Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

#nomorelonely : building community with 1 trillion trees Baker, Gary P 2021-05

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


42591-Baker_Gary_LARC_598_No_more_lonely_2021.pdf [ 4.08MB ]
JSON: 42591-1.0397264.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0397264-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0397264-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0397264-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0397264-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0397264-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0397264-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

i     Baker, 2021  #nomorelonely  building community with 1 trillion trees           gary p baker 2020 ~ 2021 Supervising Committee: Daniel Roehr (Chair), Dr Sara Barron     Submitted in partial fulfillment for the Master of Landscape Architecture, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of British Columbia    Release Form  Landscape Architecture School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture University of British Columbia  Name: Gary P Baker UBC Student number:  Graduate Project Title: #nomorelonely ~ building community with 1 trillion trees  In presenting this report in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Landscape Architecture, University of British Columbia, I agree that UBC may make this work freely available for reference or study. I give permission for copying the report for educational purposes in accordance with copyright laws.    GP Baker__________________________________________________________  May 4, 2021 Name     Signature       Dateii         Baker, 2021 Abstract During 2020, in an effort to help curb the climate crisis, the World Economic Forum announced a campaign to grow, restore and conserve one trillion trees around the world by 2050, the year by which the United Nations projects two-thirds of our global population will be urban dwellers. In the meantime, another alarming life-threatening crisis is expanding across our metropolises where social isolation is deepening amid densification: loneliness in the city. By analyzing variations in the use of woodlands and forests in urban places, I will offer proposals for how landscape architects can work with trees in their designs of neighbourhood spaces to respond in tandem to curb the climate crisis and loneliness. In positing that the forest is the city, I will identify opportunities to engage Vancouverites in the design, planning, planting, and caring for the trees in their neighbourhoods. With an advent of responsible stewardship of the urban canopy and reciprocity in the relationships to be formed with neighbourhood woodlands and with other neighbourhood residents, I will suggest that these proposals could help to ameliorate experiences of loneliness while addressing elements of our climate crisis.                Figure 1. Symbiotic relationship between people and trees iii         Baker, 2021 Contents                  Abstract            ii List of Figures and Tables          v Acknowledgements           vii PART ONE ~ RESEARCH Introduction            1 The foundation: Biophilia and Well-being        2 biophilia           3 shinrin-yoku           3 An Ancillary Approach: Trees and Loneliness        4 loneliness           4 trees            6 Precedent            7 responding to loneliness in the landscape        8 pocket parks          8 social and therapeutic horticulture       11 community engagement through the urban canopy      11 community forests         12 neighbourwoods         13 tiny forests          15 tree equity          16 urban places where community can flourish       17 Projected Design Schedule          20   iv         Baker, 2021 PART TWO ~ DESIGN A Landscape for Lonely People?         21 Vancouver: Site Discovery and Selection        23 neighbourhood selection: urban forest strategy       24 neighbourhood selection: vancouver foundation       25 selection zones and sites          29 Arboreal Protagonist           32 tree diversity           32 design through drawing          32 intervention scales          34 Collective Stewardship           35 Curbing Loneliness Model          35 Greenway Nodes           36 parklet            36 nursery            39 grove            42 mini forest           44 In Conclusion            47 References            48 Appendix ~ Priority Tree Listing         51    v         Baker, 2021 Figures fig. 1. Symbiotic relationship between people and trees      ii fig. 2. A connected society: A strategy for tackling loneliness, U.K. 2018    8 fig. 3. Mayor of London’s Pocket Parks Prospectus, U.K. 2012     9 fig. 4. Southampton Way Pocket Park, London, U.K. Adapted from Semble Drawing  10 fig. 5. The Mersey Forest Plan: Empowering Communities      12 fig. 6. Citizen’s Coolkit by UBC’s Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning   14 fig. 7. Urban Forestry Toolkit: Vibrant Cities Lab       15  fig. 8. Example of tiny forest transformation, Clifton Park, Pakistan, by Afforestt   16 fig. 9. Places Framework          18 fig. 10. Priority Neighbourhoods, adapted from 2018 Vancouver Urban Forest Strategy  25 fig. 11. Number of residents aged 15-24 by neighbourhood, adapted from the Vancouver 2016 Census Data         26 fig. 12. Number of residents aged 25-34 by neighbourhood, adapted from the Vancouver 2016 Census Data         27 fig. 13. Number of households not employed by neighbourhood, adapted from Vancouver  2016 Census Data         27 fig. 14. Number of households with under $20,000 income by neighbourhood, adapted from  Vancouver 2016 Census Data        28 fig. 15. Number of households with $20,000 to $40,000 income by neighbourhood, adapted from Vancouver 2016 Census Data       28 fig. 16. Downtown neighbourhood selection zones and site     30 fig. 17. Strathcona neighbourhood selection zones and site      31 fig. 18. Renfrew-Collingwood neighbourhood selection zones and site    31 fig. 19. Progression of tree illustrations        33 fig. 20. Sample of small, medium and large tree specimens      33 vi         Baker, 2021 fig. 21. Intervention scales         34 fig. 22. Collective Stewardship Framework       35 fig. 23. Curbing Loneliness Model        36 fig. 24. Tree buddies: Hornby Street parklet plan       37 fig. 25. Tree buddies: parklet plan with curbing loneliness model     37 fig 26. Tree buddies: section, looking north       38 fig. 27. Tree buddies: render         39 fig. 28. Tree creche: South Glen Drive nursery plan      40 fig 29. Tree creche: nursery plan with curbing loneliness model     41 fig. 30. Tree creche: section, looking south       41 fig. 31. Tree stand: North Glen Drive groves plan       42 fig. 32. Tree stand: groves plan with curbing loneliness model     43 fig. 33. Tree stand: groves section, looking north       43 fig. 34. Slocan Street intersection with 25th Avenue plan      44 fig. 35. Tree’s the boss: mini forest plans, existing to stabilized state     45 fig. 36. Tree’s the boss: mini forest plan with curbing loneliness model    45 fig. 37. Tree’s the boss: mini forest section, looking west      46 fig. 38. Tree’s the boss: mini forest render        47  Tables table 1. Benefits and uses of urban forest and trees      6 table 2. Design objectives and principles addressed by precedents     19 table 3. Key loneliness statistics in Vancouver       23    vii         Baker, 2021 Acknowledgements I live, learn, and breath on the unceded, ancestral, and occupied lands of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Səl̓ílwətaʔ (Tsleil-Watuth), and Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish) Nations of the Coast Salish peoples. As a guest to this beautiful land, I am thankful and consider it a privilege to be able to undertake my Graduate Project here, and respect that my design proposals will focus on land that is situated in a place where the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island have passed on their culture, history, and traditions from one generation to the next for millennia. Thank you to Daniel Roehr for so generously being my mentor throughout, and Dr Sara Barron for shining her torch of arboreal expertise. I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to my wonderful family and friends for their support, interest, encouragement, and guidance: even when I doubted myself, they always had confidence to carry me through those wavering moments.   1         Baker, 2021 PART ONE ~ RESEARCH Introduction We are in the midst of a terrestrial duality: the world’s population is becoming more urbanized while policymakers are focusing on how to make our cities greener. The United Nations projects that 68% of our planet’s population will be urban dwellers by 2050. At the same time, the World Economic Forum, Nature Conservancy and many other organizations have issued global mandates to plant billions of trees as a collaborative effort to curb the climate crisis. Although conversations about the so-called “urban green revolution”1 consider diverse themes, trees have taken on special significance, as an article published in 2020 in the Conversation offered: “The urban forest of the future: how to turn our cities into Treetopias.”2 Similarly, the Science editor of the BBC argues: “From Greta Thunberg to Donald Trump and airlines to oil companies, everyone is suddenly going crazy for trees.”3 Although seemingly small in scale, trees do exert considerable upside effects on the status of the climate, but can also positively impact individuals’ well-being and health. Indeed, Jad Daley of American Forests exclaims to Bloomberg, “This isn’t about scenery; this is about adding life-saving infrastructure.”4  In the meantime, one alarming life-threatening health crisis is expanding across our cities where social isolation is deepening in the midst of densifying populations, as Monbiot (2014), writing for The Guardian, declared: “The age of loneliness is killing us.”5 As someone who has personally experienced social isolation and loneliness while living in four major cities across the globe, I raise the following inquiry in response to these headlines: How may landscape architects work with trees in their design of public spaces to respond to the crisis of loneliness in urban environments? In this project, I will hypothesize that trees in public spaces can help to work in tandem to curb loneliness and the climate crisis. To develop this supposition, I will first review research on the application of biophilia in thinking about green spaces and well-being. Next, I will review research on urban woodlands, forests, and trees specifically with a view to suggesting an ancillary approach to specifically addressing issues of loneliness, a crisis of its own under the well-being banner. I will investigate where I might leverage existing interventions, before finally proposing design ideas for municipalities to include in their urban forest strategies, and for organizations supporting the 1 trillion trees initiative6 to include in their predominantly climate-focused tree-planting objectives.    1 2 3 4 5 6 2         Baker, 2021 The Foundation: Biophilia and Well-being Over the ages, significant research and evidence have supported the restorative benefits of passive or active time spent in natural settings. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Frederik Law “Olmsted argued that natural settings 'restore' because they hold attention without mental effort, are pleasurable, and block out the demands and stresses of daily work and urban living. Olmsted wrote that when an individual is exposed to a natural view, 'The attention is aroused and the mind occupied without purpose' (1865)” (Ulrich, et al., 1991, p. 206). A concept for designing spaces for the well-being of the collective public in cities originated in the same period: the self-sufficient community of Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City movement in the United Kingdom (U.K.) was seen as a remedy for the ills of living in new industrialized urban centres (Livesey, 2011). Despite its ecological idealism, the idea of modelling the city on a garden disappeared over the course of the twentieth century as urban centres became heavily densified, the rural became the city’s productive land, and permeable surfaces gave way to the overwhelming impervious designs for the city’s infrastructure, housing, and transportation requirements. Most city inhabitants, its intended gardeners, either exited to suburban or peri-urban spaces, or became non-contributing users of municipality-maintained park systems. Taking their lead from Olmsted, landscape architects became the designers of those spaces, creating aesthetically pleasing and restorative natural settings for city dwellers. The contemporary professional has extended such ‘place-making’ skills and responsibilities to include biodiversity enhancement, social programming, and blue-green infrastructure design, to name a few. With an eye to addressing social or environmental issues, these designs incorporate plants of all forms and textures for the municipality to use and maintain, and for the urbanite to appreciate. Perhaps more space could be created for the city dweller or local connoisseur to contribute to understanding, rehabilitating, keeping, strengthening, and nurturing a place, instead of others independently making that place for them. Randy Hester (1984), landscape architect, professor, and sociologist, offers a definition of neighbourhood space as “that territory close to home, including houses, churches, businesses, and parks that, because of the residents’ collective responsibility, familiar association, and frequent shared use, is considered to be their own.”  Furthermore, in his argument for how citizens shape the evolution of a city’s character, and the extent to which nature and wilderness can flourish, David Tracey (2013) suggests “we can influence this best by caring for city places, creating spaces where wilderness can exist, and we can engage with it.” These reflections steer me to believe that the city dweller and local connoisseur’s active engagement, even initiation, in the stewardship, co-design and co-management would lead to more successful neighbourhood spaces for both human and other species.   3         Baker, 2021 biophilia In 1984, Edward 0. Wilson wrote Biophilia, a book which suggests that our affinity to nature is derived from a deep human need, necessary for our overall well-being: physical, mental, and spiritual. Researchers extended the idea that natural settings and plants are beneficial to a healthy state of mind, especially restorative for stress management (Ulrich and Parsons, 1992) or the general fatigue from the attention required for the pressures and temptations of everyday living (S. Kaplan, 1995). Further research by psychologists identified that in common spaces, especially those in inner-city low-income neighbourhoods where green spaces were either limited or in disrepair, the presence of trees and grass encouraged members of the community to gather, engage and develop healthy social ties (Kuo, et al., 1998). In addition, these researchers indicated that such social ties led to these neighbours building greater control over negative social behaviour and reducing crime rates. More recently, Patrick Mooney (2020) has aggregated the extensive scientific research on the impact of natural environments on well-being. He has developed a practical framework for landscape designers and architects where “the characteristics of restorative and preferred landscapes are intertwined” (p. 58) to better connect people and place. Restorative landscapes (S. Kaplan, 1995) are those which engage a combination of feelings of fascination (gentle sensory engagement with an environment), being away (change of scene from the everyday environment), extent (mental exploration) or compatibility (aligned to needs or preferences).   Preferred landscapes (R. Kalan and S. Kaplan, 1998) encourage both understanding and involvement, the former through coherence (clear structural organization) and legibility (recognizable layout to explore), and the latter through complexity (visual richness to maintain interest) and mystery (inviting discovery). Further, as part of his urban experiments on how people can be healthy and happy while living in densely populated cities, Charles Montgomery (2013, p. 125) emphasizes: “If we infuse cities with natural diversity, complexity, and most of all, opportunities to feel, touch and work with nature, we can win the biophilic challenge.” I assume Montgomery’s challenge is one presented by densifying urbanization, but regardless, a re-emergence of people actively engaging with the plants in a network of green spaces across a city reflects some of the intentions of the original Garden City, and the moment may be ripe for that engagement given the attention of many city leaders and dwellers on present-time environmental and social challenges. shinrin-yoku S. Kaplan’s (1995) restorative attribute of fascination could be described as an intuition that is difficult to place into words. In Japanese, the word yūgen captures that profound sense of beauty that evokes inner feelings and perhaps aligns with the western ideal of fascination. In Japan, about two-thirds of land is forested, and both of its official religions, Shinto and Buddhism, “believe that the forest is the realm of the divine.” (Li, 2018). It is not surprising therefore that in the early 1980’s this country and culture originated the practice of shinrin-yoku: 4         Baker, 2021 ‘forest-bathing’ is the practice of walking and/or staying in forests and mindfully using all five senses to promote health. The forest has become known as a form of therapeutic landscape that can help contribute to people’s health and well-being, with such positive effects not resulting from strenuous activities or exercise, but purely from spending time in the forest environment (Morita et al., 2006). Exposure to phytoncides, chemical compounds released by trees, particularly in pristine forests, is found to decrease the production of stress hormones, and boost the immune system (Li, 2010). As further scientific research builds to support the benefits of this activity, doctors in western cultures are beginning to replicate Japanese health practitioners by including shinrin-yoku in their kit of social prescribing programs, referring patients to local, non-clinical services: “Take a walk in the woods. Doctor’s Orders.” as the New York Times declared.7  An Ancillary Approach: Trees and Loneliness loneliness Most mental health challenges remain unspoken, yet many people are inflicted with such at some point in their life, and the holistic implications of mind and body disconnects are becoming increasingly apparent in our communities. Peplau and Perlman (1982) note three common points of agreement in how loneliness is defined: 1) it results from a deficiency in social relationships; 2) it is a subjective experience, unlike social isolation; and 3) the experience is unpleasant and distressing. Monbiot (2014) alerted us to the stress response triggered by loneliness and its ensuing impact on other mental and physical conditions: “It is as potent a cause of early death as smoking 15 cigarettes a day, and can be twice as deadly as obesity.”8 Furthermore, Cigna, the global health service company, has found that nearly fifty percent of Americans reported sometimes or always feeling alone; one in four Americans rarely or never feel as though there are people who understand them; and Generation Z  is the loneliest generation and claims to be in worse health than people older than them.9  The nature of social networks and relationships has altered rapidly since the advent of the Information Age. Modern technological developments have enabled society to rely less on others and even less on physical spaces to engage with them: work disperses us with either no fixed workplace or the ability to work virtually from anywhere; we can ‘connect’ with our friends and family through social media; and forms of entertainment and exercise are accessed through our own televisions and computers. More strikingly, the social restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic have intensified these conditions further still. The closure of international and regional borders resulting from the virus spread have prevented the travel and mobility that many global citizens,  7 8 9 5         Baker, 2021 especially younger adult generations, assume as part of their everyday lives. No longer able to meet in person with families and many friends, digital media has become the only way to ‘connect’ to maintain these relationships. In addition, “whilst we can co-produce mega-cities, we have lost the art of place-making for prosocial cohabitation within our cities and through the economic model of place, we are building lonely urban environments focussed on the individual rather than community.” (Corcoran and Marshall, 2018, p. 133). Have we erred in thinking we have to ‘place-make” rather than ‘place-keep”, a term being used in the context of re-indigenizing a place, where citizen experts with lived or generational experience lead the design of that place? (Dalla Costa, 2018). Social loneliness is a concerning phenomenon when a person struggles to develop an effective network of friends or acquaintances when surrounded by thousands, if not millions, of other people in a city. Big cities can be very lonely places. And our youngest adult generation, despite growing up in the era of social media, with access to more expansive communities across the globe, appears to be the loneliest group in our societies. What does this hold for our and their future? Despite technology advances, people are feeling socially isolated and consequently lonely.  The majority of analysis undertaken on population loneliness has focused on the baby boomer generation and older, with little attention given to the challenges of our younger adults. A recent survey found “that 60% of millennials who find it difficult to make friends say it is because they are shy. 26% of that group say they don’t have hobbies or interests that facilitate friendships, and 24% say they feel they don’t really need friends.” (Sander, et al., 2020). Millennials, and even more so Generation Z, are homebodies with at least a third of their spare time spent watching films or TV. However, they are focused on their mental wellness, with their top activities being exercise, yoga or meditation and reading.10 All of these, I would encourage, can be done outdoors in public spaces, as well as in the home.  Environmental and public health researchers point to decreased life satisfaction levels resulting from loneliness and posit that people who live in neighbourhoods with high levels of social cohesion report greater levels of social interactions, with public spaces providing increased opportunities for people to meet and become acquainted. More importantly, those researchers suggest that if those public spaces are green, the effect on both loneliness and life satisfaction is stronger, even if use of those spaces is passive (Bergefurt, et al., 2019). There is evidence then that if city dwellers who are experiencing loneliness visit a green space in their neighbourhood even without meeting others, they are likely to experience positive effects to help curb their feelings of loneliness; and if they can become acquainted with others during those visits, even if only recognizing another  10 6         Baker, 2021 regular visitor at first, they have the potential to further ameliorate their experiences. I propose to use this approach more purposefully in urban centres to create opportunities for encountering greener spaces and social interactions while providing other benefits such as climate change adaptation.  trees I turn my attention to the typology of green spaces and my focus on trees. Anne Whiston Spirn (1984, p. 188) highlights the importance of trees to city dwellers over the centuries, emphasizing that “Trees on streets represent most cities’ greatest investment in plants.” Table 1. sets out a selection of benefits and uses arising from such an investment in urban woodland, other tree strands and individual trees. Table 1. Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees  Social benefits Recreation opportunities, improvement of home and work environments, impacts on physical and mental health. Multisensorial experiences beyond sight. Educational opportunities. Cultural and historical values of green areas. Aesthetics and architectural benefits Landscape variation through different colours, textures, forms, and densities of plants. Growth of trees, seasonal dynamics and experiencing nature. Defining open spaces, framing, and screening views, landscaping buildings. Climate and physical benefits Cooling, wind control, impacts on urban climate through temperature and humidity control. Air pollution reduction, sound control, glare and reflection reduction, stormwater management, flood prevention and erosion control. Ecological benefits Biotopes for flora and fauna in urban environment. Enhanced biodiversity supporting ecosystem services. Economic benefits Value of market-priced benefits (timber, berries, mushrooms, etc.), increased property values, tourism. Long-term investment for free air and water purification throughout the city. Adapted from Konijnendijk, et al. (2006, Ch. 4, pp. 81-114) Resources expended on the selection, planting and ongoing care of trees in the urban environment can reap exponential returns for a city, many included in Table 1., with the annual value produced in enhancing the local physical, biological, and social environments estimated to be in the multi-billion-dollar range globally (Nowak and Greenfield, 2020). Despite such value, these scientists estimated that the average global urban tree cover declined from 26.7% to 26.5% over the five-year period from 2012 to 2017, or a loss of about 40,000 hectares per year, with Europe being the only continent to increase its tree cover. Alarmingly, they also discovered an average global increase in impervious surfaces of about 320,000 hectares per annum, approximating to an area about half the size of Vancouver Island over the five years. From a number’s perspective, the 1 trillion tree campaign announced by the World Economic Forum in 2020 helps to address the downward spiral of tree 7         Baker, 2021 canopy loss across the globe, but this is purely a numbers game and does not provide qualitative information about where and how trees should be planted, or the benefits those trees might provide in the increasingly hard-surfaced urban environment. The numerous country tree planting pledges and campaigns around the world represent a sign of the value being placed on trees. The success of the tree-planting revolution will be reflected in how the benefits set out in Table 1. are considered and measured by urban planners, landscape architects and other forestry specialists in their planting designs and urban forest strategies for our cities, and the extent to which they engage communities in those endeavours. Aligned to Howard’s ideals for the Garden City typology, and Roehr and Bailey’s recommendation that “design proposals should integrate gardens with the design of buildings to avoid the separation between building and garden.” (2020, p. 34), I propose that the forest should be the city in recognition that the urban forest creates the framing for the city’s buildings and its residents, and it should take a city to build and care for its forest: said differently, a city’s design should prioritize its forest canopy as an integral part of its urban plan. A new arboreal band could empower all those who already live in and safeguard our forests, including indigenous people, and engage city dwellers actively in the design, planting and stewardship of street trees, urban groves, informal clusters of trees and mini forests in our neighbourhood spaces. This would contribute to a more equitable distribution of urban canopy cover, helping to avoid any risk of commodification of urban forests, and would encourage municipalities to be more inclusive of all communities in their urban forest planning. This move would address a strategy gap identified in some countries like the U.S.: “A recent survey of 125 urban forestry organizations in 110 cities in the U.S. found that 32% of respondents did not consider ‘proximity to low-income neighbourhoods’ when making management decisions, while it was one of the top three priorities for only 13% of respondents.” (Nesbitt, et al., 2019, p. 2).  Precedent Although they do exist, socially inclusive and diverse urban forestry strategies are not extensive across the world. Accordingly, I have concentrated my search for inspiration in three areas of interest: responding to loneliness in the landscape; community engagement through the urban canopy; and urban places where community can flourish.   8         Baker, 2021 responding to loneliness in the landscape In my research for a national response to the loneliness pandemic, I discovered the U.K. appointed the world’s first Minister for Loneliness in 2018. This followed extensive research including that from England’s Community Life Survey, 2016 to 2017, that found, inter alia, 5% of adults in England reported feeling lonely “often” or “always”, and younger adults aged 16 to 24 years reported feeling lonely more often than those in older age groups.11 These findings align with those of Cigna’s research in the U.S. as referenced earlier. Later that year, the government issued the strategy document “A connected society: A strategy for tackling loneliness”12 in which it set inter-government departmental goals to include loneliness in their portfolios and to demonstrate its importance in their policymaking. Of note, Natural England was to lead a cross-government project “to draw up a national framework of green infrastructure standards.” In conjunction with this national strategy, the U.K. Government’s "A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment"13 specifically references a need to address loneliness by “helping people improve their health and well-being by using green spaces.” With an eye on the U.K. Government’s response to loneliness, I have selected two elements of green infrastructure in the country which deliver a range of quality-of-life benefits for local communities. The first directs attention to the country’s capital city, London, selected as the world’s first “National Park City”14 in 2019, as I hone in on the success of the city’s pocket park initiatives. The second considers how one of England’s favourite pastimes, gardening, is used as a focal point for social and therapeutic horticulture by community groups. responding to loneliness in the landscape: pocket parks In 2012, the Mayor of London launched his vision for London’s ‘Great Outdoors’15 and a program of improvements to the city’s outdoor spaces which included the Pocket Park Initiative, supporting and funding  11 12 13 14 15 Figure 2. A connected society: A strategy for tackling loneliness, U.K. 2018 *Redacted for digital publication due to copyright. Contact author for full print version. 9         Baker, 2021 the creation and enhancements of 100 pocket parks across the boroughs of London. In the Pocket Parks Prospectus,16 Boris Johnson, the Mayor at that time, stated “Pocket Parks sit alongside new funds dedicated to planting a further 10,000 street trees” providing the opportunity for funding through both the Pocket Park Initiative and the Street Tree fund where a pocket park proposal included new or additional street tree planting ideas. Following London’s success, the U.K. Government launched a national fund in 2015 to support the development of another 100 pocket parks outside of the London area. The prospectus for that fund built on the success of the London scheme in its definition of a pocket park:17 “Pocket parks are small areas of inviting public space where people can enjoy relief from the hustle and bustle of city streets.  For the purposes of this scheme, we have adopted the definition of a pocket park used by the Mayor of London: a piece of land of up to 0.4 hectares (although many are around 0.02 hectares, the size of a tennis court) which may already be under grass, but which is unused, undeveloped or derelict.”  It described the parks as “locally identified, smaller areas of green space ultra-local to where people live and work” and recognized the well-being, community integration, community pride and social interaction opportunities, especially where communities are engaged in the development and maintenance of the park spaces. After successfully funding 80 new pocket parks, the government launched Pocket Park Plus18 at the end of 2018 to fund an additional 198 new or improved pocket parks across the country. The updated prospectus was especially vocal in highlighting how site developments should promote activities which encourage health and well-being, social integration, and/or tackle loneliness and social isolation. This aligns with the national focus on the loneliness epidemic noted earlier. I have selected ‘Southampton Way’ as one of these projects, completed as part of the London Pocket Parks Initiative. Situated in the London Borough of Southwark, this park helped to create an improved green space for community use, while converting a wide sidewalk along the street of Southampton Way into permeable surfacing to help with localized flooding. The project was supported by Semble,19 a not-for-profit organization which brings businesses and community projects together to help with funding, volunteers, and knowledge or  16 17 18 19 Figure 3. Mayor of London's Pocket Parks Prospectus, U.K. 2012 *Redacted for digital publication due to copyright. Contact author for full print version. 10         Baker, 2021 skill requirements. Figure 4. sets out a drawing from Semble and highlights the key design ideas intended to enhance the streetscape and create a new pocket park in this location. This precedent explores problems which are typical for existing urban settings where there are extensive impermeable surfaces across roads, curbs, sidewalks, and walls; with little to no areas to pause or rest along a thoroughfare ordinarily designed to allow people to expediate their journey to a selected destination, this project transforms a typical streetscape in a new open space. The area around this location does have a healthy tree canopy, like many London streets and neighbourhoods, but long stretches of the street are exposed, so additional green infrastructure improves the environment for people in the vicinity as well as further benefiting stormwater runoff management and enhancing local biodiversity and habitat.  I am interested in pursuing this concept of pocket parks as spaces to which people are naturally drawn, where they are comfortable to stop along a street, and if very local to home, are inclined to make regular visits. Alexander et al. (1977, p. 189) observed that “There are very few spots along the streets of modern towns and neighbourhoods where people can hang out, comfortable, for hours at a time.” They went on to propose a framework of “Public Outdoor Rooms” to which a community would be drawn and, if permitted, where they would create their own environment. Refreshingly, these designers also noted the precious nature of trees when developing patterns of urban development, suggesting a subtle but critical interaction between trees and people cohabiting in our cities: how we might design tree planting in a way which encourages city dwellers to provide the care required for the trees’ own livelihood.   Figure 4. Southampton Way Pocket Park, London. Adapted from Semble Drawing *Redacted for digital publication due to copyright. Contact author for full print version. 11         Baker, 2021 responding to loneliness in the landscape: social and therapeutic horticulture Lingering a while longer with my U.K. focus, I noted that the Royal Horticultural Society (R.H.S.) had originally announced, prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, that the 2020 Chelsea Flower Show in London would have a theme of mental health and loneliness related to gardening. Guy Barker, chief horticulturalist at the R.H.S., told The Telegraph, “It’s a chance to meet new people, but nurturing plants can also make you less lonely and release you from troubles for a little while. People can also join their local gardening club or allotment, as well as sharing plants and seeds with neighbours.”20 There are almost 4,000 community gardening groups in the U.K. signed up to the R.H.S.’s Britain in Bloom and It’s Your Neighbourhood programmes, and between them the groups have around a quarter of a million volunteers21. Thrive22 is the leading charity in the U.K. that uses social and therapeutic horticulture (STH) which it defines as “the process of using plants and gardens to improve physical and mental health, as well as communications and thinking skills.”  It is a strong proponent of using gardening to bring profound and positive change for individuals by creating opportunities for social interaction, shared experiences, and pride in garden creation and maintenance, to bring about an overall improvement in quality of life. In addition to a diverse set of programs, Thrive trains professionals to deliver STH in their own field, and provides gardening advice for people for all abilities to help them carry on gardening. One other regional initiative in the U.K., known as Garden Buddies,23 is a U.K. lottery funded project managed by SNVB (originally known as South Northamptonshire Volunteer Bureau) where volunteers provide practical help to people who have no other means of support to help them maintain and enjoy their gardens. I am interested in how the ideologies of stewardship, co-design and co-management could be leveraged in the context of the design, development, and care of public spaces, for example the pocket parks referenced earlier, and to engage members of the community who ordinarily do not have access to a garden and are experiencing feelings of social isolation or loneliness. community engagement through the urban canopy My earlier proposal that the forest is the city suggests that the urban canopy should be treated as a priority in urban planning. To this end, I now focus on models of design or engagement with our urban woodlands, forests, and trees across four topics: 1) community forests; 2) Neighbourwoods; 3) tiny forests; and 4) tree equity.    20 21 22 23 12         Baker, 2021 community engagement through the urban canopy: community forests During my discovery of the earlier loneliness precedents, I found that the U.K. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a Government Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement in 201324 in response to a national review of the country’s trees and woodlands. Its primary recommendations included the need to develop a new woodland culture for the nation, to enhance the overall and long-term value of its woodlands, and to focus particularly on woods in and around towns and cities where the greatest number of people could enjoy them: “A true and sustainable woodland culture needs to be built from the ground up. We applaud the work of community forests in supporting and promoting community action on trees and woodlands.” The Mersey Forest25 is the largest of the U.K.’s 12 Community Forests: 1,370km2 of urban forest across an area in which 1.7 million people reside (by comparison, the City of Vancouver, covering a total area of 115km2 has an estimated forest canopy of about 23% coverage, with a 2050 goal of 30%26). The latest Mersey Forest Plan of 201427 (updated every ten years) has an overall long-term goal of increasing its woodland cover to 20%. Of the 20 overarching policies set out to achieve its ‘more from trees’ vision, one is focused on empowering communities: “We will encourage all to participate in the planning, enhancement, and enjoyment of The Mersey Forest and, through their commitment to it, to play a part in its long-term stewardship and ownership.” Figure 5. illustrates the hierarchy of involvement level the Plan seeks to create. It recognizes that the communities that live, work, and play in The Mersey Forest are those who have the most to gain from its success, but also have the most to offer to make it a success. Referenced in the 2013 U.K. government-issued statement are a multitude of useful resources to aid good practice in urban forestry, including approaches recommended by the Trees and Design Action Group (TDAG), “an open collaborative forum facilitating cross-sector and cross-disciplinary dialogue and projects promoting the role of urban forest throughout the U.K.” 28 The majority of its published guides appears to be heavily swayed to recognizing trees as economic assets or infrastructure in a city, to overcome practical  24 25 26 27 28 Figure 5. The Mersey Forest Plan: Empowering Communities *Redacted for digital publication due to copyright. Contact author for full print version. 13         Baker, 2021 challenges and maximize returns from our urban forestry. However, I have noted that the 12 principles set down in its publication “Trees in the Townscape: A Guide for Decision Makers”29 have been used by a diverse group of public and private organizations which are involved in the making or influencing of decisions that shape the spaces and places in which people live, including The Mersey Forest. Although comprehensive, these principles appear to engage communities only at the point of planting and protecting trees, rather than including them across the whole cycle of urban forest strategy, considering them as connoisseurs of their local woodlands. community engagement through the urban canopy: neighbourwoods With a wider geographic lens, the Neighbourwoods research and development project (2001-2004) involved six urban woodland case-studies across Europe, ranging in size from 15 to 2,400 hectares, and studied socially inclusive planning processes in urban forestry. Janse and Konijnendijk (2007, p. 26) define Neighbourwoods as woods which allow for regular contact with nature, adding value to the living and working environment in cities and towns.  Further, they are: • Woods at people’s doorsteps, a natural part of cities and towns. • Integral parts of the local community, involving local people in their planning, development, and management. • Varying in size, shape, character, and composition, ranging from small woods to large, forested landscapes. They also note that local communities must be closely included in the proper planning, design, and management of Neighbourwoods. The project was supported by the European Commission and tested different tools used across a range of existing woodlands to afforestation projects, and from peri-urban landscapes to small neighbourhood woods. A resulting framework of 5 key processes was established from the review undertaken: 1. Strategy – what is the vision or policy for the Neighbourwood? 2. Design – what structure is needed for the Neighbourwood to meet stakeholder needs? 3. Management – who and how will the Neighbourwood be managed? 4. Information – what information should be incorporated to capture stakeholder needs? 5. Public Involvement – how can the community be engaged across the whole process? Earlier, I referenced Mooney’s (2020) work in establishing a practical design framework which integrates characteristics for restorative and preferred landscapes for people. As relates woodland design, Ryan and Simson (2002, p. 314) similarly suggest that people’s experiences influence the design process, in combination with social, functional, environmental, and economic influences. However, they highlight three important  29,the%20challenges%20of%20our%20times. 14         Baker, 2021 design aspects for this type of landscape, namely: woodland location; size, shape, and structure of the woodland; and plant size and species. For my precedent examination, I note specific elements of their proposals to leverage along with the 5-point framework above, to consider in my own design iterations: • Proximity to the local community, and ideally accessible within a three-minute walk so that the distance does not overwhelm the need (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Other research supporting this accessibility range proposed a city network of green spaces uniformly placed at approximately 450 metres apart and roughly 0.5 hectares in size (Alexander et al., 1977). • Minimum woodland size should be 0.1 hectares for coppice and low shrub (Rydberg and Falck, 1998). • Wildlife, and therefore biodiversity, will benefit from a mosaic of accessible habitats which are under 2 hectares in size (Barker, 1997). • Structural variety can be achieved by planting appropriate and fast-growing pioneer trees and shrubs, or planting in single species blocks within the above-referenced mosaic. As an extension of the Neighbourwoods research, some institutions have developed guidance aimed at local communities who wish to play a role in the urban forest, or those stakeholders involved with urban forest programs. I have selected two precedents which reflect constructive elements of the Neighbourwoods project’s findings and suggestions which I can leverage in my design considerations. The first is in Vancouver, the city in which I will be proposing my design interventions: The Citizen’s Coolkit shown in Figure 6. was created by the collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning30 at the University of British Columbia (U.B.C.). This guide is aimed at educating communities who wish to engage in addressing the climate crisis in their neighbourhoods through actions in their homes, gardens, and local urban forest. The second example has been produced by Vibrant Cities Lab31 created by the U.S. Forest Service, American Forests, and the National Association of Regional Councils. The Urban Forestry Toolkit recognizes that “urban forests are forests for people” and has  30 31 Figure 6. Citizen's Coolkit by UBC's Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning, 2019 *Redacted for digital publication due to copyright. Contact author for full print version. 15         Baker, 2021 been adapted from Michael Leff, The Sustainable Urban Forest: A Step-by-Step Approach., Forest Service and Davey Institute, 2016.   Figure 7. Urban Forestry Toolkit. Source: Vibrant Cities Lab Figure 7. is a snapshot of the toolkit which includes seventeen steps across seven processes: assess, prioritize, organize, plan, build, protect, and sustain. In addition, it provides access to an extensive resource library which includes both detailed guidance and examples of green street and green infrastructure design, tree planting and many other case studies, research, and methods. community engagement through the urban canopy: tiny forests Beyond western countries, I turn again to Japan, where Dr. Akira Miyawaki, a botanist, pioneered a unique forestation method in the 1970’s to create urban forests which can grow within a short span of 20-30 years while a conventional forest takes around 200-300 years to grow naturally.32 Most other afforestation projects often favour plantations of single species to generate income from products like timber or palm oil. However, this method can be considered reforestation as it is often the alteration of a non-forested area to a forested area and establishes ecosystem restoration through ecological successions of the most adaptable native plant communities. This concept of potential natural vegetation (PNE)33 is a method that has been successfully replicated by organizations across Asia, Europe, and North America, with a “Tiny Forest” movement  32 33 *Redacted for digital publication due to copyright. Contact author for full print version. 16         Baker, 2021 established by Shubhendu Sharma, a former trainee of Miyawaki, and his organization, Afforestt.34 Figure 8. provides an example of one of his projects.  Figure 8. Example of tiny forest transformation, Clifton Park, Pakistan, by Afforestt. Source: worldatlas.com35 The tiny forest concept has become a registered trademark36 in some parts of the world and uses a set of specific principles, for example: it has at least 25 different native tree species; is around the size of a tennis court (200m2, or 0.02 hectares); and provides space for trees to grow undisturbed for at least 10 years. During 2020, Earthwatch, the independent research organization, 37 planted its first U.K. tiny forest in Witney with a plan to plant another 150 across the country by 2023. These bite-sized chunks of forestation in urban areas will be left to be observed rather than entered in their very earlier years, however, the planning, planting, observation, maintenance, and care requires a significant amount of community and local volunteer engagement with the support of Earthwatch, local authority and local partner organizations. It is a means by which a local neighbourhood can come together as a community to connect with nature; learn and adopt a role of nurturer; and play an active and direct role in mitigating climate change impacts and enhancing biodiversity through reforestation on their own doorsteps. “Tiny but mighty,”38 as the Witney mayor described the new tiny forest in his town. community engagement through the urban canopy: tree equity Earlier, I touched on the benefits and uses of urban forests and trees but noted that we have witnessed an average increase in impervious surfaces about eight times greater than the tree cover loss across the planet in recent years. These might not be surprising statistics in the ongoing growth of global urbanization but coupled with intensifying extreme heat waves which are occurring through climate change, cities are grappling with the adverse effects on people living in low-income, disadvantaged neighbourhoods. These vulnerable communities  34 35 36 37 38 *Redacted for digital publication due to copyright. Contact author for full print version. 17         Baker, 2021 are least likely to be resilient, impacted more by an urban heat island effect where there is little to no natural landscapes such as urban forests, and where the built environment, carpeted in impervious surfaces, absorbs, and re-emits the sun’s heat. With the onset of COVID-19’s closure of buildings and sites typically used for residents’ cooling in these conditions, public health concerns have escalated further. The imbalance of urban green infrastructure, including the urban forest, across different socio-economic neighbourhoods is supported by an expanding number of studies, including one which found that even where a city offers a fair spread of park access to all residents, green inequity is more apparent in street tree and private tree planting (Nesbitt et al., 2019). A recent study adds a further concern to the growing linkage between social and environmental inequities, and the ability for underserved communities to be resilient in the face of climate change: researchers indicate that “people already the most in need of the benefits of urban forest are also more at risk of losing it following any disturbance due to both lower species and functional diversity of the forest cover.” (Landry et al., 2020). In a move towards addressing this inequity, American Forests,39 the oldest national non-profit conservation organization in the U.S. and one of the contributing partners for the Vibrant Cities Lab referenced earlier, unveiled its Tree Equity Score in 2020, an indicator described as a measure of whether a neighbourhood in a U.S. city has enough trees in the right places for all people to experience the health, economic and other benefits that trees provide. Calculated neighborhood scores are based on such factors as existing tree cover, population density, income, employment, race, ethnicity, age, and urban heat island effect (as measured by land surface temperatures). The organization has set a goal that by 2030, in 100 of America’s cities, every under-resourced neighbourhood will reach a passing Tree Equity Score. I will consider the variables used in this new urban statistic when identifying potential vulnerable sites in Vancouver for my design interventions. urban places where community can flourish Earlier, I reflected on how the city dweller and local connoisseur need to be actively engaged in the development process and ongoing care to aid the long-term success of neighbourhood spaces. Such places are established in both formal and informal public spaces, with Thompson and Kent (2014) investigating how careful and intentional “design of open spaces, neighbourhood streets and buildings can encourage human interaction as part of community creation.” Their Places Framework, as set out in Figure 9., identifies five typologies of spaces where communities can effectively flourish in the built environment, and I will consider how to incorporate features of these in my design ideas.   39 18         Baker, 2021  Figure 9. Places Framework   In summary, my eight precedents covered the following topics: 1. National framework. 2. Pocket parks. 3. Social and therapeutic horticulture. 4. Community forests. 5. Neighbourwoods. 6. Tiny forests. 7. Tree equity. 8. Places framework. I opened this research project with the inquiry: How may landscape architects work with trees in their design of public spaces to respond to the crisis of loneliness in urban environments? In closing this research phase, and transitioning into the design phase, I have two main objectives: to address the growing crisis of loneliness in our cities, while introducing greater design intention in tree planting on our streets and in our neighbourhoods. I want to achieve these by aiding the creation of spaces in closer proximity to people’s homes; with opportunities for people to connect with one another while going about their daily activities; involving the community in their design and long-term stewardship; reflecting or retaining elements of local culture or social *Redacted for digital publication due to copyright. Contact author for full print version. 19         Baker, 2021 needs; leveraging native tree and plant species; and enhancing ecosystem services and habitats. These have been addressed throughout my precedent analysis as follows: Table 2. Design objectives and principles addressed by precedents  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     help curb loneliness             tree planting design             close to home             opportunity to connect             engage community             local culture             native planting             ecosystem enhancement                20         Baker, 2021 Projected Design Schedule My projected design timetable was set as follows:  Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.                 representation strategies                research                complete site selection                site immersion/analysis                research and site fusion                design ideas and drawings                final design concepts                final report                substantial review                final review                  21         Baker, 2021 PART TWO ~ DESIGN A Landscape for Lonely People? There is a significant and concerning number of lonely people in our communities, across all ages and especially among young adults. Many reports suggest that our loneliness epidemic is much worse today than it was before the COVID-19 pandemic.40 A staggering number of tree-planting campaigns and initiatives have been launched over the last two years to combat climate change, including the World Economic Forum’s commitment to plant, restore or conserve 1 trillion trees across the globe by 2050. Populations will emerge from the current social restrictions of the global pandemic, many reflecting on the restorative times they were able to spend in existing public spaces, and how trees and other plants in those spaces provided respite from the isolation and loneliness felt within the confinement of their homes and buildings. As cities consider the investment and changes required in urban forest design strategies in the wake of the global tree-planting trend, and the healing qualities required of public spaces, leaders will need to build cross-disciplinary teams to assess, design, plan and maintain our urban woodlands and trees. They should include community representation to secure a cross-section of all the benefits and uses, including ongoing neighbourhood partnerships, ownership, and stewardship. Perhaps the time for public inclusion in urban forestry planning and management is riper now than it has ever been in our cities. I have referenced evidence supporting the restorative features of time spent in natural settings and even forests. Both historical and contemporary landscape architects, designers and academics have provided working frameworks to help us re-imagine the design of public spaces in an age where technology and modern lifestyles have broken down our abilities to create meaningful social interactions and relationships. Similarly, urban forestry researchers have identified the ways in which communities can participate in their local and municipal woodland development and care. My goal for this project is to propose design interventions and ideas to be integrated into urban forest and tree planting strategies: how landscape architects can work with trees in their design of urban public spaces to help curb both loneliness and the climate crisis simultaneously. To date, I have discovered few specifics in my research about how trees can be used to target the challenges of social isolation and loneliness. However, I will leverage the social integration findings of Kweon, et al. (1998) who concluded that the presence, number, and  40 22         Baker, 2021 location of trees planted in inner-city neighbourhoods were reliable predictors of the volume of residents and time spent by those residents outside near those trees. I do not propose we create public spaces specifically for lonely people. Places and activities should exist on everyone’s doorstep, on their streets, where they feel comfortable enough to connect with others in the neighbourhood, and with sufficient frequency to develop a relationship that helps them feel part of a community, and not alone. In the context of an urban forest strategy, we can create designed neighbourhood spaces with tree clusters on existing, underused, or forgotten areas on city streets, where residents can visit frequently and maybe form a relationship with others through their quotidian connections. Applying my ideology that the forest is the city, I will develop recommendations which could create these places, applying the findings from my earlier research and discovery, including the following design elements: • Places which include a tree canopy, creating an equitable distribution of tree-planting and care across all neighbourhoods. • A diverse arrangement of trees and shrubs to create urban groves or copses. • Use of native and pioneer species, subject to expected climate change impacts. • Opportunities to pause and rest, and to spend time in the place. • Retention or enhancement of a place’s history and culture, and respect or leverage it further if new elements are introduced. • Community participation in planning, designing, planting, building and stewardship. • Beyond existing parks and green spaces, places within a 3-5-minute walk enabling regular visits from home or place of work. • A mosaic of small green spaces across a neighbourhood. As we contemplate recruitment strategies for our new urban arboreal bands across communities and neighbourhoods, I imagine a focus which includes the grassroots of the community, including neighbourhood connoisseurs and indigenous members. I recognize the potential and perhaps the likelihood that those experiencing loneliness or social isolation would not step forward to volunteer: for those who might express low life satisfaction and have few, trusting social interactions, it might be difficult to motivate involvement with such initiatives. A plan of thoughtful stakeholder engagement and stewardship should therefore be developed, and one which welcomes active involvement of our younger adult generations. I will also investigate the following with a goal to their inclusion in the design process: • cultural and vernacular relations with trees, with reference to the location of my chosen city. • mycorrhizal networks and tree communities, and how they could survive healthily in the urban fabric. 23         Baker, 2021 • multisensorial tree and plant experiences to inspire greater affection and relation for the spaces. Furthermore, I will integrate other green infrastructure solutions where appropriate to protect and enhance local ecosystem services, and to manage negative impacts resulting from the surrounding built environment.  Vancouver: Site Discovery and Selection  My design focus will be on Vancouver and the findings from my research work undertaken to date on 1) Vancouver Foundation’s survey findings on the city’s level of loneliness and social isolation; and 2) the content and goals of the Vancouver Urban Forest Strategy. From the former, and as set out in Table 3., there are parallels between my earlier research findings and the surveys undertaken by Vancouver Foundation which identify the residents of the city who experience loneliness more often. Vancouver is not alone in the challenges it faces to assist young adult generations and those living in households with lower income levels. Table 3. Key loneliness statistics in Vancouver  Who spends time alone more often than they would like? Who experiences loneliness often? What would make it easier to make new friends? More community or common spaces to connect? All Metro Vancouver residents 23% 14% 26% Age 18-24 31% 30% 39% Age 25-34 - 23% 33% Not employed 36% 26% - Household income $20-40,000 37% 23% 30% Household income <$20,000 47% 38% - Adapted from Vancouver Foundation – Connections and Engagement Initiative (2017)41 The city’s 2018 Urban Forest Strategy42 integrates the priorities of Vancouver’s 2020 Greenest City Action Plan, including the goal to plant 150,000 trees by the end of 2020, a target met by the city by the end of last year.  Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which the Urban Forest Strategy integrates any objectives to tackle the city’s loneliness and social isolation challenges, but my initial observation is that they have been developed independently. I note though that the strategy document does include reference to  41 42 24         Baker, 2021 VanPlay, and Vancouver’s Parks and Recreations’ vision to present a network of spaces to help connect people to nature, to each other and to themselves.43 I intend to create design proposals for a small selection of sites across the City of Vancouver. My site selection will involve two points of exploration, the first to select specific neighbourhoods, and the second to identify individual streets and locations in those neighbourhoods. neighbourhood selection: urban forest strategy In the 2018 Urban Forest Strategy there are two priority neighbourhoods identified for increased street tree planting: Marpole and Strathcona. The strategy document recognizes that urban forests are a critical part of a sustainable city and identifies that street tree planting improves both the quality of green spaces and infrastructure in the city’s urban fabric and enhances community health by addressing the increasing summer temperatures. Other criteria used in the selection of priority areas included the following: • urban heat island effects arising from high land surface temperatures. • tree canopy cover measures using the area occupied by tree crowns. • street tree density by neighbourhood block. • native forest locations. • existing street tree conditions. • impermeability by neighbourhood block. Figure 10. highlights the two neighbourhoods prioritized in the Urban Forest Strategy as Tier 1. I have created a two-tier illustration to help identify other neighbourhoods in the city where enhanced street tree planting and care is also important: • Tier 1 is driven by the street tree planting priority set out in the Vancouver Urban Forest Strategy and are Marpole, especially alongside the Fraser River, and Strathcona, specifically the Downtown Eastside and False Creek Flats areas. Both neighbourhoods have low tree canopy cover, 11% and 6% respectively, suffer considerably from hot land surface temperatures in the summer, and have poor soils or significant areas of impermeability due to commercial and industrial lands. • Tier 2 neighbourhoods also have exceptionally low tree canopy cover at 11% or below, compared to Vancouver’s overall canopy cover, and some have a relatively young street tree stock, or current land surfaces that are not conducive to healthy tree growth. These have not been included for priority street  43 25         Baker, 2021 tree planting like those in Tier 1. They are Downtown, Hastings-Sunrise, Renfrew-Collingwood, Victoria-Fraserview and Sunset.   neighbourhood selection: vancouver foundation The Vancouver Foundation 2017 survey findings, as set out in Table 3. earlier, were not specific to individual neighbourhoods.  Accordingly, I have analyzed the results of the Vancouver 2016 Census data44 to identify those neighbourhoods which have greater concentrations of the adult generations (18-24- and 25–35-year-olds) and income groups (not employed, earning less than $20,000 or between $20,000 and $40,000 annually) highlighted in the survey findings as being more vulnerable to loneliness. Although not aligning directly to the survey results, the census data is directional in identifying those neighbourhoods where individuals might be vulnerable to loneliness experiences. The Foundation’s findings identified both age group and income/employment levels as predictors of loneliness. For the first of these, young adults aged 18-24 and 25-34 almost always or often feel lonely. Figure 11. and  44 Figure 10. Priority Neighbourhoods, adapted from 2018 Vancouver Urban Forest Strategy 26         Baker, 2021 Figure 12. identify the neighbourhoods with the greater numbers of these residents (although the first of these includes the Census data for 15–24-year-olds, I use this as an estimate for the 18–24-year-old survey category). The second category of Vancouverites who are most at risk of becoming lonely are low-income earners or those not employed. Figures 13., 14. and 15. identify those neighbourhoods where there are the most households that are not employed, the households with income less than $20,000 and those with income between $20,000 and $40,000.  Figure 11. Number of residents aged 15-24 by neighbourhood, adapted from the Vancouver 2016 Census Data. 27         Baker, 2021  Figure 12. Number of residents aged 25-34 by neighbourhood, adapted from the Vancouver 2016 Census Data.  Figure 13. Number of households not employed by neighbourhood, adapted from Vancouver 2016 Census Data. 28         Baker, 2021  Figure 14. Number of households with under $20,000 income by neighbourhood, adapted from Vancouver 2016 Census Data.  Figure 15. Number of households with $20,000 to $40,000 income by neighbourhood, adapted from Vancouver 2016 Census Data. 29         Baker, 2021 In summary, I propose exploring three neighbourhoods from this analysis: 1. Urban Forest Strategy Priority – Strathcona, selected due to its lowest neighbourhood tree canopy cover of only 6% and that it contains two areas of concern in the Downtown Eastside and False Creek Flats. 2. Young adult age group – Downtown. This neighbourhood has by far the largest group of 25–34-year-olds at over 18,000 in the 2016 Census and is also part of my Tier 2 group of locations in the Urban Forest Strategy analysis. 3. Households with no employment or low income – Renfrew-Collingwood. This is the one neighbourhood which sits in the highest number of households for all three employment or income categories at risk in the Vancouver Foundation survey findings and, like Downtown, is also included in my Tier 2 group of locations in the Urban Forest Strategy analysis. selection zones and sites For the purposes of my design project, I have identified specific locations in each of the three neighbourhoods. I would not designate these as priority sites: a thorough undertaking would be needed to identify the potentials of redesigning streets or other neighbourhood lands, empty or occupied, to establish a comprehensive city or neighbourhood development plan. I envisage my individual ideas being amalgamated to create a greenway of urban forestry through the city. To pick out sites for my study, I have narrowed down neighbourhood areas into the blue zones highlighted on the three maps in Figures 16., 17. and 18., one for each of my three chosen neighbourhoods.  These blue zones represent areas not within a three-minute walk of an existing city park (the red blocks on the maps). This is a very subjective radius distance, and although much has been researched about the inequity of accessibility to green spaces across urban fabrics, I have used it simply to identify where it takes at least three minutes for someone living in these zones to get from their doorstep to a local park, with a desire to situate a new space closer to home. I also borrowed from both my earlier research and precedent analysis of the European Neighbourwoods project, where proximity to the local community was described as ideally accessible within a three-minute walk so that the distance does not overwhelm the need. For Downtown, with densely populated residential towers and limited open space, I selected the intersection of Hornby and Helmcken Streets for the first of my design interventions. Shifting to Strathcona, I had noted the stark absence of tree canopy across much of the area, especially in the Downtown Eastside neighbourhood. While exploring the streets, I identified two sites which sit on the north and south side of Glen Drive intersecting East Hastings Street, and adjacent to a railway track. They are both empty lots, owned by the City, and are surrounded by a mix of high-density apartment buildings, older single or multi-family homes, low-rise 30         Baker, 2021 commercial buildings, and open parking lots. The third neighbourhood, Renfrew-Collingwood, is a suburban area of mostly single-family homes and large expanses of garden lawns. I chose a short stretch along Slocan Street, a busy road with heavy traffic, and where it intersects with 25th Avenue which has an existing East-West street tree allée. Each neighbourhood represents a vastly different residential form, and each site presents a location fitting to the scale of my individual design intervention proposals.   Figure 16. Downtown neighbourhood selection zones and site   31         Baker, 2021  Figure 17. Strathcona neighbourhood selection zones and site  Figure 18. Renfrew-Collingwood neighbourhood selection zones and site 32         Baker, 2021 Arboreal Protagonist The tree is the protagonist in my design imaginations given my earlier musings on symbiotic relationships, the multiple environmental, biophilic, and social benefits that trees bring, and the fact that we have to figure out an effective means to plant and care for a trillion new trees, especially in our ever-densifying cities. tree diversity Vancouver is renowned for its springtime cherry blossom festival, display of maple tree fall colours, and magnificence of native old growth forest evergreens, but we need to introduce greater diversification in our urban canopy and the spaces in which we plant our trees as we witness and project the impact of climate change in the region. Thuja plicata, a tree that can take hold of the senses and has profound cultural significance to the indigenous peoples of the region, was adopted as the official tree of British Columbia in 1988. A giant in the forests (and some neighbourhoods) of this area for thousands, if not millions, of years, is now struggling to adapt to the region’s warmer and drier climate shift, as has been clear to me in my walks around Vancouver and its environs. If a tree of this magnificence which has likely rode the tides of climatic alteration over periods is struggling, others are likely to follow in its path. Currently, the City of Vancouver is developing an Urban Forestry Management Standards document to cover best practices, including preferred species, to be applied by all allied departments city-wide. In the meantime, and for the purposes of selecting a small number of appropriate trees to include in my proposal ideas, I have compared the preferred street tree species lists from the latest City of Vancouver Street Tree Guidelines45 and Metro Vancouver Urban Tree List.46 This priority listing of species, native and non-native, anticipated to tolerate a range of conditions and sites under future climate scenarios, is set out in the Appendix. For my drawing illustrations, I also referenced information available on the Vancouver Trees App.47 design through drawing Figure 19. illustrates how I have been progressing my own rendition of selected trees, from the earliest sketches to the current versions included in this report, as I have explored the unique features and experiential qualities of these beings. Figure 20. sets out a diverse sample of small, medium, and large specimens from my priority listing which I have integrated across my proposals.   45 46 47 33         Baker, 2021  Figure 19. Progression of tree illustrations  Figure 20. Sample of small, medium, and large tree specimens 34         Baker, 2021 In addition, I have worked virtually and mostly alone in this graduate project year through conditions enforced under the COVID-19 restrictions, and in this time, I have explored my overall illustration style and preferences through analogue drawing. I have always admired the unique style and qualities expressed by others in their analogue creations and wanted to explore this chosen mode of drawing for the portrayal of my project. I have often found that my ideas and visions unfolded as my mind followed the hand, working in conjunction to explore iterations of my visions. Consequently, I have expressed my proposals in this style, leaning on design software tools for technical scale and precision. intervention scales Figure 21. sets out how I imagined my interventions at three different scales. The smallest size is the parklet: through the COVID-19 pandemic, the parklet, about the size of two parking spaces, has become extremely popular, with cities now electing for many to be permanent expansions of their public spaces. The next scale is the grove, varying in size but equivalent to about ¾ the size of a tennis court, and the third scale the mini forest, no bigger than the full size of a court.  Figure 21. Intervention scales   35         Baker, 2021 Collective Stewardship Earlier, I briefly explored Randy Hester’s argument that a neighbourhood space needs to be the product of a genuine community development process to be successful. I have started to think about a Collective Stewardship Framework, as presented in Figure 22., for application in my proposed interventions. The framework starts with an expression of interest from a volunteer group to work with the city and other public or private sponsors to help design, build, grow and care for a new setting. Such an approach is critical for the long-term health and care of neighbourhood public spaces, especially those which include trees in their design. Trees, compared to most other plants, are extremely long-lived, can become somewhat unwieldly in their growth if not given appropriate care, and require knowledgeable attention to stay healthy in their growth spans.  Figure 22. Collective Stewardship Framework  Curbing Loneliness Model  In addition, I have developed a two-dimensional Curbing Loneliness Model in Figure 23. for thinking about modes of engagement with spaces which can be utilized when designing; and, given that I care about loneliness, how such spaces might help to ameliorate loneliness or social isolation experiences.  There is a social dimension, ways in which you can use a space on your own, solo, or shared, with others; and a temporal dimension, ways in which we can design spaces to enable contact in a fortuitous way, by chance, or to encourage planned activities. I recognize that these places are likely to become sacred for many residents of a neighbourhood. However, my initial ideas address the manner in which younger adult generations might activate spaces for their wellness, especially with proximity of such places to home or work, and I have illustrated a selection of these features in the design of my selected sites. 36         Baker, 2021  Figure 23. Curbing Loneliness Model  Greenway Nodes parklet Tree buddies on Hornby Street is the first of my interventions, the parklet, as illustrated in Figure 24. This proposal would combine two parklets and would add canopy adjacent to the existing line of trees and introduce additional greenery on the street, taking care to safely integrate the extensive bikeway system traversing this intersection. Moving away from the monoculture of the existing plantings, I would introduce tree species diversity creating variable levels of shade and interest and plant an under canopy to help increase fauna and flora habitats.  Leveraging my Curbing Loneliness Model and illustrated in the movement lines in Figure 25., the design accommodates spaces for up to 11 people (assuming a two-meter bubble space): for individuals to engage in solo activities like working out or resting in the dappled shade of a Ginkgo biloba tree; for friends to hangout, or acquaintances to gather by chance over a break from their workplaces.   37         Baker, 2021  Figure 24. Tree buddies: Hornby Street parklet plan  Figure 25. Tree buddies: parklet plan with curbing loneliness model 38         Baker, 2021 In the section drawings in Figure 26., I have considered soil volume needs to encourage mycorrhizal networks for tree communities through the installation of silva cells across the parklet. For stormwater runoff, the slope across this city block is less than one meter but is gradual down the north-to-south flow of this stretch of Hornby Street. The silva cells would integrate rainwater capture and distribution and be topped by permeable surfaces like porous asphalt or concrete for that portion of the bike lane and crushed gravel for the parklet path. I include two seating options: either stone boulders sourced locally or found on site during project build, or timber-topped gabion seating; the gabion containers again filled with local or site-sourced stone. An additional reason for my gabion selection for walls and seating is that these can provide potential habitat for small mammals and birds, as well as space for plant life.  I do feel it important that the same design elements should be used for any of my interventions across the City, to create consistency and continuity of these projects regardless of location and community. However, there can be flexibility depending on budget and preference for each site project, for example in fill materials to be used for the gabions; the timber and finishing for the seating; or the quality of boulder selection.   Figure 26. Tree buddies: section, looking north This small site entertains the idea that we could benefit from the biophilic qualities of a larger urban park right on our doorstep, a shared front yard so-to-speak, or during a break from working or running an errand. Although tiny, it provides a pocket in the city for tree communities to grow, and with a multiplication of these 39         Baker, 2021 interventions, an opportunity to create a steppingstone corridor of small habitat patches across the dense urban matrix.  Figure 27. Tree buddies: render nursery Shifting to the Downtown Eastside location in Strathcona, my initial inclination for the site on the south side of Glen Drive was for a grouping of urban mini forests. However, through my design iterations, I realized another, fourth typology of intervention inspired by two elements: I was struck by the intense latticework of overhead wiring, rather typical of this neighbourhood, and I had started to read several articles of concern about the sourcing of trillions of new trees for the goals set by the World Economic Forum and others.   In the spirit of community enterprise and creating an opportunity for volunteer groups to produce their own trees for planting across their neighbourhood, the new tree nursery, or tree creche, on the south side of Glen Drive would see a neighbourhood group partner with the city and commercial nurseries to prepare the land and manage tree growth. I explored the 10-12-year cycle from initial land preparation through young tree development, and the options for tree line design accounting for the existing slope on the site. Figure 28. provides a plan of the nursery depicted at a later stage of one of the tree planting cycles, with the tree lines set at a north-to-south orientation to aid irrigation and minimize stormwater runoff. 40         Baker, 2021  Figure 28. Tree creche: South Glen Drive nursery plan I can imagine every neighborhood across the city establishing their own such nursery to help generate new and diverse tree life into their local parklets and groves, build stronger community ownership, stewardship, and pride of street life; and develop their own funding sources through this local enterprise. This place could offer up multiple opportunities for people to engage in activities that might help soothe social isolation or loneliness experiences. I have applied movement lines to illustrate some of these using my Curbing Loneliness Model in Figure 29.: ranging from the solo experience of finding respite in the shade of the lines of juvenile trees (perhaps not quite forest bathing); to planned volunteering for the care of the saplings; or to graduate them onto other neighbourhood projects. The changes on this site, shown in the section drawings in Figure 30., leap forward beyond fifty years to emphasize the magnificence of the Quercus garyanna I have selected for permanent growth on the site, and how such a species can become an iconic marker for a community. With the idea of a nursery, I felt the need to introduce two, not just one potential Mother Tree for this place, in the spirit of also helping to ameliorate the loneliness of single trees.   41         Baker, 2021  Figure 29. Tree creche: nursery plan with curbing loneliness model  Figure 30. Tree creche: section, looking south  42         Baker, 2021  Figure 31. Tree stand: North Glen Drive groves plan grove Across to the north side of Glen Drive, a new tree stand would celebrate diversity of community in the neighbourhood. As I noted earlier when referencing my idea of a Collective Stewardship Framework, I acknowledge that this neighbourhood has many social challenges, that any design would need significant engagement and ownership of local groups and therefore might actually take on a form starkly different to the ideas I present. Mirroring the social diversity of the neighbourhood, my proposal aggregates variable characters of different tree groves, bringing groups of species into this neighbourhood place, enhancing biodiversity and habitat for its non-human agents as well as its human residents, as set out in the plan in Figure 31.   The North Glen Drive groves offer multiple opportunities for rest, play, restoration, and an additional form of community-building for the growing number of young adult residents and existing workers in the area. The place can contribute to helping those who experience loneliness, and again I have mapped my Curbing Loneliness Model modes of engagement in Figure 32.  The lines of activity range from planned tree care classes or membership of a fruit picking club, to solo restorative breaks or happenchance meetings for those working locally.    43         Baker, 2021  Figure 32. Tree stand: groves plan with curbing loneliness model  Figure 33. Tree stand: groves section, looking north 44         Baker, 2021 While spending time walking the streets of Strathcona, I noted a number of urban agricultural lots, so have located a small orchard of apple, pear, or plum trees at the higher and sunnier east end of the site, as illustrated in Figure 33. My proposed regrading of this site preserves the existing slope starting from the intersection of Glen Drive and East Hastings Street, but incorporates grade-change elements intended to enhance experience with the flow of pathways and places to pause, manage stormwater including a swale at the lower west end, and incorporate universal design for use of the groves by all.  The combination of the South Glen nursery and these North Glen groves could form a new focus of collective stewardship, conservation, and system of urban forestry for the neighbourhood, becoming a new green hub where young adults and others are volunteering, spending time, creating community and a fresh enterprise. mini forest Similar to many streetscapes in the Renfrew-Collingwood neighbourhood, much of the space fronting Slocan Street from the homes is lawn, creating multiple sites on which my fourth typology could be established. In Figure 34., I have zoomed in on a single corner lot to illustrate the design for one urban mini forest, for a landscape where trees are allowed to create their own succession paths at a comparatively fast pace in an urban environment, where only native species are used and where biodiversity can be expansive.  Figure 34. Slocan Street intersection with 25th Avenue plan 45         Baker, 2021   Figure 35. Tree’s the boss: mini forest plans, existing to stabilized state  Figure 36. Tree’s the boss: mini forest plan with curbing loneliness model 46         Baker, 2021 Tree’s the Boss would require a combination of local neighbourhood and city stewardship, plus explicit support and partnership with the property owner, to embark on a multi-year project. Figure 35. sets out a series of plans illustrating the transformation of the space: initially collecting and germinating seeds from a local indigenous forest; then preparing the terrain before acclimating and planting seedlings; followed by care and maintenance for an initial establishment period over three years, including early and careful introduction of native under canopy shrubs. The young mini forest can then be left to its own laws of synchronicity and cooperation. During my walks in this neighbourhood, I saw very few pedestrians pausing on the streets: there were not really any places for them to stop, rest or meet. Depicted through my Curbing Loneliness Model activity lines in Figure 36., as new communities start to be nourished through the formation of the mini forest, this place would become an attraction of planned activity for volunteers and neighbourhood connoisseurs; as a place to share work; or for solo trips to take or leave a book at a new mini library. For this particular site, there is minimal grading alteration as can be seen in Figure 37., although the mini forest will better manage runoff from the sidewalk towards the garden wall and house, as stormwater infiltration will improve compared to the existing lawn condition.   Figure 37. Tree’s the boss: mini forest section, looking west  47         Baker, 2021  Figure 38. Tree’s the boss: mini forest render For a property owner and local neighbourhood, these maturing mini forests bring a myriad of benefits, mitigating street and traffic noise, reducing air pollution, and blocking winds. For the local resident they can provide brief moments of respite, calming and beautiful, regardless of weather, to be alone or to be with others.  In Conclusion My four different interventions could be established as a network of parklet, nursery, grove, and mini forest nodes to create a critical patchwork of urban forestation and rewilding through our city greenways. They can engage the community through a multitude of possible activities to help ameliorate experiences of social isolation and loneliness and help to grow and protect our urban forest, especially at this time of intense focus on tree planting across the globe. My proposals aim to bring an additional perspective to how landscape architects and municipalities approach the design of spaces in the urban environment through addressing a growing social crisis. I recognize that loneliness is only one of many social challenges we face as we consider the contributions we can make to society and to the histories of these lands. And as we play our part in how trillions of new trees are to be planted in and around our cities, we should consider how we have contributed to the loneliness of urban trees in the past. My designs attempt to emphasize how we can build upon the symbiotic relationship we have with them as we consider ameliorating the consequences of loneliness for both.    48         Baker, 2021 References Alexander, Christopher, et al. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. vol. 2.; 2, Oxford University Press, New York, 1977. Barker, G. A Framework for the Future: Green Networks with Multiple Uses in and Around Towns and Cities. English Nature Research Report No. 256, English Nature, 1997 Bergefurt, Lisanne, et al. "Loneliness and Life Satisfaction Explained by Public-Space use and Mobility Patterns." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 16, no. 21, 2019, pp. 4282. Corcoran, Rhiannon, and Graham Marshall. "From Lonely Cities to Prosocial Places: How Evidence-Informed Urban Design can Reduce the Experience of Loneliness." Edited by Olivia Sagan, and Eric D. Miller. Routledge, 2018a. Dalla Costa, Wanda. “Teaching Indigeneity in Architecture: Indigenous Placekeeping Framework.” Our Voices: Indigeneity and Architecture, edited by Kiddle, Rebecca, Luugigyoo P. Stewart, and Kevin O'Brien. ORO Editions, San Francisco Bay Area, 2018, pp. 146-153. Hester, Randolph T.,Jr, and Randolph T. Hester. Planning Neighborhood Space with People. vol. 3; 3., Van Nostrand Reinhold Co, New York, 1984. Janse, Gerben, and Cecil C. Konijnendijk. "Communication between Science, Policy and Citizens in Public Participation in Urban forestry—Experiences from the Neighbourwoods Project." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 6, no. 1, 2007, pp. 23-40. Kaplan, Stephen. "The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework." Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 15, no. 3, 1995, pp. 169-182. Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1989. Konijnendijk, C. C., SpringerLink ebooks - Earth and Environmental Science, and Ebook Central. Urban Forests and Trees: A Reference Book. Edited by Cecil Konijnendijk, et al. Springer, New York; Berlin, 2006. Kuo, Frances E., et al. "Fertile Ground for Community: Inner-City Neighborhood Common Spaces." American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 26, no. 6, 1998, pp. 823-851. Kweon, Byoung-Suk, William C. Sullivan, and Angela R. Wiley. "Green Common Spaces and the Social Integration of Inner-City Older Adults." Environment and Behavior, vol. 30, no. 6, 1998, pp. 832-858. 49         Baker, 2021 Landry, Félix, Jérôme Dupras, and Christian Messier. "Convergence of Urban Forest and Socio-Economic Indicators of Resilience: A Study of Environmental Inequality in Four Major Cities in Eastern Canada." Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 202, 2020, pp. 103856. Li, Qing. “Shinrin-Yoku: The Art and Science of Forest-Bathing.” Penguin Life, London, 2018. Li, Qing "Effect of Forest Bathing Trips on Human Immune Function." Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, vol. 15, no. 1, 2010, pp. 9-17. Livesey, Graham. "Assemblage Theory, Gardens and the Legacy of the Early Garden City Movement." Arq (London, England), vol. 15, no. 3, 2011, pp. 271-278. Monbiot, George. "The Age of Loneliness." New Statesman (1996), vol. 145, no. 5337, 2016. Montgomery, Charles. Happy City: Transforming our Lives through Urban Design. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2013. Mooney, Patrick F., and Taylor & Francis eBooks A-Z. Planting Design: Connecting People and Place. Routledge, London; New York, NY, 2020. Morita, E., et al. "Psychological Effects of Forest Environments on Healthy Adults: Shinrin-Yoku (Forest-Air Bathing, Walking) as a Possible Method of Stress Reduction." Public Health (London), vol. 121, no. 1, 2006, pp. 54-63. Nesbitt, Lorien, et al. "Urban Green Equity on the Ground: Practice-Based Models of Urban Green Equity in Three Multicultural Cities." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 44, 2019a, pp. 126433. Nesbitt, Lorien, et al. "Who has Access to Urban Vegetation? A Spatial Analysis of Distributional Green Equity in 10 US Cities." Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 181, 2019, pp. 51-79. Nowak, David J., and Eric J. Greenfield. "The Increase of Impervious Cover and Decrease of Tree Cover within Urban Areas Globally (2012–2017)." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 49, 2020, pp. 126638. Peplau, Letitia A., and Daniel Perlman. Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research, and Therapy. Wiley, New York, 1982. Roehr, Daniel & Bailey, Sean. (2020). “Gardens are … Buildings: A Garden’s Role in Unprecedented Times.” Landscape Architecture, September 2020, pp. 24-34. Ryan, Jo, and Alan Simson. "'Neighbourwoods': Identifying Good Practice in the Design of Urban Woodlands." Arboricultural Journal, vol. 26, no. 4, 2002, pp. 309-331. 50         Baker, 2021 Rydberg, Dan, and Jan Falck. "Designing the Urban Forest of Tomorrow: Pre-Commercial Thinning Adapted for use in Urban Areas in Sweden." Arboricultural Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, 1998, pp. 147-171. Sander, Victor, et al. “How to Tackle Millennial Loneliness.” SocialPro, New York, 2020 Spirn, Anne W. The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design. Basic Books, New York, 1984. Tracey, David. The Earth Manifesto: Saving Nature with Engaged Ecology. Rocky Mountain Books, Victoria, British Columbia, 2013. Ulrich, Roger, and Parsons, Russ. “Influences of Passive Experiences with Plants on Well-being and Health” The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development. Portland, OR: Timber Press, Chapter 15, pp. 93-105 Ulrich, Roger S., et al. "Stress Recovery during Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments." Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 11, no. 3, 1991, pp. 201-230. Wilson, Edward O. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1984.    51         Baker, 2021 Appendix ~ Priority Tree Listing Adapted priority listing of tree species (see meta-data table48 for descriptions).   48 52         Baker, 2021     53         Baker, 2021  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items