Perspectives on Private Property Urban Forest Dynamics Among Arborists in Sweden

Literature Cited

1. ↵
   1. Avolio ML,
   2. Pataki DE,
   3. Pincetl S,
   4. Gillespie TW,
   5. Jenerette GD,
   6. McCarthy HR.

   2015. Understanding preferences for tree attributes: The relative effects of socio-economic and local environmental factors. Urban Ecosystems. 18:73–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0388-6

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Bardekjian AC.

   2016. Towards social arboriculture: Arborists’ perspectives on urban forest labour in Southern Ontario, Canada. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 19:255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.10.014

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Cooper H,
   2. Camic PM,
   3. Long DL,
   4. Panter AT,
   5. Rindskopf D,
   6. Sher KJ

   1. Braun V,
   2. Clarke V.

   2012. Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ, editors. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. Washington (DC, USA): American Psychological Association. p. 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
4. ↵
   1. Buck HJ.

   2015. On the possibilities of a charming anthropocene. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 105(2): 369-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.973005
5. ↵
   1. Camacho-Cervantes M,
   2. Schondube JE,
   3. Castillo A,
   4. MacCregor-Fors I.

   2014. How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city. Urban Ecosystems. 17:761–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0343-6

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   City of Vancouver. 2014. Urban forest strategy. 59 p. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/Urban-Forest-Strategy-Draft.pdf
7. ↵
   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
8. ↵
   1. Conway TM.

   2016. Tending their urban forest: Residents’ motivations for tree planting and removal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 17:23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.008

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   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
10. ↵
    1. Conway TM,
    2. Vander Vecht J.

    2015. Growing a diverse urban forest: Species selection decisions by practitioners planting and supplying trees. Landscape and Urban Planning. 138:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.007

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Creswell JW,
    2. Poth CN.

    2024. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 5th Ed. Thousand Oaks (CA, USA): Sage Publications, Inc. 552 p.
12. ↵
    1. Davison A,
    2. Kirkpatrick JB.

    2014. Risk and the arborist in the remaking of the Australian urban forest. Geographical Research. 52(2):115–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12043

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Delshammar T,
    2. Östberg J,
    3. Öxell C.

    2015. Urban trees and ecosystem disservices—A pilot study using complaints records from three Swedish cities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 41(4):187–193. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2015.018

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Endreny TA.

    2018. Strategically growing the urban forest will improve our world. Nature Communications. 9:1160. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03622-0

    OpenUrlPubMed
15. ↵
    1. Forman RTT.

    1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology. 10:133–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133027

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
16. ↵
    1. Gill SE,
    2. Handley JF,
    3. Ennos AR,
    4. Pauleit S.

    2007. Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment. 33(1):115–133. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23289476

    OpenUrlCrossRef
17. ↵
    1. Gordon JS,
    2. Brodbeck AB.

    2024. Motivations and barriers of professional certification for tree workers. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 50(4):259–277. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2024.008

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Guo T,
    2. Morgenroth J,
    3. Conway T.

    2018. Redeveloping the urban forest: The effect of redevelopment and property-scale variables on tree removal and retention. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 35:192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.08.012

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Haaland C,
    2. van den Bosch CK.

    2015. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 14(4): 760-771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009
20. ↵
    1. Pörtner HO,
    2. Roberts DC,
    3. Tignor M,
    4. Poloczanska ES,
    5. Mintenbeck K,
    6. Alegría A,
    7. Craig M,
    8. Langsdorf S,
    9. Löschke S,
    10. Möller V,
    11. Okem A,
    12. Rama B

    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2022. Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. In: Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, Okem A, Rama B, editors. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge (United Kingdom) and New York (NY, USA): Cambridge University Press. 3056 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
21. ↵
    1. Julius AK,
    2. Kane B,
    3. Bulzacchelli MT,
    4. Ryan HDP III.

    2014. Compliance with the ANSI Z133.1—2006 safety standard among arborists in New England. Journal of Safety Research. 51:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2014.09.010

    OpenUrlPubMed
22. ↵
    1. Kabisch N,
    2. Frantzeskaki N,
    3. Pauleit S,
    4. Naumann S,
    5. Davis M,
    6. Artmann M,
    7. Haase D,
    8. Knapp S,
    9. Korn H,
    10. Stadler J,
    11. Zaunberger K,
    12. Bonn A.

    2016. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology & Society. 21(2):39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Khan T,
    2. Conway TM.

    2020. Vulnerability of common urban forest species to projected climate change and practitioners perceptions and responses. Environmental Management. 65:534–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01270-z

    OpenUrlPubMed
24. ↵
    1. Kirkpatrick JB,
    2. Davison A,
    3. Daniels GD.

    2013. Sinners, scapegoats or fashion victims? Understanding the deaths of trees in the green city. Geoforum. 48:165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.018

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. Klobucar B,
    2. Östberg J,
    3. Wiström B,
    4. Jansson M.

    2021. Residential urban trees—Socio-ecological factors affecting tree and shrub abundance in the city of Malmö, Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 62:127118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127118

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Sandberg LA,
    2. Bardekjian A,
    3. Butt S

    1. Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC.

    2014. From government to governance: Contribution to the political ecology of urban forestry. In: Sandberg LA, Bardekjian A, Butt S, editors. Urban forests, trees, and greenspace: A political ecology perspective. 1st Ed. London (United Kingdom): Routledge. p. 35–46. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315882901
27. ↵
    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
28. ↵
    1. Lim J,
    2. Kane B,
    3. Bloniarz D.

    2020. Arboriculture safety standards: Consistent trends. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 53:126736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126736

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Lo AY,
    2. Byrne JA,
    3. Jim CY.

    2017. How climate change perception is reshaping attitudes towards the functional benefits of urban trees and green space: Lessons from Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 23:74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.007

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. McPherson EG.

    1998. Structure and sustainability of Sacramento’s urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture. 24(4):174–190. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1998.023

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Kuser JE

    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Dwyer JF.

    2007. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: Kuser JE, editor. Urban and community forestry in the Northeast. Dordrecht (Netherlands): Springer. p. 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4289-8_2
32. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ,
    2. Rowntree RA,
    3. McPherson EG,
    4. Sisinni SM,
    5. Kerkmann ER,
    6. Stevens JC.

    1996. Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Landscape and Urban Planning. 36(1):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00324-6

    OpenUrlCrossRef
33. ↵
    1. Nowell LS,
    2. Norris JM,
    3. White DE,
    4. Moules NJ.

    2017. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
34. ↵
    1. Ogden L,
    2. Heynen N,
    3. Oslender U,
    4. West P,
    5. Kassam KA,
    6. Robbins P.

    2013. Global assemblages, resilience, and Earth stewardship in the Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 11(7):341–347. https://doi.org/10.1890/120327

    OpenUrlCrossRef
35. ↵
    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
36. ↵
    1. Ordóñez-Barona C,
    2. Bush J,
    3. Hurley J,
    4. Amati M,
    5. Juhola S,
    6. Frank S,
    7. Ritchie M,
    8. Clark C,
    9. English A,
    10. Hertzog K,
    11. Caffin M,
    12. Watt S,
    13. Livesley SJ.

    2021. International approaches to protecting and retaining trees on private urban land. Journal of Environmental Management. 285:112081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112081

    OpenUrlPubMed
37. ↵
    1. Östberg J,
    2. Wiström B,
    3. Randrup TB.

    2018. The state and use of municipal tree inventories in Swedish municipalities— Results from a national survey. Urban Ecosystems. 21:467–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0732-3

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. Pearce LM,
    2. Davison A,
    3. Kirkpatrick JB.

    2015. Personal encounters with trees: The lived significance of the private urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 14(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.11.003

    OpenUrl
39. ↵
    1. Pearce LM,
    2. Kirkpatrick JB,
    3. Davison A.

    2013. Using size class distributions of species to deduce the dynamics of the private urban forest. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 39(2):74–84. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2013.011

    OpenUrl
40. ↵
    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/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-012-9446-x

    OpenUrlCrossRef
41. ↵
    1. Profous GV,
    2. Loeb RE.

    1990. The legal protection of urban trees: A comparative world survey. Journal of Environmental Law. 2(2):179–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/2.2.179

    OpenUrlCrossRef
42. ↵
    1. Randrup TB,
    2. Sunding A,
    3. Östberg J,
    4. Persson B,
    5. Deak Sjöman J.

    2020. Monitoring urban green spaces in Sweden. Land-skapsarkitektur, trädgård, växtproduktionsvetenskap: rapportserie. 2020:05. https://res.slu.se/id/publ/105514

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Battles JJ,
    3. McBride JR.

    2014. Determinants of establishment survival for residential trees in Sacramento County, CA. Landscape and Urban Planning. 129:22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.05.004

    OpenUrl
44. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Pearsall H,
    3. Eisenman TS,
    4. Conway TM,
    5. Fahey RT,
    6. Landry S,
    7. Vogt J,
    8. van Doorn NS,
    9. Grove JM,
    10. Locke DH,
    11. Bardekjian AC,
    12. Battles JJ,
    13. Cadenasso ML,
    14. Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC,
    15. Avolio M,
    16. Berland A,
    17. Jenerette GD,
    18. Mincey SK,
    19. Pataki DE,
    20. Staudhammer C.

    2018. Human and biophysical legacies shape contemporary urban forests: A literature synthesis. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 31:157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.004

    OpenUrl
45. ↵
    1. Slater D.

    2019. Current opinion within the UK arboricultural industry on the management of bark-included junctions in trees. Arboricultural Journal. 41(1):10–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2019.1567037

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Sledzieski N,
    2. Gallicano TD,
    3. Shaikh S,
    4. Levens S.

    2023. Optimizing recruitment for qualitative research: A comparison of social media, emails, and offline methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231162539
47. ↵
    Statistics Sweden. 2021. Increasing proportion of people live in urban areas. 2021-11-24 9.30. https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/environment/land-use/localities-and-urban-areas/pong/statistical-news/localities-and-urban-areas-2020
48. ↵
    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
49. ↵
    1. Woodruff SC,
    2. BenDor TK.

    2016. Ecosystem services in urban planning: Comparative paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans. Landscape and Urban Planning. 152:90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.003

    OpenUrl
50. ↵
    1. Zhu J,
    2. Gelberg K.

    2018. Occupational fatal injuries associated with mobile hand-fed wood chippers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 61(12):978–985. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22913

    OpenUrlPubMed
51. ↵
    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