. cities. Journal of the American Planning Association. 77(4):368–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2011.616996
OpenUrl
↵
1. Zinzani A,
2. Curzi E.
2020. Urban regeneration, forests and socio-environmental conflicts: The case of Prati di Caprara in Bologna, Italy. ACME. 19(1):163–186. https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v19i1.1883
OpenUrl
↵
1. Živojinović I,
2. Wolfslehner B.
2015. Perceptions of urban forestry stakeholders about climate change adaptation—A Q-method application in Serbia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 14(4):1079–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.10.007
OpenUrl

In this issue

Print

Bookmark this article

Related Articles

Cited By...

No citing articles found.

Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords