UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An exploration of urban green equity in North America Nesbitt, Lorien 2017

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2018_february_nesbitt_lorien.pdf [ 7.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0362401.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0362401-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0362401-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0362401-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0362401-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0362401-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0362401-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0362401-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0362401.ris

Full Text

 AN EXPLORATION OF URBAN GREEN EQUITY IN NORTH AMERICA by Lorien Nesbitt  Hon. B.Sc., University of Toronto, 2006 M.F.C., University of Toronto, 2008  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (FORESTRY)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (VANCOUVER)  December 2017  © Lorien Nesbitt, 2017   ii Abstract Urban vegetation provides a suite of ecosystem services to urban residents, from regulating microclimate to supporting good physical health. As more and more people make cities their home, urban vegetation is becoming a key part of urban residents’ well-being. Urban green equity is a central aspect of the distribution of and governance over urban vegetation and its associated ecosystem services. While issues of equity in urban forestry are of clear importance in a just society, it is unclear how the concept should be defined and analyzed. To begin to address this gap, this dissertation 1) examines the theoretical dimensions of urban green equity from multiple perspectives, 2) explores how urban forestry practitioners understand and use the concept of urban green equity in three case-study cities in the United States (US), and 3) conducts a spatial analysis of distributional green equity across 10 urbanized areas in the US. The research found 1) that there are multiple, related dimensions of urban green equity centred around two principle dimensions: distribution of urban vegetation and recognition of stakeholders in urban vegetation decision making, 2) that urban forestry practitioners collectively have a nuanced and complex understanding of urban green equity and tend to focus on distributional equity in their definitions and use of the concept, and 3) that distributional green inequity exists across multiple urbanized areas in the US, education and income are the factors most strongly predictive of the spatial distribution of urban vegetation, and public parks tend to be more equitably distributed than mixed and woody vegetation in cities. It is my hope that these results, and the methodological and conceptual approaches and frameworks provided by this research will be used to advance the rigorous study of urban green equity and improve urban green equity in practice in cities around the world.    iii Lay Summary Urban vegetation is important to the health and well-being of urban residents. Despite its importance, urban vegetation is not fairly distributed and governed in cities around the world. To better understand and improve this reality, this dissertation examines the concept of urban green equity, defined here as fair access to and governance of urban vegetation. The research found 1) distribution of urban vegetation and recognition in urban vegetation decision making are key dimensions of urban green equity, 2) that urban forestry practitioners’ understandings and use of urban green equity contain multiple related themes and tend to focus on the distribution of urban vegetation, and 3) that urban vegetation is unfairly distributed across multiple cities in the US, that education and income are strongly associated with the spatial distribution of urban vegetation, and that public parks tend to be more fairly distributed than mixed and woody vegetation in cities.     iv Preface The percentage contributions of committee members to each research chapter are summarized in tables below. A UBC PhD student’s contributions are included in the summary table for Chapter 4. Chapter 2. Categories Lorien Nesbitt Michael Meitner Cynthia Girling Stephen Sheppard Identify research problem 90 3 3 4 Design research 86 8 2 4 Analyze data 97 1 1 1 Manuscript writing 94 2 2 2  Chapter 3. Categories Lorien Nesbitt Michael Meitner Cynthia Girling Stephen Sheppard Identify research problem 82 8 5 5 Design research 70 10 10 10 Analyze data 92 8 0 0 Manuscript writing 94 2 2 2      v Chapter 4. Categories Lorien Nesbitt Michael Meitner Cynthia Girling Stephen Sheppard Yuhao Lu Identify research problem 88 8 2 2 0 Design research 86 10 2 2 0 Analyze data 90 5 0 0 5 Manuscript writing 90 2 2 2 4  A version of section 1.2 was published as: Nesbitt, L., Hotte, N., Barron, S., Cowan, J., Sheppard, S. (2017). The social and economic value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America: A review and suggestions for future research. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 25, 103-111. and Hotte, N., Nesbitt, L., Barron, S., Cowan, J., Cheng, Z., and Sheppard, S. (2015). The social and economic values of Canada’s urban forests: a national synthesis. University of British Columbia for the Canadian Forest Service. Only portions of the published manuscripts written by me were included in the section. The research presented in Chapter 3 required ethics approval. The study was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia (UBC BREB Number: H16-02583-A002).   vi Table of Contents  Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii	Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iii	Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iv	Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi	List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xii	List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xiii	List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. xiv	List of Key Definitions ............................................................................................................... xvi	Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... xvii	Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xix	Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1	1.1	 History............................................................................................................................. 3	1.2	 Urban Vegetation Ecosystem Services ........................................................................... 5	1.2.1	 Regulating Services ................................................................................................ 6	1.2.1.1	 Temperature and Energy Use .............................................................................. 6	1.2.1.2	 Surface Runoff and Flooding .............................................................................. 6	1.2.1.3	 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 7	1.2.2	 Supporting Services ................................................................................................ 8	1.2.2.1	 Habitat Provision and Urban Biodiversity .......................................................... 8	1.2.3	 Provisioning Services .............................................................................................. 9	  vii 1.2.3.1	 Urban Agriculture ............................................................................................... 9	1.2.4	 Cultural Services ................................................................................................... 10	1.2.4.1	 Physical Health Benefits ................................................................................... 10	1.2.4.2	 Psychological Benefits ...................................................................................... 11	1.2.4.3	 Recreation and Social Cohesion ....................................................................... 12	1.3	 Research Goals and Dissertation Overview .................................................................. 13	Chapter 2: The Dimensions of Urban Green Equity ................................................................16	2.1	 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16	2.1.1	 A Recent History of Social and Environmental Justice Research ........................ 17	2.1.2	 Green Equity in Urban Forestry ............................................................................ 19	2.2	 The Dimensions of Urban Green Equity: Distribution and Recognition ...................... 23	2.2.1	 Distribution of Urban Vegetation ......................................................................... 24	2.2.1.1	 Temporal Distribution ....................................................................................... 24	2.2.1.2	 Condition and Preference .................................................................................. 25	2.2.1.3	 Ownership ......................................................................................................... 26	2.2.2	 Recognition in Urban Vegetation Decision Making ............................................. 27	2.2.2.1	 Representational and Procedural Equity ........................................................... 28	2.2.2.2	 Desire and Ability to Participate ....................................................................... 30	2.2.3	 Interaction ............................................................................................................. 30	2.2.4	 Applying the Dimensions ..................................................................................... 32	2.3	 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 33	Chapter 3: Urban Green Equity on the Ground: Conceptions of and Strategies for Urban Green Equity in Three US Cities ................................................................................................34	  viii 3.1	 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 34	3.2	 Materials and Methods .................................................................................................. 36	3.2.1	 Study Sites ............................................................................................................ 36	3.2.1.1	 New York .......................................................................................................... 37	3.2.1.2	 Phoenix ............................................................................................................. 38	3.2.1.3	 Portland ............................................................................................................. 39	3.2.2	 Researcher Position and Participants .................................................................... 40	3.2.3	 Sampling Procedures ............................................................................................ 41	3.2.4	 Instruments ............................................................................................................ 42	3.2.5	 Data Collection and Analysis Procedures ............................................................. 43	3.3	 Results ........................................................................................................................... 44	3.3.1	 Distributional Green Equity .................................................................................. 46	3.3.1.1	 Definitions of Distributional Green Equity ....................................................... 48	3.3.1.2	 Barriers to Distributional Green Equity ............................................................ 50	3.3.1.3	 Strategies to Promote Distributional Green Equity .......................................... 59	3.3.2	 Recognitional Green Equity .................................................................................. 65	3.3.2.1	 Definitions of Recognitional Green Equity ...................................................... 67	3.3.2.2	 Barriers to Recognitional Green Equity ............................................................ 69	3.3.2.3	 Strategies to Promote Recognitional Green Equity .......................................... 76	3.4	 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 85	3.4.1	 Urban Green Equity in the Local Context ............................................................ 85	3.4.1.1	 New York .......................................................................................................... 86	3.4.1.2	 Phoenix ............................................................................................................. 86	  ix 3.4.1.3	 Portland ............................................................................................................. 87	3.4.2	 Definitions of Fair ................................................................................................. 88	3.4.3	 Definitions of Equity ............................................................................................. 89	3.4.4	 Distributional vs. Recognitional Equity ................................................................ 91	Chapter 4: Who Has Access to Urban Vegetation? A Spatial Analysis of Distributional Green Equity in 10 North American Urbanized Areas ............................................................93	4.1	 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 93	4.2	 Materials and Methods .................................................................................................. 95	4.2.1	 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 95	4.2.1.1	 Study Sites ........................................................................................................ 95	4.2.1.2	 Socioeconomic Variables .................................................................................. 99	4.2.1.3	 Urban Vegetation Variables ............................................................................ 103	4.2.1.3.1	 Vegetation Cover ...................................................................................... 103	4.2.1.3.2	 Parks .......................................................................................................... 107	4.2.2	 Analysis............................................................................................................... 109	4.2.2.1	 Bivariate Analyses .......................................................................................... 109	4.2.2.2	 Spatial Autoregressive Analyses ..................................................................... 109	4.3	 Results ......................................................................................................................... 112	4.3.1	 Bivariate Analyses .............................................................................................. 112	4.3.1.1	 Vegetation Cover ............................................................................................ 114	4.3.1.2	 Parks ................................................................................................................ 115	4.3.2	 Spatial Autoregressive Analyses ......................................................................... 115	4.3.2.1	 Vegetation Cover ............................................................................................ 118	  x 4.3.2.2	 Parks ................................................................................................................ 119	4.4	 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 120	4.4.1	 Patterns of Inequity ............................................................................................. 120	4.4.2	 Park Area ............................................................................................................ 121	4.4.3	 Inequity, Health, and Climate Change ................................................................ 123	4.4.4	 Green Equity and Local Context ......................................................................... 124	Chapter 5: Conclusion ...............................................................................................................126	5.1	 Overall Significance and Contributions ...................................................................... 126	5.2	 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 127	5.2.1	 Dimensions of Urban Green Equity .................................................................... 127	5.2.2	 Practitioner Conceptions of Urban Green Equity ............................................... 128	5.2.3	 Distributional Urban Green Equity Analysis ...................................................... 130	5.2.4	 Overall Conclusions ............................................................................................ 130	5.3	 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 132	5.3.1	 Dimensions of Urban Green Equity .................................................................... 132	5.3.2	 Practitioner Conceptions of Urban Green Equity ............................................... 133	5.3.3	 Distributional Urban Green Equity Analysis ...................................................... 134	5.4	 Future Research and Practice ...................................................................................... 136	5.4.1	 Future Research .................................................................................................. 136	5.4.2	 Urban Green Equity in Practice .......................................................................... 138	References ...................................................................................................................................140	Appendices ..................................................................................................................................167	Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 167	  xi A.1	 Electronic Flyer ....................................................................................................... 167	A.2	 Informed Consent Form .......................................................................................... 168	A.3	 Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 170	Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 174	B.1	 Median Age ............................................................................................................. 174	B.2	 Race ......................................................................................................................... 175	B.3	 Hispanic or Latino ................................................................................................... 177	B.4	 Income in the Past 12 Months ................................................................................. 178	B.5	 Level of Education Completed ............................................................................... 179	B.6	 Median Year Structure Built ................................................................................... 180	Appendix C ............................................................................................................................. 182	C.1	 Bivariate Correlation Results .................................................................................. 182	C.2	 SAR Results ............................................................................................................ 187	   xii List of Tables Table 3.1 Municipal population, population density, average annual precipitation, and average annual temperature for each city. .................................................................................................. 37	Table 3.2 Number of participants by organization type in each city. ........................................... 41	Table 3.3 Number of participants that discussed each sub-theme related to distributional equity........................................................................................................................................................ 48	Table 3.3 Number of participants that discussed each sub-theme related to recognitional equity........................................................................................................................................................ 67	Table 4.1 A. Urbanized area population, average decade housing built, annual precipitation, average temperature, and B. socioeconomic characteristics for each urbanized area. ................. 98	Table 4.2 Pairwise correlations each urbanized area. ................................................................. 113	Table 4.3 Mean values for z-statistics across all models for each urbanized area. ..................... 117	Table 4.4 Spatial lag coefficients across all models for each urbanized area. ............................ 118	   xiii List of Figures Figure 2.1 Conceptual diagrams of urban vegetation distribution and recognition in urban vegetation decision making and their sub-dimensions. ................................................................ 23	Figure 3.1 Relationship among the principal themes that emerged from the analysis: definitions (and sub-definitions), barriers (and sub-barriers), and strategies. ................................................ 45	Figure 3.2 Relationships among themes and sub-themes in the distributional equity analysis. ... 47	Figure 3.3 Relationships among themes and sub-themes in the recognitional equity analysis. ... 66	Figure 4.1 Map of the 10 study areas. ........................................................................................... 96	Figure 4.2 Urbanized areas and block groups for A) Chicago; B) Houston; C) Indianapolis; D) Jacksonville; E) Los Angeles; F) New York; G) Phoenix; H) Portland; I) Seattle; J) St. Louis. 100	Figure 4.3 A. Mean mixed vegetation and B. Mean woody vegetation per block group for Portland. ...................................................................................................................................... 106	Figure 4.4 Park area within 1000m per block group for Portland. ............................................. 108	   xiv List of Abbreviations AZ  Arizona State BG  Block Group CA  California State CT  Census Tract FL  Florida State IL  Illinois State IN  Indiana State MO  Missouri State NJ  New Jersey State NY  New York State NYC  New York City OR  Oregon State SAR  Spatial Autoregression/Spatial Autoregressive (model) SARerr  Spatial error (model) SARlag  Spatial lag (model) TX  Texas State UA  Urbanized Area US  United States   xv WA  Washington State     xvi List of Key Definitions Canopy cover The area of land covered by tree canopies, often expressed as a percentage of total land area and usually measured from the aerial perspective. Community forest A forest near a human settlement that is used and managed collectively by the community. Greenway Linear, mostly-vegetated areas, sometimes designated as parks, along which people may traverse (e.g., walk, cycle, drive). Mixed vegetation All urban vegetation, including grass, garden and crop plants, shrubs, hedges, and trees. Park Area of land accessible to the public, usually vegetated, that is often used for recreation. Pocket park  A small park, often located on a single lot or smaller parcel of land. Urban forest Urban trees and associated vegetation, such as shrubs, grass, and garden plants. Urban forestry The care and management of urban vegetation, particularly trees and associated vegetation, for the purpose of improving urban environments. Urban green space Area within a city that is vegetated. Urban vegetation All outdoor vegetation in urban environments. Urban woodland Area of forested land in an urban environment, often used for recreation. Woody vegetation Trees of all sizes, large shrubs, and hedges.   xvii Acknowledgements The culmination of this dissertation relied on the assistance of many individuals. First, I would like to express my gratitude to my academic supervisor and mentor, Prof. Michael J. Meitner. His commitment to excellence in research and teaching, and his creative approaches to research and inquiry, gave me the opportunity to learn from a true leader in socio-ecological systems and an inspiring and compassionate teacher. I am extremely grateful for the guidance I have received and am aware of and grateful for the privilege I have experienced in pursuing this research. My committee members at UBC, Prof. Cynthia Girling and Prof. Stephen R. J. Sheppard provided insightful and nuanced advice and support from which I profited greatly and which contributed to my formation as a competent academic. I have learned much from their unique insights into the field of urban green equity and their collaborative approaches to research and learning. I received funding from Mitacs to conduct this research, with the support of EcoPlan International, and would like to thank Mr. William Trousdale, Dr. Julian Gonzales, Mr. John Ingram, and all EcoPlan staff for their professional support throughout my degree. Their professional insights helped keep my research grounded in practice and helped ensure its relevance outside of the academic environment.  I would like to thank the urban forestry professionals and community members from the cities of New York, Phoenix, and Portland who shared their insights into the definition and practice of urban green equity during the preparation of the research described in Chapter 3. Their generous gift of their time and knowledge made this portion of the research possible. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Noa Sison, Ruby Carrico, Hyungkyu Cha, and Ho Man Chan for their assistance with census and NDVI data preparation and accuracy assessment, and Yuhao Lu for   xviii his help processing remotely-sensed data and formulating tables and figures in Chapter 4. Their generous gift of time and expertise made the spatial analysis research possible.  While at the university, I have had the opportunity to meet many other professors, graduate students and staff, and have benefitted from the rich and stimulating environment on campus. Devyani Singh and Ngaio Hotte stand out as graduate student peers with whom I have engaged in many stimulating discussions and who have supported me during my time at the university. I have learned a lot from them and am sure I will continue to do so in the future.  Although my research has often kept me busy and required travel across North America and the world, my family has always been close, supportive, and a source of inspiration to help make the world a better and more equitable place. I would like to specifically acknowledge and thank my parents, Susan Burgess and Tom Nesbitt, for teaching me to be curious and for giving me a strong grounding in ethics and social justice. I would also like to thank my wonderful sister, Ariel Nesbitt, for her continued compassionate support, intellectual stimulation, and companionship. Lastly, at the beginning of my time at UBC, I met the love of my life, Barend Lötter, and he has provided me with incredible strength, support, love, and encouragement throughout my degree. I am continually impressed by his generosity, intellectual capacity, and work ethic. He inspires me daily and I am grateful to have found my life’s companion.     xix Dedication I dedicate this thesis to truth, whatever that is, to sleep, because I miss it, and to justice, that fundamentally human concept that calls us to be the best version of ourselves.   1 Chapter 1: Introduction Today, the majority of the world’s population lives in urbanized areas. The United Nations Population Division estimates that over half of the global population currently lives in cities and urban populations are growing by about 2% annually (2015). In North America, this trend towards urbanization is even stronger, especially in Canada and the United States (US), where approximately 80% of the population lives in urban environments (McPhearson et al., 2013) (McPhearson et al., 2013). As urbanization continues, urban vegetation, and particularly urban forests, defined as urban trees and associated vegetation (Konijnendijk et al., 2006), and the services they provide are playing an increasingly important role in creating liveable urban spaces and maintaining the well-being of the majority of Canadian and US residents (Hansmann et al., 2007; G. Sanesi et al., 2011; Thompson, 2002).    Urban vegetation provides important ecosystem services to urban residents. For example, urban forests moderate urban microclimates to reduce the “urban heat island effect” (McPherson et al., 2005) and improve air quality (Escobedo and Nowak, 2009; Yang et al., 2004). Urban vegetation intercepts rainfall and increases infiltration, reducing surface water runoff (McPherson et al., 2011), and mitigates climate change by absorbing CO2 and storing carbon (Nowak and Crane, 2002). Urban vegetation can also help us recover from stress (Jiang et al., 2014; Tyrväinen et al., 2014; Ulrich et al., 1991), improve public health outcomes (Donovan et al., 2013; Groenewegen et al., 2006; Sanesi et al., 2011), increase social cohesion (de Vries et al., 2013; Groenewegen et al., 2012), and may reduce local crime rates in some cases (Kuo and Sullivan, 2001; Troy et al., 2012). Urban vegetation also has non-consumptive economic benefits such as increased property values (Mansfield et al., 2005; Poudyal et al., 2009) and community economic development   2 (Wolf, 2005, 2003). As more and more people make cities their home, a credible case can be made that urban vegetation provides ecosystem services that influence the well-being of the majority of the world’s population and that societies should consider how best to maximize the benefits of urban vegetation and ensure that all urban residents are able to experience these benefits. Despite the clear importance of urban vegetation to various aspects of urban quality of life, the distribution and governance of urban vegetation appear to be inequitable in many cities around the world (Buijs et al., 2016; City of Vancouver et al., 2014; Heynen, 2003; Heynen and Lindsey, 2003; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; McConnachie and Shackleton, 2010; Ogneva-Himmelberger et al., 2009). Urban parks and woodlands are more often located in wealthier neighbourhoods (Poudyal et al., 2009) and require leisure time to enjoy as they are often located some distance from urban residents’ homes (Harnik, 2010). The size and abundance of trees on private property are often higher in high-income neighbourhoods (Kirkpatrick et al., 2011) and lower levels of canopy cover across all land ownership types are more often associated with lower-income neighbourhoods (Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Nesbitt and Meitner, 2016; Schwarz et al., 2015). In some cases, socioeconomically disadvantaged urban residents are less likely to engage in urban vegetation stewardship activities, to participate in urban forestry decision making, and to have control over urban vegetation resources (Buijs et al., 2016; Heynen, 2003). The disparities in access to and governance of urban vegetation give rise to the concept of urban green equity, defined here as fair access to and governance of urban vegetation regardless of differentiating factors such as socioeconomic status, race, culture, or age. While some urban   3 residents may not wish to access urban vegetation or participate in governance activities, equity implies that those who wish to access and participate have the opportunity to do so (Kant, 1998). High levels of urban green equity help ensure that urban residents have equitable access to the services and benefits urban vegetation provides and fair participation in its governance. While it is clear that most cities experience some form of urban green inequity, it is not yet clear how this inequity should be defined and measured and what causes it. Research to date has defined access to urban vegetation in various ways, has focused on single aspects of urban vegetation, or has been limited to individual cities and regions, limiting the scope of application of the research and, in some cases, leading to seemingly contradictory findings (Barbosa et al., 2007; Heynen and Lindsey, 2003; Lafary et al., 2008; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; McConnachie and Shackleton, 2010; Ogneva-Himmelberger et al., 2009). The research on equity in urban vegetation governance is quite limited (Buizer et al., 2016), leaving open questions as to how to define equity in decision making and how best to involve a diversity of urban residents in caring for and governing urban vegetation resources (Buijs et al., 2016; Heynen, 2003). 1.1 History Urban green equity is a relatively new area of research within urban forestry and green space management, a field that has its origins in the late 19th century (Cook, 1894; Konijnendijk et al., 2006; Ricard, 2005). Although we often think of urban forestry as a modern field of research and practice, human communities have been using and managing urban and peri-urban trees and shrubs for thousands of years. Urban trees and gardens were created and managed by many societies throughout history, including ancient Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Chinese and Roman   4 societies. During the Middle Ages, urban gardens were used for medicinal purposes and community forests were managed for their non-timber forest products (Grey and Deneke, 1978).   In North America, the management of street trees and the urban forestry discipline grew out of the movement to beautify public spaces. The movement originated in the late 18th and 19th centuries in cities that had largely been shaped by the Industrial Revolution (Egleston, 1878; Favretti, 1982; Lawrence, 1995). At this time, urban foresters and arborists were among those who were responsible for the care of urban trees on public land (Cook, 1894). In some cases they shared this responsibility with other authorities such as park supervisors, highway officials, and civic volunteers (Favretti, 1982; Fernow, 1910; Solotaroff, 1911). Urban parks in North America developed for quite different reasons from urban street trees.  Rather than an attempt to beautify urban environments, urban parks in the 19th century were developed as reliefs from the city, modeled after romanticized ideas of the countryside (Cranz, 1982). North American parks have thus historically been developed and managed as separate from the city, not as part of a larger urban vegetation network.   While this is changing somewhat, for example with the recent development of pocket parks and greenways (McLain et al., 2012a) parks are still often studied and managed as separate from the larger network of urban vegetation (Harnik et al., 2012). Urban foresters, arborists and park supervisors, for example, often work in relative isolation from one another, which leads to divisions between urban street trees, parks, and woodlands. These divisions becomes clear when we list some of the separately managed, and perhaps unnecessary, categories of urban vegetation: parks, urban woodlands, street trees, greenways/parkways, private trees, community   5 gardens, and green walls (Britt and Johnston, 2008; Gerhardt, 2010; Johnston et al., 1999; Saretok, 2006).  Fortunately, the professional practice and academic study of urban forestry has grown in recent decades; urban forestry researchers and managers have begun to treat urban vegetation as an interconnected system, rather than a series of disparate parts (Sieghardt et al., 2005). The past perception of urban trees and parks as luxury amenities that allowed residents to escape from the urban environment gradually began to shift in the 1990s and early 2000s. Cities began to see urban vegetation as a system of assets that are an important part of sustainable urban landscapes (McLain et al., 2012a). While the perception of urban vegetation as a luxury amenity is difficult to overcome, this gradually-shifting perception has motivated investments in new types of urban vegetation and urban forest elements, such as greenways and green boulevards, increased street tree planting, and small “pocket parks” (Peck, 2000). These investments are becoming easier to justify as the ecosystem services provided by urban vegetation are better understood (Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition and Ecojustice, 2012). 1.2 Urban Vegetation Ecosystem Services Urban vegetation ecosystem services are often conceptualized according to the system developed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). That conceptualization divides ecosystem services into four related categories: regulating services, supporting services, provisioning services, and cultural services. Urban vegetation research in each category is addressed below.   6 1.2.1 Regulating Services Urban areas create microclimates that are fundamentally different from those found in nearby rural areas. For example, urban areas experience distinctive solar radiation, rainfall patterns, air quality, wind speeds, humidity, and temperatures (Heidt and Neef, 2008). These microclimatic elements are influenced by the built environment, the local topography, and the surrounding natural environment. Cities are generally characterized by higher temperatures (“the urban heat-island effect”) (Oke, 1973), higher levels of precipitation due to higher particulate concentrations (Bonan, 2002), and increased flooding due to deforestation and abundant impermeable surfaces (McPherson et al., 2011). The urban microclimate is also influenced on a smaller scale by the details of the built environment, such as urban density, shade from buildings, and the type and abundance of urban vegetation (Heidt and Neef, 2008).  1.2.1.1 Temperature and Energy Use Urban vegetation provides services that improve the urban environment for city residents. Urban forests reduce the urban heat-island effect by providing shade. Even single trees provide shade and cool their immediate environment (McPherson et al., 1997, 1999). In cooler seasons, trees can reduce heating needs by decreasing wind speeds and thus cold air infiltration into buildings (McPherson et al. 1997). Evapotranspiration reduces air temperature through the conversion of sensible to latent heat and by adding water vapour to the air (Heidt and Neef, 2008).  1.2.1.2 Surface Runoff and Flooding When compared to natural forested environments, urban environments have decreased interception of precipitation via canopies and abundant impermeable surfaces, leading to higher   7 flooding risk in urban environments. During peak precipitation events, water flows over the surface of the ground instead of infiltrating into it, creating high levels of surface runoff and flow through stormwater systems. Vegetation and the permeable soil in which it grows, can help regulate surface runoff by intercepting rainfall, evapotranspiring and increasing soil infiltration rates (Asadian, 2010; Konijnendijk et al., 2013). Trees can also be planted under permeable pavement to allow for increased infiltration and reduced flooding. The contribution of urban vegetation to flooding reduction depends on tree species and condition, local precipitation rates and the design of associated infrastructure (e.g. park size and design, permeability of soils where trees are planted) (Asadian, 2010; Konijnendijk et al., 2013). 1.2.1.3 Air Quality Trees and shrubs can improve air quality by intercepting and absorbing particulate pollution at street level (Heidt and Neef, 2008; Nowak, 1994), reducing urban ozone levels by lowering air temperatures through transpiration, removing air pollutants through surface deposition and reducing building temperatures and associated power plant emissions (Nowak et al., 2006, 2000), thereby improving air quality. Urban air quality is an important concern in Canadian cities, where traffic pollution causes annual premature deaths (Ligeti 2014). Urban trees remove various types of pollutants including: ozone (O3), particulate matter less than 10 μm (PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (CO). The pollutants most commonly removed by urban trees in US cities are ozone and particulate matter (Nowak et al., 2006). Pollutant removal values vary among cities according to tree cover, pollution concentration, length of in-leaf season, precipitation levels and factors that affect tree transpiration and deposition velocities, such as wind speed. Taken together, the range of   8 microclimatic benefits that trees provide make urban environments more liveable and can help address environmental challenges faced by growing cities.  However, it is important to note that urban vegetation can decrease air quality for those suffering from pollen allergies during pollen production seasons (Escobedo et al., 2011; Morani et al., 2011). Some plant species release pollen annually, causing sometimes severe problems for those with serious pollen allergies. 1.2.2 Supporting Services 1.2.2.1 Habitat Provision and Urban Biodiversity The contribution of urban vegetation to biodiversity conservation is well established (Fernández-Juricic, 2000; Gilbert, 1989; Sanesi et al., 2011). Urban vegetation provides important habitat for urban species and well-developed urban vegetation helps maintain connectivity between habitat patches in the surrounding region (Sanesi et al., 2011; Savard et al., 2000; Tjallingii, 2000). This biodiversity conservation role is particularly important given that human settlements are often established in areas of higher biodiversity that have higher levels of resources to support human societies (Luck, 2007). An important benefit of urban biodiversity to human society is the role played by urban vegetation in maintaining pollinator habitat critical to urban food production (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Mooney and Brown, 2013). The contribution of urban vegetation to biodiversity conservation depends on the elements of biodiversity under examination and several other factors, such as connectivity, vegetation diversity, maturity of urban vegetation and urban density (Sanesi et al., 2011, 2009; Zhang and Jim, 2014). Urban vegetation with lower levels of fragmentation is able to support higher levels   9 of biodiversity, as are more mature urban forests with a higher diversity of vegetation species. When human settlements densify, the urban biodiversity of the area generally decreases. This is because the quality and connectivity of urban habitat often degrade as a result of densification (Sanesi et al., 2011). However, these general rules vary by individual species and the scale at which those species operate: woody species generally show the strongest positive response to increased habitat patch size and connectivity, while avian species’ habitat needs vary according to species and prey type and some insect species respond more strongly to microhabitat diversity than patch size (Morimoto, 2011).  1.2.3 Provisioning Services 1.2.3.1 Urban Agriculture Urban agriculture offers an alternative land use in urban areas and has been growing in popularity in cities across North America. This trend appears to be motivated by food security concerns, a desire to reconnect with nature in the city and growing urban sustainability movements (Lovell, 2010). Urban agriculture provides urban populations with food and the opportunity to participate in its production. Research on urban agriculture, as it relates to urban forestry, is focused on agricultural design that supports urban biodiversity and urban vegetation planning to support food production. The importance of urban agriculture for biodiversity conservation stems from the reality that much of the urban vegetation is located on private land and some of that private land is used to produce food for the landowner. These are not necessarily large urban farms, but private gardens managed by individuals or families (Goddard et al., 2009). Thus, networks of urban habitat to   10 support biodiversity will have to include private gardens. This green connectivity is also important for pollinator movement and habitat, an essential part of successful urban food production. In this context, Goddard et al. (2010) suggest encouraging wildlife-friendly garden management for collections of gardens at scales beyond individual gardens.  1.2.4 Cultural Services 1.2.4.1 Physical Health Benefits There is growing evidence of the positive impacts of urban vegetation on health and mortality.  Various studies have shown positive relationships between good health and abundant urban vegetation (de Vries et al., 2003; Groenewegen et al., 2006; Maas et al., 2006; Mitchell and Popham, 2007, 2008). The presence of urban vegetation resources in a neighbourhood appears to increase the physical activity of residents, improving physical health outcomes (Lovasi et al., 2008; Takano et al., 2002). Walking through green areas also produces positive physical health impacts in the form of reduced stress, and is a common health-promoting practice in Japan called shinrin-yoku, or “forest bathing” (Park et al., 2010; Yamaguchi et al., 2006). The positive relationship between urban vegetation and health is not the same for all health indicators and all socioeconomic groups.  The positive effects of urban vegetation on health seem to be strongest among lower income groups for mortality of all causes considered together, as well as circulatory disease alone (de Vries et al., 2003; Mitchell and Popham, 2007, 2008). The availability of urban vegetation also appears to have a positive effect on residents’ perceived general health, once again with a stronger relationship observed in lower income groups (Maas et al., 2006). Urban vegetation appears to have the strongest positive influence on the health of   11 lower socioeconomic groups: those groups that are more likely to suffer poor health outcomes and higher levels of mortality (Mitchell and Popham, 2008). This relationship and the apparent negative relationship between poverty and the availability of urban vegetation examined in this thesis suggest that urban green inequity is a fundamentally important issue that should be addressed in urban planning.  1.2.4.2 Psychological Benefits Urban vegetation can also provide positive socio-psychological benefits to urban residents (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Vegetation creates pleasing visual contrast in highly built-up environments, reducing environmental fatigue (Pitt et al., 1979). Simply seeing and being in the presence of vegetation has been shown to reduce stress, improve emotional health, and enhance general quality of life (Kaplan, 1993). In addition, urban green spaces may help residents develop a sense of community and attachment to their neighbourhood (Chenoweth and Gobster, 1990).  Most research on the positive psychological impacts of urban vegetation has focused on the contrast between natural and urban built environments (Berman et al., 2008; Hansmann et al., 2007; Ulrich et al., 1991). Recent research, however, is attempting to measure the psychological benefits of specific elements of urban vegetation. For example, recent studies have found that manicured urban vegetation and open, natural settings that are well-tended provide greater psychological benefits than wild urban vegetation and “messy”, closed natural settings (Herzog et al., 2003; Martens et al., 2011) (Herzog et al., 2003; Martens et al., 2011).  However, preference for tended urban vegetation is likely influenced by the cultural contexts in which urban vegetation exists and is perceived (Fraser and Kenney, 2000; Greene et al., 2011).   12 1.2.4.3 Recreation and Social Cohesion One of the most commonly understood uses of urban green spaces is for recreation. Urban parks, woodlands, and greenways are examples of public or semi-private recreational areas. The list of possible recreational activities that may be undertaken in an urban park is almost infinite, but some of the most common are: walking, running, cycling, sitting, standing, lying down, reading, interacting with friends, and playing sports (Goličnik and Ward Thompson, 2010; Harnik, 2010). The health benefits of recreation in urban green spaces are clear. Even light exercise has positive physical and psychological impacts that improve human health (Hansmann et al., 2007; Harnik, 2010; Martens et al., 2011). Perhaps more interesting is the finding that recreational green spaces can improve the social cohesion of a neighbourhood (Gehl, 2010). Public spaces provide important areas for socialization and the creation of community relationships, and green public spaces are more likely to be used than other urban public spaces, creating higher levels of social cohesion (Kweon et al., 1998). It is, however, important to note that urban vegetation is sometimes perceived to be dangerous because it might provide hiding places for criminals (Donovan and Prestemon, 2012; Troy et al., 2012). Interestingly, there is some evidence that the presence of urban vegetation may reduce both violent and property crimes, particularly when trees are located on public land (Kuo and Sullivan, 2001; Troy et al., 2012). While small trees may provide concealment for criminals (Donovan and Prestemon, 2012; Michael et al., 2001), larger trees on both public and private land reduce crime in the surrounding areas, possibly by signaling to potential criminals that a home is well cared for and thus a more difficult mark (Donovan and Prestemon, 2012; Troy et al., 2012).   13 1.3 Research Goals and Dissertation Overview The main goal of this dissertation is to explore and develop the concept of urban green equity, in light of the multiple ecosystem services provided by urban vegetation and society’s growing awareness of their importance. While equity research is an emerging field in urban forestry, and urban green equity has clear implications for social goods such as public health and social cohesion, there is no urban forestry-specific definition and theory of green equity to guide equity analyses and ensure that researchers are engaging with the issue using a common framework. Urban green equity is a highly complex concept and issue, and this dissertation does not seek to provide a complete theory of urban green equity. However, I do hope to contribute to the development of such a theory by examining the dimensions of urban green equity, conceptions and practice of urban green equity on the ground, and the state of distributional green equity across multiple urban environments. The main research question I asked and that I seek to address in this dissertation is: What is urban green equity and what factors should be considered in its analysis? Specific objectives and research questions were identified and linked together in support of this overarching research question. The following overview provides an outline of the dissertation and describes how the chapters are linked together. In Chapter 2, I analyze the theoretical dimensions of urban green equity, drawing on research in the fields of social and environmental justice and urban forestry, and informed by a review of policy and practice in selected municipalities in North America and around the world. The specific research questions addressed in this chapter are:   14 1. What are the theoretical dimensions of urban green equity? 2. How do the dimensions interact with each other? 3. How can the dimensions be applied in urban green equity research? In Chapter 3, I explore how local urban forestry practitioners understand and use the concept of urban green equity. I interviewed 34 urban forestry key informants in three case-study cities in the US and used a thematic analysis approach to explore and analyze the themes that emerged from the interviews. The specific research questions addressed in this chapter are: 1. How do urban forestry practitioners understand urban green equity? 2. How do urban forestry practitioners use urban green equity in their professional practice? 3. How is urban green equity understood and used in different local contexts? In Chapter 4, I assess the state of distributional green equity across multiple urban contexts, spatial scales, and types of urban vegetation resource in 10 metro areas in the US. I used very high-resolution aerial imagery, census data, and bivariate and multivariate modelling to examine relationships among socioeconomic factors and the distribution of mixed and woody vegetation, and urban parks, and tested the analysis across two spatial units. The specific research questions addressed in this chapter are: 1. What are the principal socioeconomic factors associated with urban vegetation distribution across multiple urban areas, urban vegetation types, and spatial scales?  2. Are different types of urban vegetation resources differentially distributed?   15 In Chapter 5, I provide a conclusion to integrate the results of the dissertation research, highlighting contributions, strengths, limitations, and future research directions.      16 Chapter 2: The Dimensions of Urban Green Equity 2.1 Introduction Urban vegetation, provides a wide range of ecosystem services to urban societies, such as mitigating the urban heat island effect (McPherson et al., 2005; Oke, 1973), reducing localized flooding (McPherson et al., 2011; Roy et al., 2012), improving air quality (Escobedo and Nowak, 2009; Nowak et al., 2006), mitigating climate change (Nowak and Crane, 2002), reducing residents’ stress levels and improving psychological health outcomes (Annerstedt et al., 2012; Lottrup et al., 2013; Ward Thompson et al., 2012), improving physical health outcomes (Mitchell and Popham, 2008; Ward Thompson and Aspinall, 2011), and increasing property values and commercial activity (Gatrell and Jensen, 2002; Nesbitt et al., 2017). It can thus be argued that urban vegetation is a social, economic, and environmental good. Its nature as a good, for which there may be competition in society, suggests that societies’ interactions with urban vegetation should be subjected to an equity analysis to determine the fairness of such interactions.  While issues of equity in urban forestry are of clear importance in a just society, there is no urban forestry-specific theory of equity to guide equity analyses and ensure that researchers are engaging with the issue using a common framework. To begin to address this gap, I present a discussion of the dimensions of what I call urban green equity, drawing from theory in the fields of ethics, social and environmental justice, political theory, and urban forestry research and practice. These dimensions may be used to structure urban green equity analyses and help provide a common framework for the social dialogue that accompanies such analyses.   17 2.1.1 A Recent History of Social and Environmental Justice Research Social justice, and environmental justice as an application of social justice in the realm of environmental issues, have historically been concerned with the distribution of social rights and goods (Schlosberg, 2007). Rawls’ classic text, A Theory of Justice, provides a strong basis for this distributional focus, defining justice as ‘a standard whereby the distributive aspects of the basic structure of society are to be assessed’ (1999: 9). This definition is based on the liberal ethical conception of freedom and equality as the foundations of equity, applied in such a manner as to promote the wellbeing of the members of a society (Rawls, 1999). These principles are fundamental to the concept of equity but are sometimes in tension with one another. Freedom is focused on the wellbeing of the individual and his/her capacity to behave in a manner that promotes that wellbeing. Equality is focused on the wellbeing of the collective members of society and the behaviours that promote the wellbeing of the collective. According to distributional theories of equity, an equitable society must balance freedom and equality so as to promote the highest wellbeing of the members of a society, and a well-ordered society will do so according to a common understanding of what is just and unjust (Dobson, 1998; Low and Gleeson, 1998; Rawls, 1999). According to the liberal conception of equity, each person’s basic right to freedom and rights must be compatible with a system of liberties and rights for all (Rawls, 1999; Rizzotto and Bortoloto, 2011). Individuals are thus required to give up some freedoms in the pursuit of collective wellbeing, the standard by which resource distribution is evaluated. Distributional theories of social equity are applied in contexts where resources are limited, and these limits create the tension between freedom and equality. The freedom to consume resources for the benefit of the individual will reduce the equality of resource use by all   18 members of a society, in the context of limited resources. Theories of justice in this tradition focus on the processes of fair distribution of resources, including the structure and rules guiding just institutions, the principles governing proposed distributions, and the resulting distribution of the resources in question (Rawls, 1999; Schlosberg, 2007). A central figure in the movement to expand social justice research paradigms beyond the distributional focus is Iris Young with her text Justice and the Politics of Difference (1990). Young considers distributional conceptions of social justice to be crucial but incomplete (Schlosberg, 2007; Young, 1990). She argues that distributional injustice arises from social structures, cultural beliefs, and institutional context, and thus focuses her inquiry on the determinants of inequitable distribution. This expands the question ‘how should resources be distributed?’ to include ‘what determines inequitable distributions?’ (Young, 1990). Young argues that the roots of inequitable distributions are domination and the oppression that accompanies it. Young includes various practices in the definition of oppression, including marginalization, exploitation, removal of power, cultural imperialism, and violence (Schlosberg, 2007; Young, 1990). She argues that the social and institutional factors that create oppression, and the resulting distributional inequity, are often created by a lack of recognition of identity and difference, and the exclusion from political (i.e., collective decision-making) processes that this causes (Young, 1990). Taylor has also examined the importance of recognition in social justice theory (1994). He argues that recognition or approval from other people is a fundamental part of human identity and integrity. A lack of recognition, exhibited by insults and devaluation at both the individual and cultural level, inflicts harm that is unjust (Schlosberg, 2007). Recognition is thus a vital human need, and a lack of recognition is as inequitable as the unjust distribution of   19 goods (Taylor, 1994). Gould (1996) uses this definition of equity, that includes recognition, to link equity to political participation. She argues that there is a direct link between a lack of respect and recognition and a decline in a person or group’s participation in the wider community, including political processes. Young also argues that political processes can influence both the distribution of goods and the conditions controlling social recognition (Young, 1990). Inclusive decision making is thus both a part of and a condition for social equity. It is important to note that none of the definitions of equity discussed above seek to define ‘the good’. The central role of freedom in liberal philosophy means that a society will contain a plurality of definitions of the good, and the practice of equity in society will look different in different contexts and for different people (Rawls, 1999; Schlosberg, 2007; Young, 1990). For example, the balance point between individual freedom and collective equality will shift according to societal norms and individual experience. The dimensions of equity uncovered in the social justice and ethics literature thus define what should be examined in an investigation of social and environmental equity, and do not lead to a constructed theory of the good. 2.1.2 Green Equity in Urban Forestry Urban green equity is a growing area of inquiry in the field of urban forestry, with contributions from spatial analytical approaches and remote sensing, urban vegetation governance and decision making, and urban political ecological analyses. Urban forestry research over the past two decades has largely focused on the ecosystem services provided by urban vegetation (Annerstedt et al., 2013; Konijnendijk et al., 2013; McPherson et al., 1997; Nowak et al., 2000; Yamaguchi et al., 2006), reflecting a growing interest in urban vegetation and its societal benefits (Lawrence et al., 2013). This focus on ecosystem services, a perspective that arguably represents a conceptual   20 commodification of urban vegetation, has given rise to a growing body of literature on the distribution of urban vegetation and its associated ecosystem services. Distributional theories of equity appear to have had a strong influence on urban green equity research in urban forestry, as evidenced by the research focus on urban vegetation distribution and accessibility in the literature (Barbosa et al., 2007; Comber et al., 2008; Germann-Chiari and Seeland, 2004; Lafary et al., 2008; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Nesbitt and Meitner, 2016; Schwarz et al., 2015). This body of literature focuses on identifying and understanding spatial relationships between urban vegetation resources and socioeconomic factors to elucidate patterns of unjust access to urban vegetation and the ecosystem services it provides. It generally assumes that urban vegetation comprises desired or at least innocuous goods or amenities and that a low level of access is an indication of the presence of inequity. Distributional equity also appears to be central to many municipalities’ conceptions of urban green equity. For example, when municipalities have codified equity standards or goals, they most often focus on the distance to the nearest park or park area per resident (City of Phoenix, 2009; City of Vancouver, 2017; The Trust for Public Land, 2017) or canopy cover targets by neighbourhood (City of Seattle, 2016; Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015).   A field of inquiry that has received less attention is urban vegetation governance. Nonetheless, the field of urban vegetation governance has made important contributions to the urban green equity literature in recent years. Urban vegetation governance refers to the processes, interactions, actors, and decisions that lead to the establishment and maintenance of urban vegetation resources (Lawrence et al., 2013). The contributions of this literature to urban green equity are in the area of equitable governance processes. Recent research in urban vegetation   21 governance examines and proposes unique and inclusive multi-stakeholder governance processes that encourage citizens to engage in stewardship and decision making at the local level and that allow for flexible, bottom-up approaches to decision making (Buijs et al., 2016; McLain et al., 2012b). The concept of mosaic governance clearly articulates this focus. Mosaic governance allows for a mosaic of governance approaches to exist simultaneously in the landscape and evolve to meet citizens’ needs and interests (Buijs et al., 2016). Research suggests that this approach to governance may be more inclusive and more appropriate in socio-culturally and bio-culturally diverse societies (Buizer et al., 2016). There is also evidence that inclusive governance approaches can foster active citizenship, community-building, and democracy (Fisher et al., 2015; Svendsen and Campbell, 2008). It appears that some municipalities are beginning to understand urban green equity from the perspective of stewardship and recognition in decision making, as evidenced by urban vegetation stewardship programming in underserved or low-canopy neighbourhoods and opportunities to engage in stewardship as a ‘citizen forester’ (City of Melbourne, 2017a; NYC Parks, 2017a; Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015). While these programs are not always officially framed as increasing inclusion in decision making, they partially serve that function. Some cities, such as the City of Melbourne, are facilitating forms of mosaic governance in their urban forests by engaging residents in local values mapping and by creating local urban forest plans by precinct (City of Melbourne, 2017b; Kendal, 2014). Outside the realm of urban forestry but within the environmental management sphere, power in decision making has been institutionalized in some cases, as in, for example, the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) definition of environmental justice as:   22 …the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys: the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards, and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017, p. 1) Another field of research in urban forestry that is closely-related to urban green equity is urban political ecology. The field of urban political ecology seeks to bring together distributional and governance-focused conceptions of equity in urban forestry using a Marxist or anti-capitalist political lens (Anders Sandberg et al., 2015; Heynen et al., 2006). This body of literature posits that urban vegetation, and the communities living alongside it, are primarily shaped by the capitalist drive for growth and the accompanying destruction of place and commodification of public goods (Anders Sandberg et al., 2015). Urban political ecology sees urban spaces, and thus urban vegetation, as places of struggle, where societal power relationships play out over the competition for goods and services, and seeks to uncover the role of social and cultural norms and power structures in the production of inequity in urban forestry (Heynen, 2003). Political ecology considers multiple forms of power and its influence over urban vegetation, including political, economic, social, and discursive power (Anders Sandberg et al., 2015; Swyngedouw et al., 2002). This approach to urban green equity grows out of social justice research such as Young’s analysis of domination and oppression (Young, 1990), while applying a specific political lens to the analysis of power relationships linked to urban vegetation.   23 2.2 The Dimensions of Urban Green Equity: Distribution and Recognition Building on the literature presented above, I propose that two principal dimensions exist within the theory and practice of urban green equity, with additional sub-dimensions associated with each. The principal dimensions are: (1) the distribution of urban vegetation, and (2) recognition in urban vegetation decision making (Figure 2.1). These two dimensions are discussed below, along with a discussion of their sub-dimensions.   Figure 2.1 Conceptual diagrams of urban vegetation distribution and recognition in urban vegetation decision making and their sub-dimensions.    24 2.2.1 Distribution of Urban Vegetation The distribution of urban vegetation is clearly a principal dimension of urban green equity, based on the social justice, environmental justice and urban forestry literature, and municipal policy and practice. The spatial distribution of urban vegetation in relation to residents’ homes and places of work influences whether residents have opportunities to access urban vegetation and how often that access occurs. Many ecosystem services, such as air quality improvements (Nowak et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2004), improved microclimates (Lafortezza et al., 2009; McPherson et al., 2005), psychological health benefits (Ulrich et al., 1991; Ward Thompson et al., 2012), and physical health benefits (Lovasi et al., 2011; Ward Thompson and Aspinall, 2011) may only be experienced in close proximity to urban vegetation. For example, residents may experience improved air quality while walking near urban trees or may feel reduced stress and higher levels of well-being when recreating in an urban park or woodland. The distribution dimension contains three principal sub-dimensions presented here (1) temporal distribution, (2) condition and preference, and (3) ownership (Figure 2.1).  2.2.1.1 Temporal Distribution Given the importance of physical proximity to receiving benefits from ecosystem services (spatial access), two important sub-dimensions to urban vegetation distribution relate to temporal access. They are the (1) availability of leisure time in which to access urban vegetation, and (2) the temporal availability of urban vegetation related to seasonality. Leisure time allows urban residents to spend time close to urban vegetation, recreating in nearby parks, hiking through urban woodlands, or walking beside street trees (Taylor, 2012). Without this leisure time, the physical experience of proximity to urban vegetation is necessarily diminished, and residents   25 consequently receive fewer ecosystem services from urban vegetation. There is evidence that those with more restricted leisure time, often as a result of lower socioeconomic status and longer working hours, are less able to spend time accessing urban vegetation resources, even if they live in close proximity to them, representing a distributional inequity that goes beyond spatial distribution (Rishbeth, 2001). The responses of urban vegetation ecosystems to seasonality can also raise distributional equity issues in some climatic contexts. Many of the services provided by urban vegetation are produced by plant leaves, which may or may not be present in winter months in temperate regions. For example, the psychological benefits provided by urban vegetation often relate to green views (Kaplan, 2001; Lottrup et al., 2015) and the positive associations between urban vegetation exposure and some physical health outcomes are based on exposure to greenness, which is a measure of exposure to spring or summer vegetation (Dadvand et al., 2012a, 2012b; Donovan et al., 2011). Urban plant species, and their seasonal responses such as leaf loss, can thus influence the distribution of urban vegetation ecosystem services by season. Those urban residents who live and work near deciduous trees in temperate climates, for example, may thus receive fewer winter-time benefits than those who live near coniferous trees, while receiving greater summer-time benefits such as shading. 2.2.1.2 Condition and Preference Additional sub-dimensions that influence the distributional equity of urban vegetation are physical condition and residents’ preferences in accessing urban vegetation. Urban trees and parks in poor condition cannot be expected to provide the same level of ecosystem services as those in good condition. Urban parks with damaged facilities cannot provide the full range of recreational benefits provided by parks in good condition, and trees in poor condition may not   26 provide high levels of services such as shading or stress relief (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013; Maco and McPherson, 2003). Although a high-level analysis of the spatial arrangement of urban vegetation resources may suggest that they are equitably distributed using spatial accessibility metrics, variability in urban vegetation condition can influence the ability of urban vegetation to provide ecosystem services and thus the spatial distribution of those services. A related sub-dimension is residents’ preferences for urban vegetation characteristics. Unsurprisingly, urban residents demonstrate strong and widespread preference for urban vegetation in good condition, including healthy trees and well-maintained park spaces (Rishbeth, 2004). However, beyond those basic conditions, residents of different sociocultural backgrounds have been shown to have sometimes divergent preferences for urban vegetation elements (Buijs et al., 2009; Fraser and Kenney, 2000; Rishbeth, 2004, 2001). For example, while residents of Western European cultural backgrounds have expressed preferences for large trees and more ‘natural’ looking landscapes, those residents of Mediterranean background have shown preferences for food-producing urban trees and spaces and those of middle-eastern origin have shown preferences for more manicured urban green spaces (Buijs et al., 2009; Fraser and Kenney, 2000; Rishbeth, 2004). These preferences may influence residents’ choices to access urban vegetation and their experiences while accessing it, thereby influencing residents’ experiences of distributional equity. 2.2.1.3 Ownership Finally, urban vegetation ownership is an important sub-dimension of distributional equity that influences whether residents can access and benefit from urban vegetation near their home or work. Urban vegetation occurs on public, private, and public-private land. While urban   27 vegetation on private land may be spatially located near urban residents, those residents may not be able to physically access those spaces. For example, private gardens and private golf courses are generally closed to the public or require payment to access. While such spaces may offer some ecosystem services to the wider urban public via microclimatic regulation (Escobedo et al., 2011; Nowak et al., 2006) or long-distance green views (Lottrup et al., 2015), the ability of these spaces to offer a wide range of ecosystem services to multiple urban residents may be restricted if those residents are unable to come into close physical proximity with these urban green spaces. Additional complexity arises from the distinction between de facto and de jure land ownership that allows private land to be used informally as public land by some members of society, and public land to be used more heavily by some members of society as a result of sociocultural power dynamics (Anders Sandberg et al., 2015). It may thus be difficult to determine the accessibility and distributional equity of urban green spaces simply by observing them at a point in time or via an analysis of land ownership. 2.2.2 Recognition in Urban Vegetation Decision Making Recognition in urban vegetation decision making is another key dimension of urban green equity that emerges from the relevant literature presented above, although it appears to have received less attention in urban forestry research. Recognition implies both access to decision making and power within the decision-making process. Recognition in urban vegetation decision making determines residents’ ability to influence the management of urban vegetation for their personal benefit and the benefit of society (Heynen, 2003). The ability to influence urban vegetation decisions may thus equate to influence on urban vegetation outcomes such as species selection, tree maintenance and condition, and the design of urban green spaces, thereby affecting the   28 ecosystem services residents may derive from urban vegetation (Conway and Vander Vecht, 2015). In addition, residents may derive benefits through the process of participating and having power in decision-making processes, such as increased community cohesion and sense of place in the community (Buijs et al., 2016; Fisher et al., 2015). Recognition within urban vegetation decision making is thus a key dimension of urban green equity. The recognition dimension contains four principal sub-dimensions presented here (1) representation, (2) procedure, (3) desire to participate, and (4) ability to participate (Figure 2.1). The four sub-dimensions are presented in two sections below, in reflection of their respective relationships. 2.2.2.1 Representational and Procedural Equity Representation or inclusivity in decision making is a fundamental sub-dimension of recognition and urban green equity, based on the premise that an actor must be present within the decision-making process in order to influence the process and its outcomes (Chan et al., 2012; Rishbeth, 2004). Once they are present, a process must fairly consider the voices of participants in order to achieve procedural equity and thus recognition for all participants, rather than perpetuating or increasing inequity by excluding or failing to recognize certain voices in the process (Boone, 2002; Newig and Fritsch, 2009). Representation and procedural equity are important sub-dimensions in that they help ensure that the diversity of voices and perspectives on urban vegetation management are included in decisions that affect that management. This can help ensure that the resulting urban green spaces provide equitably distributed ecosystem services, including cultural services such as sense of place and community identity (Nesbitt et al., 2017). As mentioned above, representation and fair procedures can also ensure that decision-making   29 spaces are welcoming to diverse participants and provide opportunities for empowerment and community-building (Buijs et al., 2016). Achieving representational and procedural equity in decision making is a complex task, particularly in complex, culturally-diverse urban environments. While formal decision-making may be guided by institutional policies designed to promote both representational and procedural equity, applying those policies in practice comes with some challenges. For example, formal urban vegetation decision making involves multiple actors and alliances that exist among them. Municipalities often work with external agencies, such as other government agencies, private corporations, and NGOs, to conduct urban vegetation management activities, and most cities will have formal and informal channels through which public and private actors may influence urban vegetation decisions (Lawrence et al., 2013). Human bias and social power dynamics may work to undermine equity policies in practice (Heynen et al., 2006) and truly participatory decision making takes time that many formal urban forestry actors do not believe they have (Newig and Fritsch, 2009). In addition, formal decision making is only one part of the complex governance reality of urban vegetation. Urban vegetation exists in a wide variety of urban land types along a public-private gradient (Konijnendijk et al., 2006). It is thus governed by a range of actors with interests in and power over urban vegetation resources, from private citizens, who play a key role on private land, to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to municipal governments, who often play a central role in policy making and urban vegetation management (Ferrini et al., 2017; Konijnendijk et al., 2006).    30 2.2.2.2 Desire and Ability to Participate Once urban vegetation decision making is structured to encourage representational and procedural equity, urban residents must participate in the process if it is to achieve recognitional equity. Two relevant sub-dimensions that influence participation are the desire to participate and the ability to participate in decision making. Local governance often suffers from a lack of citizen engagement (Buijs et al., 2016), undermining attempts at equitable governance and inclusive decision making. It appears that it is not enough to simply open the doors – residents must somehow be motivated to walk through them and offer their time and energy. Municipalities and other urban forestry actors are thus seeking ways to encourage residents to engage with urban green spaces through culturally-relevant stewardship, tree planting programs and giveaways, or public consultation (McLain et al., 2012b). Once motivated to participate, residents must also have the ability to participate. Stewardship opportunities, public meetings, or community advisory bodies must be structured in such a way as to allow for residents of variable incomes, schedules, language abilities, and cultural backgrounds to participate. Lower-income urban residents are particularly vulnerable to exclusion for this reason, due to long or unconventional work hours, lack of childcare, or lack of private transportation to attend events outside their immediate neighbourhood (Anders Sandberg et al., 2015; Heynen, 2003; Heynen et al., 2006). Their voices are thus less likely to be included in urban vegetation decisions and urban vegetation is less likely to reflect their unique viewpoints and meet their unique needs.  2.2.3 Interaction The two principal dimensions of urban green equity interact with and influence one another in practice. The distribution of urban vegetation resources influences the power that individuals and   31 groups have over urban vegetation decision processes and thus modifies the decision processes. For example, those residents with greater ownership of or control over urban land will de facto enjoy greater power in the control of that land and thus the urban vegetation. Those residents may also enjoy greater perceived legitimacy in urban vegetation decision making due to their control of urban vegetation resources, and may be given preferential treatment in decision processes. Urban residents that hold greater social and economic power are also better able to participate in decision-making processes that are not structured to ensure recognition and inclusion of diverse viewpoints and abilities to participate (Buijs et al., 2016). The relative power of actors involved in urban vegetation decisions then influences the outcome of those decisions and thus the distribution of urban vegetation resources. This may result in decisions that cause urban vegetation and parks, and their maintenance, to be preferentially distributed to those more powerful members of urban society, perpetuating both distributional and recognitional inequity.  Although the dimensions are presented as interacting with one another, it is important to note that the magnitude and specific outcomes of these interactions remain unclear. There is a lack of empirical evaluations of the role of urban vegetation distribution in establishing relative power and recognition in urban vegetation decisions, and the specific influences of urban vegetation decision processes on the distribution of urban vegetation resources for different people and contexts,  (Bengston et al., 2004; Briassoulis, 2001; Fisher et al., 2009; Mincey et al., 2013). Despite the recent interest in inclusive, participatory decision making (e.g., Hendricks et al., 2017), the results of inclusive policy and practice have yet to be empirically evaluated in urban forestry. Likewise, although management decisions are designed to produce desired outcomes, there is little evidence that unpacks how urban vegetation decisions influence specific outcomes   32 in the urban vegetation, particularly in the context of involving multiple objectives and interested stakeholders, and complex urban ecological interactions (Bengston et al., 2004; Briassoulis, 2001; Fisher et al., 2009). Further research is needed to clarify these relationships and create a robust framework for urban green equity research and practice. 2.2.4 Applying the Dimensions As discussed above, the roles of freedom and equality in liberal philosophy mean that a society will contain both common understandings of the good (Rawls, 1999) and multiple definitions of the good (Young, 1990). Thus, there is no ideal level of equity in practice, and equity will look different in different contexts – the balance point between collective equality and individual freedom may shift according to societal norms and a plurality of definitions of what is good and what is fair. The potential for tension between (1) equality, expressed as equal opportunity to benefit from and influence society, and (2) freedom, expressed as divergent identities and views and the recognition of those identities in society, requires that equity analyses acknowledge local contexts and the role of cultural and institutional inequity in real policy issues. I thus propose that the dimensions of equity described above be employed in urban green equity analysis with the understanding that the practice of equity is different from the theory and philosophy of equity. Urban green equity analysis can deconstruct and interpret local equity conditions according to the two dimensions and can provide benchmarks for societal consideration but cannot prescribe generalized solutions – that exercise is for the societies that experience and live with the realities of urban green inequity.    33 2.3 Conclusion The two dimensions of urban green equity, (1) the distributional equity of urban vegetation, and (2) recognitional equity in urban vegetation decision making, described above are based on historical and more recent definitions of social equity in the liberal philosophical tradition (Rawls, 1999; Schlosberg, 2007; Taylor, 1994; Young, 1990) and the treatment of environmental justice and equity in the field of urban forestry (Buijs et al., 2016; Heynen, 2003; Heynen et al., 2006; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Schwarz et al., 2015). Importantly, they also reflect the discourses of social movements of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (Schlosberg, 2007). Social movements for civil rights and multiculturalism, for example, have simultaneously demanded equitable access to resources in society, and recognition in decision making. Modern definitions of social and environmental justice often contain these two dimensions (Schlosberg, 2007).  While the urban forestry literature has begun to consider both dimensions of urban green equity, research in each dimension appears to be somewhat isolated from the other dimension, although they are sometimes integrated in the political ecology field (Anders Sandberg et al., 2015). There thus appears to be a solid foundation on which to build future urban green equity research and such research should seek to consider both dimensions of equity, where possible. Such an approach to the issue will likely yield deeper analyses that will align with the dimensions of current social and environmental justice movements in society and that will have utility for local actors that seek to address urban green inequities in their societies.   34 Chapter 3: Urban Green Equity on the Ground: Conceptions of and Strategies for Urban Green Equity in Three US Cities 3.1 Introduction Urban vegetation offers a range of ecosystem services to urban residents (Lottrup et al., 2013; McPherson et al., 1997; Ulrich et al., 1991; Ward Thompson and Aspinall, 2011) and is thus clearly important to the well-being of urban residents. The distribution of urban vegetation, and recognition in urban vegetation governance, are key dimensions of urban green equity that largely determine the ecosystem benefits urban residents receive from urban vegetation and the power those residents wield in managing urban vegetation. These dimensions are conceived of here as distributional equity and recognitional equity. Distributional equity refers to the fair distribution of urban vegetation resources, while recognitional equity refers to fair representation of stakeholders within and power over urban vegetation decision processes (Dobson, 1998; Rawls, 1999; Schlosberg, 2007; Young, 1990). Urban green equity is an emerging field of research in the literature on urban forestry and social-ecological systems. As the body of literature on urban green equity develops, the term has been implicitly defined through methodological choices in the field. A small but growing body of studies have employed spatial approaches to assess the distribution of urban vegetation resources according to socioeconomic factors such as race, income, and education (Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Nesbitt and Meitner, 2016; Schwarz et al., 2015) while others have begun to analyze equitable urban vegetation governance (Buijs et al., 2016; Lawrence et al., 2013) and the political ecology of urban vegetation through a Marxist lens, highlighting the importance of   35 power in the production of green inequity in urban spaces (Anders Sandberg et al., 2015; Heynen, 2003; Heynen et al., 2006). While research to date has helped clarify the state of urban green equity in some contexts, and has helped elucidate factors that should be considered in its analysis, it remains unclear how key practitioners involved in urban vegetation management understand urban green equity and operationalize it through their work on the ground.  The dimensions of urban green equity obtain their meaning when applied in local contexts. While the theory and philosophy of equity can set the frame for urban green equity analysis, the practice of urban vegetation management in local contexts is a key ingredient in any analysis of urban green equity and helps inform the definition of the term through its operation. Urban green equity takes place at the local level, and thus an analysis of equity at the local level, through an exploration of urban green equity conceptions and practices, is an important part of research to understand the concept. Urban forestry practitioners are those most closely engaged in managing urban vegetation and are thus those most able to influence urban green equity on the ground (Conway and Vander Vecht, 2015). Urban forestry practitioners include those involved in program and service delivery for urban forestry, whether they are in government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private business, or volunteers. Their conceptions of green equity, and the strategies they employ to achieve green equity, influence factors such as when and where tree planting and maintenance take place, how stewardship activities are designed and who they involve, how public engagement processes are structured, and what information informs urban vegetation management and engagement activities (D’Amato et al., 2002; Fontaine and Larson, 2016). Practitioners’ experience in the field of urban forestry also situates them well to provide important insights into the theory and practice of urban green equity.   36 Practitioners must regularly consider green equity in managing competing urban forestry objectives, and can thus provide a nuanced view of urban green equity and its application.  This chapter aims to explore how practitioners understand and use the concept of urban green equity. It uses semi-structured interviews with urban forestry practitioners in three cities in the United States (US): New York, NY; Phoenix, AZ; and Portland, OR. The study cities were chosen to represent a range of local conditions and urban forestry challenges, and include at least two cities that have considered equity in their practice of urban vegetation management. Interviews were designed to understand the local urban forestry context and history, local urban vegetation governance systems, local conceptions of urban green equity and their incorporation into local policies and procedures, barriers to urban green equity, and urban vegetation preferences. While interviews were designed to elicit information in certain areas, thematic analysis methods were employed to derive themes using both inductive and deductive methods, allowing the themes to emerge within the loose framework of the research aims. The identified themes and sub-themes were systematized to produce models of urban green equity as understood and used by local urban forestry practitioners. 3.2 Materials and Methods 3.2.1 Study Sites The study sites were three cities in the US: New York, NY; Phoenix, AZ; and Portland, OR. The three cities represent a range of population sizes, population densities, precipitation levels, average temperatures, and socioeconomic characteristics (Table 3.1) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017; US Census Bureau, 2015).    37 Table 3.1 Municipal population, population density, average annual precipitation, and average annual temperature for each city. City Population (2016) Population/km2 Average annual precipitation (mm) Average annual temperature (°C) New York, NY 8,537,673 10,892 1,086 12.5 Phoenix, AZ 1,615,017 1,207 203 23.9 Portland, OR 639,863 1,852 915 12.5  3.2.1.1 New York New York City is a municipality in the state of New York, along the east coast of the US. It is one of the most populous cities in the US (Table 3.1) and is highly racially diverse (US Census Bureau, 2015). The primary agency responsible for urban forestry in New York is the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks). NYC Parks is responsible for urban vegetation management on almost 30,000 acres of land or 14% of New York City and partners with external organizations, such as the Bette Midler Foundation, Central Park Conservancy, Trees New York, and the New York Restoration Project to deliver urban forestry services and influence urban vegetation management on private land (NYC Parks, 2017b). While New York City does not have a strategic urban forest management plan, NYC Parks has a Framework for an Equitable Future, a document that sets out NYC Parks’ goals and strategies to promote urban green equity through park management (NYCParks, 2014). The flagship program under the Framework is the Community Parks Initiative, a program to invest $130 million in under-resourced parks and sustain the capital investment with ongoing maintenance and programming (NYCParks, 2014). Another key equity program in New York is the Parks without Borders program, an initiative to remove physical boundaries from public parks and make park entrances   38 more welcoming (NYC Parks, 2017c). NYC Parks, in collaboration with multiple external organizations and local volunteers, recently completed the MillionTreesNYC program. Under MillionTreesNYC, 1 million trees were planted in the city between 2007 and 2015 (NYC Parks, 2017d).   3.2.1.2 Phoenix Phoenix is a municipality in the state of Arizona, in the south-western US. Is it a populous, low-density city (Table 3.1) and has a large Latinx1 population (US Census Bureau, 2015). The primary agency responsible for urban forestry in Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department. Phoenix Parks and Recreation is responsible for public parks and street trees on public land. Phoenix Parks and Recreation partners with municipalities in the Phoenix metro area to share information and best practices, and external organizations such as Trees Matter, Arizona State University, and Downtown Phoenix Inc. to deliver urban vegetation management services. Downtown Phoenix Inc., through the Downtown Phoenix Partnership, is responsible for street tree planting and maintenance in downtown Phoenix, reflecting the importance of public-private partnerships in urban vegetation management in Phoenix (City of Phoenix, 2010). Urban vegetation management in Phoenix takes place under the City of Phoenix Tree and Shade Master Plan, reflecting the focus on heat mitigation in urban vegetation management (City of Phoenix, 2010).                                                   1 Latinx is a gender-neutral alternative to Latino, Latina, and Latin@.   39 3.2.1.3 Portland Portland is a municipality in the state of Oregon, in the western part of the state. It is a mid-sized, relatively low-density city (Table 3.1) with a primarily Caucasian and relatively well-educated population (US Census Bureau, 2015). The primary agencies responsible for urban forestry in Portland are Portland Parks and Recreation, the Bureau of Environmental Services, and the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. These municipal agencies work together and with external organizations, such as Friends of Trees and Portland State University, to deliver urban forestry services, influence urban vegetation on private lands, and conduct research on urban vegetation resources and ecosystem services (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2017a). Portland Parks and Recreation also works with the Portland Urban Forestry Commission, a group of 11 volunteers that serves as an advisory group to the Portland parks and Recreation Director and City Urban Forester (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2017b). Urban vegetation management in Portland is driven by the city’s Urban Forest Management Plan (Portland Parks and Recreation and Urban Forestry Management Plan Technical Advisory Committee, 2004) and associated urban forest action plans (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015). Distributional equity policies, focused on low-canopy, low-income, and racialized neighbourhoods, are clearly articulated in the action plans and Portland Parks and Recreation has developed an Equity Statement (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2017c) and a Five-Year Racial Equity Plan, released in September 2017, that aligns with the City of Portland’s racial equity goals and vision (Hendricks et al., 2017). The Racial Equity Plan contains goals on equitable hiring and outreach practices, and equitable access to city services. The Plan focuses on race and acknowledges the need to consider additional forms of diversity in equity planning.   40 3.2.2 Researcher Position and Participants I am a 33-year-old while female PhD student in urban forestry. From my personal and professional experience living alongside urban vegetation and immersing myself in the urban forestry literature, I became aware of the issue of urban green equity, and questioned how the concept was understood and operationalized by local actors. The research adopted an essentialist/realist position within this study, that is, that language reflects and allows people to articulate meaning and experience (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The methodology reflects this position through the minimization of bias or influence over the outcomes by using a lightly structured interview format, and acknowledgment and consideration of researcher position throughout data collection and analysis, including the use of credibility checks.  Participants were 34 urban forestry key informants in each of the case study cities. This included 12 participants from New York, 11 from Portland, and 11 from Phoenix. Key informants were defined as urban forestry professionals and volunteers with at least six months of experience in the field of urban forestry. Participants represented a diversity of urban forestry actors typically involved in urban vegetation management and decision making, such as municipal, regional, and state governments, NGOs, private corporations, citizen volunteers, and academics (Table 3.2). Table 3.2 is provided to clarify the breadth of perspectives gathered and it is important to note that this research does not attempt to represent or summarize views by organization type. Participants were counted twice in the table if they represented more than one perspective, due to their personal and professional activities (e.g., municipal government and academic, or municipal government and private business). Participants ranged in age from 28 to 67. Seventeen   41 identified as female and 17 as male. Participants came from a range of educational backgrounds from technical and Associates degrees to doctoral degrees.  Table 3.2 Number of participants by organization type in each city. City Municipal government Regional / state government NGO Community member Academia Private business New York 9  4 1 1   Phoenix 6 1 1 1 1 2 Portland 8 1 1 1 1    3.2.3 Sampling Procedures The study was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia (UBC BREB Number: H16-02583-A002). The researchers contacted municipal urban forestry staff members in each case study city via email to present an electronic flyer (Appendix A.1) detailing the focus of the study. The municipal staff member tasked with research projects and partnerships in each city was the initial point of contact. As I sought information-rich cases, participants were identified using a purposive snowball sampling method starting with the urban forestry municipal staff member generally responsible for research collaborations within each city. Participants were chosen to represent a wide range of organizations typically involved in urban vegetation management and decision making, with a focus on the municipal urban forestry agency in each city. Participants who expressed interest in participating in the study were sent informed consent forms (Appendix A.2) electronically. These forms explained the study, described relevant procedures, and invited questions. Participants were not sent the interview questions ahead of time. Once participants had read the consent form and confirmed their interest   42 to participate, the researchers and participants arranged a date to conduct the research interview. Participants were given the option to sign the consent form electronically or in-person prior to commencing the interview. To protect confidentiality, all participants were assigned a pseudonym and a subject number, and were referred to by their pseudonyms for the duration of the study. To further protect participants’ confidentiality, participants are referred to by their assigned subject numbers in this dissertation.  3.2.4 Instruments Each participant completed one semi-structured interview (45 – 120 minutes). Participants answered brief demographic questions at the beginning of the interview, indicating their age, gender, education level, current occupation, and years of experience in the field of urban forestry. Thirty-three participants were interviewed in person and one was interviewed over the phone. The interview protocol (see Appendix A.3) was developed based on a literature review and discussions among the research team members. The interview questions and process were reviewed by experts in semi-structured interview methods and piloted with an expert in urban vegetation governance research. The pilot participant’s feedback was then incorporated into the final interview protocol. Interview questions focused on (1) the history and current practice of urban vegetation management in the city, (2) the structure and practice of urban vegetation governance in the city; (3) the local definition of urban green equity and its incorporation into local policy and procedures, (4) patterns of and barriers to urban green equity, and (5) participants’ preferences for particular vegetated areas of the city. Participants were given the flexibility to express their unique experiences as urban forestry practitioners. Follow-up questions varied and were guided by the material provided by each participant.    43 3.2.5 Data Collection and Analysis Procedures Interviews were digitally recorded and I transcribed them verbatim. During this process, initial thoughts and impressions were noted. The recordings were listened to and the transcripts read several times to ensure transcription accuracy. This process also facilitated data immersion (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Both inductive and deductive thematic analyses were used to explore the content of the interviews (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The units of analysis were the interview responses by urban forestry key informants. During the first phase of analysis, I reviewed and coded the manuscripts using an open coding process with NVivo Software (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2017). Open coding consisted of reviewing each line of the transcripts for codes that reflect participants’ experiences and views. Each discrete idea, event, or experience was given a name (e.g., “stewardship,” “equal service delivery,” “income inequality”), generating the initial codes. During the second phase, I reviewed the raw data and initial codes with my supervisor, and produced suggestions for major themes. During the third phase, subsequent coding was completed and codes were collated under sub-themes (e.g., sense of ownership). In the fourth phase, the sub-themes that formed a coherent pattern were defined and named. In the final phase, the sub-themes were collated under three major themes. I thematically analyzed transcripts of the interviews with credibility checks and discussion of the underlying patterns being carried out by my supervisor throughout each stage of the analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Credibility checks (i.e., reviewing codes and themes with my supervisor and re-examining their relationships to the coded extracts and full dataset) were conducted to ensure that the development of codes and themes at each phase were valid and reflected the research questions and the data set.    44 Within this study, thematic analysis was chosen over other forms of qualitative analysis, such as grounded theory, narrative analysis, and interpretative phenomenological analysis. This choice was made because these other analysis methods are underpinned by specific epistemological orientations. Thematic analysis can be flexibly applied to a wide range of data sources and was used in this case to allow both inductive and deductive approaches to themes, driven by the identified research questions. 3.3 Results The analysis generated three major themes within the concept of urban green equity: 1. definitions of urban green equity; 2. barriers to urban green equity; and 3. strategies employed to overcome barriers and promote urban green equity. The relationships of these themes to each other are described by Figure 3.1, with definitions of urban green equity forming the centre of the analysis and the associated themes emerging from and informing those definitions.     45  Figure 3.1 Relationship among the principal themes that emerged from the analysis: definitions (and sub-definitions), barriers (and sub-barriers), and strategies.  Two principle sub-themes emerged in the definitions of urban green equity that correspond to the dimensions described in Chapter 2: 1. distributional equity, and 2. recognitional equity. The relationships between the specific themes and sub-themes within each dimension are described by Figures 3.2 and 3.3. Results are presented according to those two overarching dimensions of urban green equity and the major themes that emerged from the analysis. The presentation of results focuses on each major theme and provides a brief description of key subordinate themes, using excerpts from participant interviews to demonstrate theme meaning. It should be noted that although specific urban green equity policies and procedures were discussed by participants, they are not included in the reporting of results given the analytical level of the thematic analysis, the   46 diversity of organizations represented by participants, and the resulting diversity of policies discussed.  3.3.1 Distributional Green Equity Distributional green equity was the primary focus of most participants’ responses, with all participants addressing distributional equity at least once during their interview. The three major themes, and their sub-themes, are presented below as they relate to distributional green equity (Figure 3.2). Themes and their relationships are arranged according to the arrangement proposed in Figure 3.1. Table 3.3 presents the number of interview participants that discussed each sub-theme of distributional equity by city.      47  Figure 3.2 Relationships among themes and sub-themes in the distributional equity analysis.       48 Table 3.3 Number of participants that discussed each sub-theme related to distributional equity. Themes	 Sub-themes	New	York	(n=12)	Phoenix	(n=11)	Portland	(n=11)	Total	(n=34)	Definitions	Fair	access	to	trees	 8	 9	 10	 27	Fair	access	to	parks	 12	 10	 11	 33	Fair	access	to	ecosystem	services	 7	 8	 9	 24	Barriers	Perception	of	urban	vegetation	as	an	amenity	 11	 11	 11	 33	Limited	funding	 12	 11	 11	 34	Income	inequality	 9	 7	 11	 27	Infrastructure	conflict	 8	 10	 8	 26	Property	ownership	 5	 8	 9	 22	Lack	of	information	 7	 5	 10	 22	Disconnection	from	nature	 8	 10	 7	 25	Strategies	Targeted	tree	and	park	establishment	and	maintenance	 11	 7	 10	 28	Equal	tree	and	park	establishment	and	maintenance	 1	 4	 1	 6	Tree	ordinances	 5	 6	 8	 19	Tree	and	park	stewardship	programs	 7	 5	 7	 19	Park	redesign	 4	 3	 1	 8	Research	 7	 2	 6	 15	Urban	forest	resource	assessment	 5	 3	 11	 19	 3.3.1.1 Definitions of Distributional Green Equity Participants’ conceptions and definitions of distributional green equity emerged as three sub-themes: 1. fair access to trees, 2. fair access to parks, and 3. fair access to ecosystem services. Fair Access to Trees According to most of the interview participants, fair or equitable opportunities to access urban trees was a key aspect of urban green equity (N = 27). This was often expressed as having   49 similar canopy cover levels across the various neighbourhoods of the city, or as street tree or private tree distribution. When we think about green equity related specifically to trees, we do talk a lot about and have a lot of goals related to canopy distribution. So, we know where we don't have canopy, we know where we fall below targeted levels of canopy, and again, most of it is also in, east of the Willamette River. Our city-wide goal is 33%, and we're at about...we're close to 30%. (PD-1) Fair Access to Parks Many interview participants viewed park access as central to urban green equity, and spoke about the concept mostly in relation to public parks (N = 33). For these participants, park accessibility included proximity to parks, recreational opportunities within parks, and safe access to parks. So I'm going to say that for Phoenix that means easy, convenient, free access to open space and parks and trails. (PX-11) I think it means that all people have access, ideally walk-able access, to some sort of parkland. (N-9) Not just access to parks, but access to amenities in parks. Is it just a grass field that somebody can go to, or does everybody have the access to recreational opportunities, etc? (PX-8)   50 I think for the Parks Department, it's about ensuring that all New Yorkers have access to safe green spaces, and are able to enjoy that New York City resource. I will say, I think the biggest agency-wide example of that was the community parks mission. (N-8) Fair Access to Ecosystem Services Some interview participants conceived of green equity through the lens of ecosystem services, focusing on the fair distribution of ecosystem services provided by urban vegetation in their definitions of the issue (N = 24). This conception of urban green equity took the view that urban residents should all have fair opportunities to access the ecosystem services provided by urban vegetation. In Portland it is a goal, we're not there yet. But it literally means that all residents of the city receive the same level of services from the urban forest. And by services, I suspect you know what I mean, we could talk a lot about what the services of trees are, but you know that, right? Think clean air, heat mitigation... (PD-2) 3.3.1.2 Barriers to Distributional Green Equity Barriers to distributional green equity emerged as one overarching sub-theme, and related sub-themes that were caused by and reinforced the overarching sub-theme.  Perception of Urban Vegetation as an Amenity The perception of urban vegetation as an amenity was the overarching barrier to distributional green equity that emerged from the analysis (N = 33). This barrier was explicit or implicit in most interviewees’ discussions of barriers to urban green equity. Interview participants described   51 the societal view that urban vegetation is an amenity and, as such, is not seen as an essential asset that should be equitably distributed and that everyone should have access to. This was also expressed as the observation that some people have a negative perception of trees and see them as a nuisance rather than as indispensable goods. One of the big barriers is the perception of trees as an amenity. I think it's arguable to say that trees are both really helpful in terms of aesthetics, in terms of microclimates, air pollution, etcetera. Yet they're also living and so they grow, they block views, they litter, and branches could break and hurt your car, and your home, and your loved ones. And so, there are competing narratives around the beneficial as well as the challenging aspects of having large form trees in a city where there are a lot of people. (PD-6) But I think it's a way of thinking that's the barrier. Maybe it's an implicit point in that trees are still perceived as optional and an amenity. And we're not there yet with seeing them as... I'm not saying that you don't get sewer pipes in affordable housing, or that they don't get water, or faucets or anything. So, I think that's part of the barrier. We really aren't there yet. (PD-11) Limited Funding The perception of urban vegetation as an amenity was identified as one of the drivers of limited funding, a barrier commonly discussed by participants (N = 34). As a result of people’s perception of urban vegetation as an amenity, rather than a necessity, urban vegetation establishment and maintenance are not given adequate levels of funding.    52 It's that we have, all of us have undervalued the benefits that our urban forest provides us, and because we undervalued trees, we under fund them, and so I mean it's not only the street trees that are beaten, and abused, and not properly maintained. It's trees in parks. It's trees on people's private property. We have, historically in this culture, see them as amenities, as niceties, and not as necessities, and as a result, we don't take care of them the way we take care of other infrastructure. We don't manage them in an asset management system that compels us to do maintenance, right? They're not on the books, they're not capital assets, but they're performing as such, or could do. So, that's a huge limitation, I think. I would categorize that limitation as how we view trees. We have not internalized them as infrastructure at the city level, let alone at the public level. (PD-7) Limited funding was a commonly-mentioned barrier to providing adequate access to urban vegetation resources for all residents. With limited funding, municipalities and other urban forestry actors find it challenging to adequately maintain urban vegetation resources across the wide variety of neighbourhoods they serve. I think a lot of it is funding. We've added, I think, 140 acres of new parks since 2008 and we've added one new person. So we haven't kept up, and instead of hiring more staff, they give us more contract money, but the contractors never maintain the parks the way our own staff do. You have to plant trees in order to have trees in the Phoenix area. And you have to water them. And if you don't... If you don't water... I mean there are some trees that just come up and grow, but no, you have to water. If you want trees, you have to water them. (PX-4)    53 Income Inequality Income inequality was another commonly-discussed barrier to urban green equity (N = 27). Those with lower incomes were considered to face more difficulties accessing urban vegetation, either because they could not afford to live in green neighbourhoods, or because they could not afford to care for urban vegetation in their neighbourhoods.  I would say it's an economic... There's an economic driver to it. You can only afford to live in a certain neighbourhood, right? Depending on your income level. And in general, the lower the income the less treed or less canopy you’re likely to have. So, I would say the barrier is your economic mobility. If you're not... If you don't have housing or you don't...can't afford to live in an area that has some canopy, you're probably going to be living in an area that doesn't have a lot. So, I would say the big driver would be your level of income and your affordability. (PD-3) You get into the lower income neighborhoods, they don't have the streetscape, and they're older neighborhoods, they don't have the streetscaping that the newer neighborhoods are required to put in. And because they're either lower income or they're rental properties, people don't want to spend their money on water to maintain the landscaping on the properties. So, the older neighborhoods, a lot of times as you watch, the plant material slowly dies out and they don't replace the plant material. (PX-4) When it comes to street trees, maintenance is assigned to the adjacent property owner, and that's a huge barrier to keeping a healthy forest. As property owners who don't have money, you're gonna see less maintenance and less care in lower-income   54 neighbourhoods. So it's really hard to have an equitable distribution of trees when you don't provide any resource for their maintenance. (PD-1) This barrier was also discussed in relation to the previous barrier, limited funding. Participants described the challenges they faced providing adequate access to urban vegetation resources in low-income, low-canopy neighbourhoods, when their organizational budgets were insufficient to allow them to provide the level of tree management they believed would be equitable, particularly given high levels of private investment in urban vegetation in high-income neighbourhoods. There's one city budget and that city budget through the Parks Department is supposed to be distributed city-wide. The commissioners do and even us in the Division do our best job to make sure that that money is equitably spent. But the neighborhoods that can form their own NGOs and their own conservancies that then raise money are going to inevitably be better off than others. The idea is that the more Central Park Conservancies you have, the more you can spend that money in other areas. And it does work but it's still not enough. The neighborhood that does not have the capacity to form a conservancy that raises needed money, is always going to be...have less good environmental management than the areas that are wealthier. But that's across the world. That's not unique to New York City. (N-2) Infrastructure Conflict Infrastructure, both above and below ground was cited as a common barrier to urban green equity on both public and private property (N = 26). On public property, participants explained   55 that infrastructure conflict can prevent municipalities from planting additional street trees in low-canopy neighbourhoods. On private properties, residents may be unable or unwilling to plant trees, or may remove them due to current or potential future infrastructure conflict.  So, in certain places, there is not good space for trees. Some communities have very narrow planting sites, two and a half feet can be the standard in a good chunk of neighbourhoods around town, that's not going to be enough to really grow a quality tree, and to prevent sidewalk damage and all of these costs down the road. So that can be a challenge. And there may not be space on private property to plant either. So, the infrastructure piece is challenging. (PD-1) So now we get a lot of existing developments that are coming and say, "Hey, you know, we wanna cut down all these trees 'cause they're cracking our curbs, heaving our sidewalks and our parking lots, they're cracking our building foundations. And they're really wild, so they're leaning into the roofs. They're affecting our roof line, busting our roof up, things like that." (PX-11) Property Ownership Property ownership, and the division of responsibility for urban vegetation on public and private lands, was a commonly-discussed barrier to green equity (N = 22). Participants discussed the limited ability of public actors to influence urban vegetation management on private property as a barrier to ensuring that all urban residents have fair access to urban vegetation, particularly in highly-privatized landscapes.    56 So, I wanted to just go in and plant trees on both sides of that street, 'cause kids walk to school, kids go to the park, parents as well. It would make this entry into this neighborhood look better, feel better. But there's a property line somewhere in that 5 feet and up until I started talking about it recently, there was a, "We will not plant a tree that isn't completely on city property". (PX-5) In addition, the costs to private citizens of maintaining trees on private property and, in the case of Portland, in the right-of-way in front of their property was often cited as a barrier to distributional green equity in low-income neighbourhoods, where residents may not have the financial means to adequately care for public trees in front of their property. Interviewees described the challenges they have faced gaining permission from private residents to plant trees in those areas.  Another barrier to urban forestry access, or having at least street trees or private property trees, is the maintenance that’s required. The cost of keeping a tree at your house and keeping it healthy is huge. And so, figuring out a way to minimize that cost by providing our young tree care pruning is one small step. But when a tree needs to be removed and replanted, that's a couple thousand dollars, and many people don't have that for keeping a healthy urban forest…Surprisingly, there is a lot of resistance. It's resistance because of maintenance, costs. Fear that the tree is gonna fall on their house. It's resistance because the city doesn't care for it after it's been planted. (PD-5) A further barrier related to property ownership that was occasionally mentioned was difficulty engaging renters in tree-planting activities, as they have little incentive or no authority to plant trees on properties that they do not own.   57 But another barrier would be who owns the land. We would love to engage with rental communities in planting trees outside their rental properties, but the landlords and property owners are not even in Portland. They're somewhere else. They don't care. So that is like a closed door for us. We hit a wall. (PD-5) Lack of Information Some participants identified lack of information as a barrier to green equity, because without information, it is difficult to know how to address distributional inequity (N = 22). This was highlighted in the case of ecosystem services, an emerging area of research. Participants discussed our societal lack of understanding of ecosystem services, how and where they are distributed, and how to ensure that urban residents have equitable access to them. And then third would be probably a major barrier to trees is information. I don't think we have really... That's part of what our lab is doing is, "What information do we have about the distribution, the services being provided, the disservices being provided and how do we actually capture that in a narrative that would be compelling for us to really evaluate whether trees are needed or not needed in some areas." (PD-6) Disconnection from Nature Some participants identified disconnection from nature as a key barrier to urban green equity (N = 25). Participants described disconnection from nature as a lack of experience with and knowledge of natural urban elements, such as trees and parks. Participants described this disconnection resulting in urban residents placing low value on urban vegetation and its proper management.    58 We are detached. We don't live in our landscapes anymore. We don't have a direct relationship with our landscape. Oh, a few of us garden. A few of us putz in on our yard, and that's great, but that's just 1%, not even 1% of the population, not even that. Everyone else...Landscape is a cartoon. It's what I see out my car window…The health of our urban forest is very poor because of mismanagement. (PX-3) Some participants also described disconnection from nature as resulting in a lack of feelings of ownership for urban vegetation. This resulted in urban residents choosing not to visit parks or care for urban trees because they did not “see” themselves as being connected to urban vegetation. Sometimes it's perception of space. The idea that this is here but it's not necessarily here for your use, I think that that's one issue and I think that to a degree for some folks in their perception and in terms of privilege and use of space, where there’s this idea that it isn't their space and that it's just there…Or that it's there for your use. Not necessarily welcome, but there for you to recreate with. There for you to walk through as a part of your every day, I think that can be more of a barrier and I think that sometimes that's to a degree how people were taught to use space…So you're walking to work, you're walking through the park, but you're not walking through the park 'cause you're a park user. Like, this isn't a space you value, this isn't a space you perceived to have value to you. It's just a shortcut to work. (N-8)   59 3.3.1.3 Strategies to Promote Distributional Green Equity Participants identified seven principle strategies for overcoming barriers to and promoting distributional urban green equity: 1. Targeted tree and park establishment and maintenance 2. Equal tree and park establishment and maintenance 3. Tree ordinances 4. Tree and park stewardship programs 5. Park redesign 6. Research 7. Urban forest resource assessment  The relationships between strategies for and barriers to distributional green equity are described in Figure 3.2. To avoid repetition, each strategy is described once below, rather than in relation to each barrier. Targeted Tree and Park Establishment and Maintenance Targeted tree planting and maintenance, and park establishment and maintenance, were the primary strategies employed by participants to promote distributional green equity (N = 28). Targeted interventions were most often used to overcome barriers such as income inequality, limited funding, property ownership, and infrastructure conflict. Targeted interventions were generally focused in low-canopy, historically under-served neighbourhoods, including low-income and racialized neighbourhoods. Targeted interventions could take the form of planting additional street trees in underserved neighbourhoods, establishing or upgrading parks in park-poor neighbourhoods, focusing private tree planting programs in low-canopy neighbourhoods, and opportunistically planting trees and establishing parks in available areas without infrastructure conflicts or in association with infrastructure development.   60 There are two overarching programs within the agency that are trying to balance that out. One is called 'Community Parks Initiative', which is investing in smaller parks with very little green space, that have not seen any capital improvements over the last 30 years. A new program was just announced called 'Anchor Parks', in which five parks citywide are each getting investments of $30 million or more to bring them to where...they should be now. (N-2) So, the other thing that we are having a really, focused effort around is new parks in areas that don't have parks, so that would mean you get a new park and you get a lot more canopy in that area. (PD-3) Equal Tree and Park Establishment and Maintenance In some cases, participants employed strategies of equal tree and park establishment and maintenance in an effort to ensure distributional green equity (N = 6). For example, tree planting and maintenance programs were distributed equally among neighbourhoods, regardless of existing canopy cover. Attempts at equal interventions were most often used to overcome barriers such as limited funding and income inequality. In contexts of limited funding, some participants felt that equal interventions helped ensure that all urban residents received a minimum standard of service related to urban vegetation. Some participants also viewed equal interventions as a necessary response to issues of tree and park vandalism in low-income areas. Interestingly, some participants viewed equal interventions as providing adequate levels of service to low-income neighbourhoods, despite higher levels of service requests from higher-income neighbourhoods.   61 No one district over another, we got accused of, of course...We’re always maintaining over here but you never have any maintenance down here in our neighborhood. Okay. That is incorrect. People don't see it that way but I do have that initiative that I do maintain that and I do oversee that, make sure that if I do a street in this area, do a bunch of street landscape maintenance, I will also do one in other areas and rotate it around…I have lots of need. There's a lot of deferred maintenance from years past that I really would like to get on top of. (PX-1) We have 62 parks and we treat them all about the same. I mean we don't say, "Oh, this park is in this neighborhood, we don't have to replace trees in it." And we try and replace trees if we lose trees in all the parks. (PX-4) Interestingly, equal tree planting has also been used by some participants to overcome the perception of urban vegetation as an amenity, by planting and maintaining trees in available spaces, despite the negative perceptions of trees sometimes held by local residents. Though it doesn't seem fair to the average New Yorker when they don't want a tree, that we still say, "I'm sorry but this is public property and we're gonna still plant the tree." We still consider everything, we make sure that the tree is indeed appropriate to plant, so we are not completely bull-headed about it but just because you are a grumpy homeowner and you don't want a tree in front of your home, it is still public property and it is just as much my tree as your tree as Ms. Jones' tree as I said before…And I've had philosophical arguments with residents on the streets just talking about how, "Well, I know it's in front of your house but it's not just for you. It's not really. It's not even just for me, it's for everybody. This tree benefits everybody in the long run." (N-3)   62 Tree Ordinances Some participants described how tree ordinances and similar bylaws have been used to prevent and manage conflicts with infrastructure and overcome difficulties influencing the management of trees on private property (N = 19).  There also were, until that co-title was developed, very few regulations relating to trees in development situations. There were some, if you were actually subdividing your property, there was a tree preservation plan. But if you were just getting a building permit for your house or for another building, there were no tree preservation standards and there were no planting standards, except where there was landscaping. But there were no tree standards…But there are now development standards that didn't exist until a couple years ago…We have to make space for trees. So, you have to preserve at least a third of those qualifying trees on your site or you gotta pay. (PD-11) Well, Portland is growing very quickly and so development is a huge piece of the puzzle. And Title 11, creating tighter restrictions on the trees, creating greater laws of preservation, are I think one of the big priorities. We've seen a lot of trees come down. (PD-4) Tree and Park Stewardship Programs Tree and park stewardship programs were a key strategy to overcome barriers such as property ownership and disconnection from nature in some cases (N = 19). Participants described using stewardship programs to educate urban residents on the value of urban vegetation and on proper tree care and maintenance. This helped ensure that residents were responsible tree managers on   63 private land, supporting healthy urban vegetation on private lands. Stewardship programs were also used to help residents develop a greater connection to nature and encouraged them to use green spaces in their community that they may have previously ignored. And then, over the past five or six years, we've really shifted from planting, to overall stewardship, bringing people in to work in the young forests that they may have planted two years ago and now need some continuing care. And even then now, I'm really interested in bringing people into mature forests, and performing low level maintenance work, or clipping of vines, but helping them experience a proper forest, rather than a shrubby, young one. (N-9) Seeing programs like the stewardship program grow, seeing programs like partnerships with parks and programs like Green Thumb. Even our wildlife unit like the city and the agency is investing in opportunities for us to engage and educate the public. And I think a part of that is to build a stronger base, who are able to use our park spaces in a safe way and recreate, but also able to have that skill to care for and advocate. (N-8) Park Redesign Park redesign was another strategy that was sometimes employed by participants to overcome disconnection from nature (N = 8). Participants described removing barriers from park edges, upgrading trails, and providing shade trees and structures to encourage residents to use parks more frequently. The Commissioner, this is on his level, has come up and recently devised a new program called Parks Without Borders. That is a design program very much about making   64 entrances to mark parks more friendly…As I was saying before with the natural areas conservative in particular, we've mapped the trails city wide, we know where they are, both the formal trails and the private land. You fixing up those spaces so they're more friendly and more accessible. And the trail itself allows for a better experience than a lot of our trails do now. So that's how it's reflected both in policy and in programs. (N-2) Research Some participants discussed the role of research in providing more information to inform where and how tree planting could improve distributional equity (N = 15). Given the dearth of plantable spaces in some cities, this information was seen as critical to increasing canopy cover in low-canopy neighbourhoods that would survive long term. The city has contracted with our lab to basically do a very detailed assessment of where the canopy is, where it isn't, and then where the plant-ability might actually be very likely. So the city has committed us, although a small amount of money, it's still committed an amount of money to our lab to do this biophysical assessment of the city plant-ability areas. And then to also do an outreach campaign to work with neighborhood associations, public agencies, non-profit organizations, to understand what their perspectives are for equitable access, for expanding the canopy, and then for maintaining it over time. (PD-6) Urban Forest Resource Assessment A related strategy that participants used to address limited information on urban vegetation distribution was urban forest resource assessment (N = 19). This most often took the form of   65 street and park tree inventories and canopy cover mapping, using remotely-sensed imagery. In some cases, participants described how municipalities had combined information on urban forest distribution with socioeconomic data to target planting in low-canopy and socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Yes we are, and so we've done a lot of mapping around where canopy is and what percent of canopy it is in relation to demographics, so income and race and whatnot. And I think there's definitely a correlation, so we've looked at that, and those will be one of the things in the new plan that we'll be using to, again, make those targeted areas where we wanna really increase the canopy, and using that as a factor in our decision making. (PD-3) And most recently, the street tree inventory, which ___ started about six years ago, provided us with baseline data for the urban forest here. There was an inventory in the '70s as well, but I don't think it was as thorough. And so this one has provided us with information about the street trees, where they are, how big they are, what species we have, and has really helped for us to understand the need for diversifying our urban forest for resiliency against pests and pathogens. And also planting the right tree in the right place. (PD-4) 3.3.2 Recognitional Green Equity Recognitional green equity was an important focus of participants’ responses but was secondary to distributional green equity, with about half of participants addressing recognitional equity at least once during their interview. The three major themes, and their sub-themes, are presented below as they relate to recognitional green equity (Figure 3.3). Themes and their relationships   66 are arranged according to the arrangement proposed in Figure 3.1. Table 3.3 presents the number of interview participants that discussed each sub-theme of recognitional equity by city.   Figure 3.3 Relationships among themes and sub-themes in the recognitional equity analysis.      67 Table 3.4 Number of participants that discussed each sub-theme related to recognitional equity. Themes	 Sub-themes	New	York	(n=12)	Phoenix	(n=11)	Portland	(n=11)	Total	(n=34)	Definitions	Accessible	and	respectful	decision	making	 4	 3	 6	 13	Accessible	and	respectful	stewardship	 7	 4	 6	 17	Professional	representation	 2	 2	 4	 8	Barriers	Multiple	identities	and	urban	vegetation	priorities	 6	 6	 7	 19	Limited	funding	 5	 4	 2	 11	Income	inequality	 4	 3	 5	 12	Culture	 5	 4	 5	 14	Language	 4	 3	 4	 11	Hiring	practices	 2	 1	 2	 5	Sense	of	ownership	 6	 6	 5	 17	Strategies	Tree	and	park	stewardship	programs	 7	 4	 6	 17	Accessible	public	consultation	 2	 1	 4	 7	Community	advisory	bodies	 2	 1	 5	 8	Partnerships	 6	 3	 6	 15	Mosaic	governance	approaches	 4	 3	 1	 8	Language	services	 4	 2	 3	 9	Service	request	phone	lines	 10	 7	 9	 26	Equity	and	diversity	hiring	policies	 2	 1	 2	 5	 3.3.2.1 Definitions of Recognitional Green Equity Recognitional green equity was conceived of and defined according to three sub-themes by participants: 1. accessible and respectful decision making, 2. accessible and respectful stewardship, 3. professional representation. Accessible and Respectful Decision Making According to some participants, accessible and respectful decision making was a key aspect of urban green equity (N = 13). This was often expressed as decision making processes that   68 respected local values and gave residents equal opportunities to contribute to urban vegetation decision making, regardless of socioeconomic status.  But I think, coming into a neighborhood and planting trees everywhere without the assistance or consent of the people that live in that community, can add to a sense of disenfranchisement and loss of control, and also begs the question, "Who are we improving the city for?" So I think it's a double edged sword. I, myself, as a person, think about it and struggle with it and haven't really figured it out yet. What we're trying to do in Greenpoint is continue with the block planting program, but see if by incorporating the ideas of the community and really asking for participation, that helps in some way. (N-6) Equitable access would have participation in decision making around where trees are planted and how they're maintained and who maintains them. Part of the procedural side of access, I think, would also be important, so accessing the governing processes around the placement of trees, so Friends of Trees often just opportunistically goes into neighborhoods, so actually participating in the selection of specific places where trees are planted I think would a piece of equitable access as well. (PD-6) Accessible and Respectful Stewardship Many participants viewed accessible and respectful stewardship as central to urban green equity (N = 17). These participants spoke about green equity in relation to stewardship programs that were welcoming of diversity and respectful of local values and customs.  Also, there are cultural, I think there are cultural differences in terms of what we expect of volunteers and what volunteers can provide so working with our Latino community   69 partners, family is important, family is huge and so you will prioritize visiting with family and getting together as opposed to just going out singly into the community, so you can make it a family project, maybe that would help. So looking at things from different perspectives, I think is very important. (PD-4) Professional Representation Some participants included professional representation as a core element of recognitional diversity (N = 8). This aspect of recognitional diversity was often addressed by describing policies and practices, rather than as a central principle in and of itself. Participants described efforts to make the urban forestry profession more socioeconomically diverse through policies that support equity and inclusion in hiring. And we've also changed our hiring practices, mostly recruitment practices, to try to get more diverse staff who can better represent the residents we serve, and that's been successful. We've had more people of color on staff, although we have a ways to go. And we've also got a nascent trainee, arborist trainee program, that has the same goals. It's like the pilot program for a wider, bureau trainee program to add diversity to our staff. (PD-2) 3.3.2.2 Barriers to Recognitional Green Equity Barriers to recognitional green equity emerged as one over-arching sub-theme with related sub-themes that were caused by and reinforced the overarching sub-theme.      70 Multiple Identities and Urban Vegetation Priorities The presence of multiple identities among urban residents and the resulting diversity of urban vegetation priorities was identified by some participants as the overarching barrier to recognitional green equity (N = 19). This barrier was sometimes explicit and often implicit in participants’ discussions of barriers to urban green equity. Participants described the reality of multiculturalism and multiple viewpoints in a large city, and discussed the challenges associated with inviting, including, and managing for those diverse viewpoints. While this reality was described as a barrier, it was not discussed as a negative reality. Rather, it was seen as a challenge to be overcome through good urban vegetation management. You take away human inputs on it and there ain't nothing. It's creosote flats. So, it is unique in that regard, because of the climate, and so there's a lot of people with different ideas of what things should look like, and that's to be expected. Diversity is I think inherent, anytime you get a large group of people, five million people together, you're gonna have a lot of opinions. (PX-3) There's such income inequality, there's so much cultural diversity here, there's so... There are differing political views. I'm imagining this never-ending bleeding out diagram or chart of who you could be as a person. Gender roles, gender identification, everything. The diversity of all of those categories is so huge that it's like this never-ending page of where everybody plots, which I think makes New York really cool and interesting, and strong is that diversity. At the same time, it's hard to manage for everyone. It's like how do you be everything to everyone, especially when the everyone is literally everyone.    71 Every type of person from every country, every language, every religion, every economic income level, etcetera, etcetera. (N-12) Limited Funding Multiple identities and urban vegetation priorities were seen by participants as the drivers for another key barrier to urban green equity: limited funding (N = 17). Multiple identities and priorities have meant that not everyone cares about or values urban vegetation in the same way. This has led to limited advocacy for urban vegetation and limited funding for urban vegetation management. And I think a lot of people care about trees, but they don't... It's not one of those things that they go to City Hall for and say, "I want... " It's not like Sacramento where it's the City of Trees. And so that's our goal is to create that culture of thinking about trees more. (PX-2) Participants described how limited funding has limited their ability to engage in equitable outreach and stewardship activities and in truly community-based projects, which require additional time and resources to support participation by diverse groups of urban residents. Community-based urban vegetation management has thus been driven by funding availability in some cases, limiting the number and scope of such projects. So, of course, we were voted on and selected and funded. And so our funding comes from that source, which I think is a powerful thing 'cause it's really the community's money that they won. And I think that's really helped people take ownership over this   72 project and get involved, rather than just like another typical parks capital project that comes from the top-down. It really felt like this one came from the bottom up. (N-6) Participants discussed how limited funding also presents a barrier to community engagement in urban vegetation management when residents begin to see trees dying as a result of mismanagement or lack of management. Once urban trees start dying, and residents have no means by which to change that outcome, some of them stop wanting to invest time and money in trees and engagement around urban vegetation. So then you have a kind of this terrible effect of the community, saying, "This tree's dying," and just thinking that trees can't survive here because we don't invest in it, and then thinking that not expecting trees and not wanting them because they're not like you've seen...(PX-2) Income Inequality Income inequality was another commonly-identified barrier to recognitional green equity, particularly in the context of limited public funds for urban vegetation management and engagement (N = 12). Participants explained that those neighbourhoods with higher incomes were better able to influence urban forestry in their areas through partnerships with external organizations and leveraging additional funds with which to influence and engage in urban vegetation management. But the neighborhoods that can form their own NGO's and their own conservancies that then raise money are gonna inevitably be better off than others. (N-2)   73 Participants also described how income inequality creates barriers to engagement in urban vegetation stewardship and planning activities, such as public meetings and tree planting events. Those with lower incomes are less likely to have the time or financial resources to engage in urban vegetation management, especially if they lack childcare or work multiple jobs. Because if you're working two jobs and you have a big family to support on Saturday morning you might not have time, or you might wanna spend time with your family. (PD-4) Culture A barrier that sometimes went hand in hand with income inequality was culture (N = 14). Participants discussed how culture influenced residents’ expectations as to how they should be engaged in urban forestry and whether engagement and stewardship opportunities were meaningful for them. If community members’ cultures were different from and not understood by those designing outreach programming, opportunities for engagement may be less attractive and some community members may decide not to engage with their local urban vegetation. Participants also discussed the importance of culture in motivating residents to engage in urban vegetation stewardship opportunities.  It has to go back to the culture of ethnic background and how each culture values landscape… I had nieces that grew up here in the city, and they were small and they came to visit and they were frightened because of all the noises in the country. So it's kinda like the environment you're raised in and the culture of how it integrates landscape and trees   74 into their culture, plays a role in them carrying that through into other areas where they go. (PX-11) Language Participants identified language as a barrier that was closely linked to culture in perpetuating recognitional inequity (N = 11). Participants described the wide range of languages spoken within their cities, and the challenges associated with making urban vegetation decision making processes and stewardship activities accessible to residents with multiple first languages other than English. This barrier also linked with limited funding, as providing language translation services or outreach materials in multiple languages is generally more costly for municipalities and partner organizations. Yeah, mostly Spanish speakers. There's not as much literature out there. And a lot of those people that are pruning trees and taking care of trees, a lot of them, they are primarily Spanish speakers. That's something I ran into at the Roosevelt School District. There were people that only spoke Spanish when we did the workshop and they were like, "What about us?" And so it is important to reach out in that language barrier. (PX-2) I see a huge barrier being language. Friends of Trees has struggled to connect with those that don't have English as a first language or don't speak English. We can get to a certain place with those populations, but then our process is pretty complex in terms of how to plant a tree in a specific location and how to go through that process is hard. So we haven't figured out a good solution for language barriers. We've done much better with Spanish speaking. I feel like we're really getting to a much better place…Spanish is large.   75 There's 11 safe harbour languages. So I believe that that is like over 1,000 people within a certain geographical area makes it a safe harbour language. So Portland has 11, is my understanding. Vietnamese, Chinese, Russian, Somalian, and...(PD-5) Well, and it's expensive. It's definitely been... It's been expensive, just to think about translating our entire system and processes. (PD-5) Hiring Practices Hiring practices were implicitly discussed by some participants as a barrier to recognitional equity (N = 5). Participants described the current demographics of urban forestry agencies and policies and strategies to improve equity in hiring and engagement that implicitly identified hiring as a barrier to recognitional equity. And the Parks Department tends to be pretty white. We did hire these...There was a welfare to work program where we brought people in as city parks workers. They ended up suing the city, because…they weren't hiring people, so they sued the Parks Department, which is why the Parks Department is one of the least corrupt agencies now, where they always have group interviews and criteria, and it's that sort of stuff. (N-1) Sense of Ownership The final barrier discussed by participants was sense of ownership: the sense, or lack thereof, among residents of having ownership over urban vegetation and a sense of place within it and within the urban vegetation decision-making process (N = 17). A low sense of ownership was described by participants as manifesting as low levels of engagement with urban forestry   76 officials at public events or consultations, infrequent use of service-request phone lines, and low levels of engagement with stewardship events or political activities. Participants described how this lack of ownership and disengagement can result in fewer efforts being made to engage those populations and provide high-quality urban vegetation in those neighbourhoods. We always recognize that every city has its core urban area where everybody goes to hang out, that's the meeting place, so we always do everything with that lens, that understanding that downtown is the core neighborhood that everybody takes ownership of, so we want it to be some place where everybody feels welcome and takes pride in some form of ownership. (PX-6) And so there's not always the political will to invest in the areas that quite often aren't the ones who are the most vocal or who come out to vote or these are people who are working multiple jobs supporting families in meager living situations where they could really benefit from connections to parks or more greenery right in their front yards or people who take transit a lot more. And it's pretty awful when you're driving by and seeing people who rely on transit and there's not even shade at their bus stop. (PX-6) 3.3.2.3 Strategies to Promote Recognitional Green Equity Participants identified nine principle strategies for overcoming barriers to and promoting recognitional urban green equity: 1. Tree and park stewardship programs 2. Accessible public consultation 3. Community advisory bodies 4. Partnerships 5. Mosaic governance approaches   77 6. Language services 7. Service request phone lines 8. Equity and diversity hiring policies  The relationships between strategies for and barriers to recognitional green equity are described in Figure 3.3. To avoid repetition, each strategy is described once below, rather than in relation to each barrier. Tree and Park Stewardship Programs Developing and offering tree and park stewardship programs were key strategies employed by participants to promote recognitional green equity (N = 17). Tree and park stewardship programs were used to welcome residents with multiple identities and urban vegetation priorities into the practice of urban forestry, overcome funding limitations by including the public in tree and park care, address income inequality by involving lower-income residents in accessible stewardship, overcome cultural barriers through culturally-relevant stewardship programming, and increase residents’ sense of ownership for urban vegetation by helping them engage with and understand urban vegetation resources.  We also bus people in sometimes, we'll arrange for transportation, our stewardship team has a couple of vans, and we're like, "Okay, if you can get to the subway stop we'll bring you in."…We'll get them there, we provide lunch, to people who come out and work with us, and that, sometimes it's like an incentive for people, not because they wouldn't be eating otherwise, I don't wanna imply that, but it's just like one extra thing. (N-9) Another barrier is time, and volunteering is something that you don't get paid for and time is precious. So if you have somebody who's working multiple jobs, actually coming   78 out and engaging in the volunteer work that we do is not a feasible option. So where to connect with these communities when it's on their ground, we've often thought how to better engage in religious communities here in Portland, and maybe providing resources for our programming at that space would be a way to connect with the new group of people. (PD-5) We are missing the 30 to 45 age demographic and probably the people with young, young kids. So looking to make our programming more family friendly, for instance, my tree steward class, I'm looking into offering daycare, I'm looking to offer maybe a small stipend for participants from some communities. Because if you're working two jobs and you have a big family to support on Saturday morning you might not have time, or you might wanna spend time with your family. Also, there are cultural, I think there are cultural differences in terms of what we expect of volunteers and what volunteers can provide so working with our Latino community partners, family is important, family is huge and so you will prioritize visiting with family and getting together as opposed to just going out singly into the community, so you can make it a family project, maybe that would help. So looking at things from different perspectives, I think is very important. (PD-4) Accessible Public Consultation Accessible public consultation was a strategy employed by some participants to overcome barriers such as income inequality and culture (N = 7). Participants described a range of public consultation methods that were designed to be accessible to a range of urban residents, such as   79 mapping exercises at public meetings, individual consultations around tree planting, and financial support for attending consultation events. And so for the kick-off meeting we did some mapping exercises, where people drew on maps and showed us where they wanted trees planted. And then we also have an open request form on our website, separate from 311, that come directly to me. So when people request tree work I can reach out to them directly and meet with them on-site, and have a bit more of an in-depth planning conversation with them. And then anytime we do tree plantings, like block plantings and things like that, we present them to the Community Steering Committee first and show them where we're planting and what our species palate is and how that's going, and get their feedback. But in general it's quite positive because our steering committee is all people who are excited about planting trees, which is great. (N-6) The way that parks host meetings to get feedback about the new possible park project, we call them visioning meetings. So these visioning meetings, people are coming into the room, some of them are prepared with their ideas, some of them are not, but they have the opportunity to speak directly and have their input heard by their local council members, by senior parks officials, and that's very empowering. (N-8) Community Advisory Bodies Community advisory bodies were another strategy described by participants that was closely related to accessible public consultation (N = 8). Community advisory bodies were used to overcome barriers such as income inequality and sense of ownership. Participants described how   80 community advisory bodies have helped bring local residents in lower-income neighbourhoods into the decision-making process and have grounded urban vegetation management in the local community, helping community members feel a greater sense of ownership over urban vegetation and a more developed sense of place in urban green spaces.  Apart from what’s business as usual at the Parks Department, which is really just people making requests through the 311 system, and there's not a lot of interaction between foresters and the public, beyond fulfilling those requests. So we're really trying to turn that out on its head in Greenpoint and get people as involved as possible. And so one way we're doing that is by creating a Community Steering Committee for our project, and we've blasted all these email resources and Facebook groups and things, and invited people to take part in meetings. We do quarterly meetings. (N-6) And so at one of our Community Steering Committee meetings we brought it up as a topic and asked people, "Okay, where would you wanna plant trees here?" And there were like 10 people that use that park a lot, who are really excited about planting trees there. So we did a walkthrough with the community, and stood in the spaces where they stand and went to the benches, and which bench should be shaded? And then created a tree planting plan together. And then I was able to present that to the Parks Department and get it approved, and then we had those trees planted last fall…Yes. And the one thing I'll say again is the people on our committee are very gung-ho, and they're gaining expertise now. They're learning about the different species and how planting works, but mostly they just like knowing what's happening and... They really like being given the opportunity to give the okay. (N-6)   81 And the community there is largely Asian community and they are interested in greening, in fact I'm part of a project called the Jade Greening Project, and we're working together to kinda strategize about how we can plant more trees there, how we can provide, get support for the trees and help people learn how to take care of them. (PD-4) [Urban Forest] Commission is another one, a lot of the things we run by them, they're kind of the representation of the residents of the city. And one of their key roles for me is keeping us staff in touch with what is the public sentiment, what do people want, how are things coming across, are the policies a good thing or do we need to make changes. (PD-2) Partnerships Partnerships with local community organizations or NGOs were discussed by participants as a strategy to overcome limited funding and cultural barriers (N = 15). Partnerships were used to leverage additional funding for urban vegetation stewardship and engagement, and to engage with communities in a culturally-sensitive way through organizations that represented their local interests. So I would say that I have learned so much in the past two years, but one thing that's really important is really creating community connections. I think outreach is an outdated term. You really have to connect with communities, and you have to partner with them in planning. So understanding, not asking, like, "Come to our workshop. Have this tree." It's like saying, "Have this puppy." "Have this tree." No. We don't wanna place burdens on people but we wanna understand what community needs are and what community   82 concerns are and trying to understand different perspectives and part of that is also partnering with them. I go back to that tree steward class, my idea for next year is to work directly with APANO and say, "What would benefit your community?" How can we... And maybe that stipend is a great way to draw some people and some young leaders and planning the class. Maybe it's gonna be a slightly different class, but being open to change as well. (PD-4) Mosaic Governance Approaches Some participants described using mosaic governance approaches to overcome funding limitations to recognitional green equity (N = 8). Participants did not use the term “mosaic governance” but rather described allowing local neighbourhoods to communities take their own approaches to urban forestry, by allowing for individual community-based projects to employ novel urban vegetation management and outreach approaches, or allowing local residents to co-create their local urban green spaces free from municipal regulation. Some participants saw this strategy as a low-cost approach to including multiple viewpoints and multiple actors in urban vegetation decision making. Recognizing, are we always gonna make good choices? No. We're not always gonna make good choices but we should be allowed to make choices, and the good choices will sustain, and the bad choices will fall away. The bad choices will not be sustainable. And personally, I'm all for promoting diversity, because through that, new ways will emerge, new possibilities for doing things better will come to the fore… There's this little small district where Phoenix has basically...the city basically suspended their control and allowed people do what they want...In this area, as a type of renovating urban renewal   83 and renovation. People went eclectically crazy, and it was great when you see these little... People started having coffee shops in their front yards and planting all this stuff, and you start seeing gardens pop up everywhere in people's front yards. And it's very, very cool to see when a municipality just steps back and gives people freedom to make choices and express what pops up. Yeah, suddenly "I can do that, it's okay." And people of like minds start gathering and there becomes a movement, a grassroots movement emerges from that. (PX-3) Language Services Language services were sometimes discussed by participants as a strategy to overcome language barriers (N = 9). Participants described translating outreach materials, hiring staff with knowledge of non-English languages, and providing stewardship activities in multiple languages, as appropriate to the local community. Some participants noted that they have not yet overcome the language barrier, but that language services were a priority strategy for them. For the language issue, we don't have the capacity as much as we'd like but we do have a Spanish speaker on the staff. So we can answer questions in Spanish, and we have, in the past, worked on creating literature and creating when we have more Spanish speakers. (PX-2) In some of our brochures we try and hit some, but again, this only gets the person to a very brief understanding of what we do. And then what my desire would be is to really have a network of volunteers who are translators or willing to connect with somebody   84 and kinda act as a liaison to help them through the process in their spoken language, but we haven't gotten there yet. (PD-5) Service Request Phone Lines Service request phone lines were one of the most commonly-discussed strategies employed to engage residents in urban vegetation decision making while helping to overcome finding limitations (N = 26). Service request phone lines were described as 311 lines that residents could call to get information about urban forestry, report a tree in need of maintenance or removal, or find out about urban vegetation engagement or stewardship activities. While most participants didn’t consider the use of 311 lines to be a highly sophisticated strategy to overcome recognitional equity barriers, it was generally described as a low-barrier strategy that fit within constrained municipal budgets. So New York City has this 311 system where people can essentially kind of call in. It's become a norm. It wasn't something I grew up with as a kid. Not at all. I lived in the city my entire life, and if you have a problem, you kind of dealt with it or... Yeah, mostly dealt it. Now we deal with it, but we are able to deal with it by calling 311. So to a degree, that's been somewhat beneficial especially for our street trees, 'cause people are able to call and identify if they see trees dying, or people doing not very cool things to our street trees. What a lot of people don't realize is that they actually makes them stewards. To a degree, you're taking this level and this protection of your street trees. So really our participation is kind of care, our public participation for stewardship is enabling people to care and also to advocate for their spaces. (N-8)   85 Equity and Diversity Hiring Policies Some participants discussed equity and diversity hiring policies as strategies to overcome inequitable hiring practices that reduce recognitional equity (N = 5). Participants described using equitable hiring policies and practices to diversify the population of urban forestry professionals and increase recognitional diversity within the profession. Participants also discussed the importance of professional diversity in better representing diverse urban populations. So I do serve on the Diversity and Equity Committee of Parks, and each bureau has a similar committee and I represent urban forestry on that committee and so I work with supervisors and represented employees. On this committee, there are 20 of us and we advise the parks director and our division supervisors on more equitable and inclusive practices in hiring and also just reducing barriers for public participation. (PD-4) 3.4 Discussion 3.4.1 Urban Green Equity in the Local Context It is important to interpret the analysis results in the context of local urban vegetation priorities. Although the themes and sub-themes that emerged from the analysis were present and relatively consistent across all three cities, the specific ways in which participants described urban green equity at the local level were influenced by the characteristics of local context, such as local climate and resident populations, and the urban vegetation management priorities that reflect those local realities.    86 3.4.1.1 New York Urban green equity definitions, barriers, and strategies that were most commonly articulated in New York were related to environmental justice zones and low-income areas. This focus appears to reflect the environmental challenges associated with dense urban environments and New York’s sociodemographic and economic characteristics. New York is a large, dense city (US Census Bureau, 2017) with low air quality often associated with dense urban environments (New York City Environmental Protection, 2017). Interview participants described targeted tree planting and maintenance in an effort to improve air quality in environmental justice zones that had been identified as having poor air quality. This focus on improving the urban environment helped drive specific decisions on where to prioritize targeted urban vegetation interventions and community engagement. New York is also one the most expensive cities in the world, with a cost of living 120% above the US average (Goetz, 2017). Income inequality was a common theme among participants in New York, with participants identifying low-income neighbourhoods as priority areas for tree planting, park upgrading, community engagement and stewardship, and community-based projects. 3.4.1.2 Phoenix Climate change and heat stress were the priorities most often discussed in relation to urban green equity in Phoenix, reflecting local climatic realities. Phoenix experiences extremely hot temperatures in the summer months (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017), causing health impacts for local residents and challenges maintaining urban vegetation. Participants discussed the importance of distributional green equity for providing shade for all residents. Shade along roadways and at transit stops was identified as particularly important for   87 lower-income residents who cannot afford to travel in air-conditioned cars. Income inequality was also identified as a barrier to distributional green equity related to water. Phoenix residents pay for their water and large amounts of water are required to maintain urban trees in an arid environment. Lower-income residents may thus be unable to afford to grow trees on their property. Phoenix has a large Latinx population (US Census Bureau, 2015), which many Phoenix participants described as the focus of efforts to promote recognitional equity. Language services and targeted stewardship programs were most often targeted at the Latinx community in Phoenix. 3.4.1.3 Portland In Portland, definitions of urban green equity, and discussions of related barriers and strategies to overcome them, were most often focused on providing urban vegetation resources and stewardship opportunities to low-income and racialized neighbourhoods. Participants described targeted tree planting and stewardship programming in low-income, racialized, low-canopy neighbourhoods, and programs to encourage diverse professional representation. These included socioeconomic analysis and mapping approaches to identify neighbourhoods most in need. This focus may reflect the current interaction between Portland’s history of racial discrimination and current low levels of racial diversity (Semeuls, 2016; US Census Bureau, 2015). As racialized residents continue to experience discrimination and displacement due to rising real estate prices, a local conversation around race and power is emerging (Bodenner, 2016; Semeuls, 2016). This conversation is reflected in the recent release of Portland Parks and Recreation’s Five-Year Racial Equity Plan and equity policies in Portland’s urban forest action plans (Hendricks et al., 2017; Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015, 2007).   88 3.4.2 Definitions of Fair One of the most striking findings of the thematic analysis was the seemingly contradictory use by some participants of targeted tree and park establishment and maintenance to promote distributional green equity while other participants used equal tree and park establishment and maintenance to do the same. Targeted strategies refer to investing additional time and money in urban vegetation management, such as tree planting and park maintenance, in low-canopy or low-park neighbourhoods while equal strategies refer to investing equal time and money in urban vegetation management in all neighbourhoods, regardless of the current canopy or park coverage. These strategies would appear to be in opposition to one another. One seeks to change the current distribution of urban vegetation while the other seeks to maintain the status quo. While both strategies were present in each city, targeted intervention was more commonly discussed in Portland and New York, while equal intervention was more commonly discussed in Phoenix (Table 3.2). Pragmatically, the observed variation may simply reflect variation in funding constraints. In a highly-constrained funding environment where much of the city is in need of tree planting or maintenance, equal urban vegetation management achieves a minimum standard of service delivery across the city. Targeted intervention would require additional resources beyond those used to ensure regular maintenance can continue. Multiple participants discussed the severe funding constraints experienced by their organizations and the impacts these constraints had on their ability to deliver urban vegetation management. While funding constraints may be the proximal cause of equal urban vegetation interventions as a strategy to promote equity, it is important to recognize the role of local funding priorities in creating those funding constraints. The observed variation in perspective may in fact reflect local variations in   89 the definition of ‘fair’, driven by local political economies and public-private property relations. The commodification of urban vegetation according to neoliberal capitalist practices produces urban vegetation that reflects structural processes of inequity in urban political economy, such as income inequality and uneven property ownership (Heynen et al., 2006; Smith, 2008; Swyngedouw et al., 2002). Local cultures that are strongly influenced by neoliberal capitalist philosophy and practice are more likely to accept the erosion of funding for public resources, such as urban vegetation, and begin to see the capitalist approach to resource allocation as the only acceptable or available alternative (Swyngedouw et al., 2002). Thus, while the position that distributional green equity is best supported by maintaining the status quo may appear to be a pragmatic response to funding limitations, this response may be driven by a more philosophical adherence to capitalist practices. Notably, this approach was most commonly described by participants in Phoenix, a city with high levels of private property ownership and private involvement in managing public goods (Martin et al., 2003). Moreover, the urban vegetation in Phoenix is almost entirely human-constructed, given the highly-arid local environment, contributing to the perception of urban vegetation as an amenity and an acceptance of the commodification of urban vegetation. 3.4.3 Definitions of Equity The findings presented above offer interesting insights into how practitioners understand, encounter, and address urban green equity in their urban forestry practice. While both distributional and recognitional urban green equity emerged from the interview data analysis, distributional equity was the dominant conception of and approach to urban green equity. All interview participants articulated an understanding and use of distributional equity in their   90 approaches to urban vegetation management, while only half of participants identified recognitional equity as an important aspect of urban green equity. In addition, most participants were able to clearly articulate definitions of distributional green equity, while some participants defined recognitional green equity most clearly through their descriptions of strategies rather than through their direct descriptions of the concept. Distributional equity is clearly the conception of urban green equity that most commonly informs urban vegetation management activities, while recognitional equity is an emerging dimension of urban green equity in practice. The observed variation in equity definitions appears to reflect the role of the practitioner within urban forestry and the focus of urban vegetation management within the city. Participants who included a recognitional dimension in their description of green equity and its practice were often involved in delivering stewardship programs, managing community-based projects, engaged in public outreach, or members of the academic community. Their day-to-day work was thus more likely to be focused on issues of recognitional equity or they were more likely to be engaged in theorizing about equity. While distributional equity is something that can be seen in practice, through the experience of urban vegetation on the ground or via remotely-sensed data and maps (Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Nesbitt and Meitner, 2016), recognitional equity is harder to encounter in a tangible way, particularly if the diversity present among urban residents is not visual or practitioners are accustomed to engaging in urban forestry practices that are recognitionally inequitable (Young, 1990). Reflecting the potential role of habit and custom in recognitional equity, recognitional equity was more often described in New York and Portland, two cities with urban forestry equity programs and policies that are starting to consider and codify equity in urban vegetation management (Hendricks et al., 2017; NYCParks, 2014).   91 3.4.4 Distributional vs. Recognitional Equity Participants’ descriptions of strategies to promote distributional and recognitional equity revealed potential tensions between the two concepts. Participants discussed approaches to ensuring that all residents have equal access to urban vegetation, regardless of socioeconomic status or race, while others described the importance of individual agency and freedom to influence local urban vegetation in achieving recognitional equity that goes beyond mere public consultation by formal urban vegetation managers. The first approach was generally conceived of as a top-down approach to equity in which government and other formal urban forestry actors have the responsibility to reduce inequality in society. The second approach was conceived of as removing regulation to allow bottom-up processes and local actors to influence urban vegetation as they see fit, thereby including a greater diversity of actors and viewpoints in urban vegetation management and potentially giving rise to new opportunities for creativity in urban vegetation management and the use of public green spaces. This apparent tension reflects the tension that exists between freedom and equality in the liberal philosophical tradition, and will require a broad public conversation to resolve successfully (Rawls, 1999; Schlosberg, 2007; Young, 1990). Recognitional equity acknowledges multiple definitions of the good (Young, 1990), while distributional equity requires a common understanding of the good (Rawls, 1999). The resolution of this tension, and the specific definition of standards for urban green equity in local contexts, require ongoing public conversations around the meaning and locally-appropriate operationalization of urban green equity in order to arrive at a balance point between freedom and equality in urban vegetation management. As cities become increasingly aware of urban green equity and residents begin to grapple with the concept in their daily lives and professional   92 practice, this conversation has the potential to grow and mature, refining the collective understanding of urban green equity and producing new strategies to improve urban green equity around the world.    93 Chapter 4: Who Has Access to Urban Vegetation? A Spatial Analysis of Distributional Green Equity in 10 North American Urbanized Areas 4.1 Introduction Despite the clear positive influence of urban vegetation in the lives of urban residents, the distribution of urban vegetation appears to be uneven in many cities (Heynen and Lindsey, 2003; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; McConnachie and Shackleton, 2010; Nesbitt and Meitner, 2016; Ogneva-Himmelberger et al., 2009). Research has shown that public parks are more often located in higher income neighbourhoods (Poudyal et al., 2009), trees on private property are often larger and more numerous in wealthier neighbourhoods (Kirkpatrick et al., 2011), and lower levels of canopy cover are more often found in lower-income neighbourhoods (Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Schwarz et al., 2015). The range of ecosystem services provided by urban vegetation, and the apparent disparities in its distribution, raise the question of whether urban vegetation is equitably distributed and whether urban residents have equitable access to urban vegetation and its benefits. This research defines equitable access as fair access to urban vegetation, regardless of differentiating factors such as socioeconomic status, race, cultural background, or age (Nesbitt and Meitner, 2016). While truly equal access is impractical, equitable access implies that those who wish to access urban vegetation have the opportunity to do so (Kant, 1998). Thus, if urban vegetation were equitably distributed, we would not expect to find consistent disparities in access to urban vegetation for certain socioeconomic groups. In particular, consistently lower access for traditionally disadvantaged groups such as low-income populations and racialized minorities would suggest   94 the presence of green inequity (Schwarz et al., 2015). Equitable access to urban vegetation helps ensure that urban residents have equitable access to the services and benefits those resources provide that may be associated with higher levels of well-being, particularly among disadvantaged and lower socioeconomic groups (Maas et al., 2006; Mitchell and Popham, 2008; Sanesi et al., 2011). Given the importance of urban vegetation to human well-being in cities, and the observed disparities in urban vegetation distribution, the argument can be made that urban green equity is an environmental justice issue. While many cities likely experience some form of urban green inequity, it is unclear whether the relationships described above exist among different geographical areas, different cultures, and cities with different development histories (Lafary et al., 2008). Studies have demonstrated general relationships among measures of privilege and urban vegetation access but they have yet to clarify the relative roles that multiple socioeconomic and contextual factors play across a wide range of urban environments  (Barbosa et al., 2007; Heynen and Lindsey, 2003; Lafary et al., 2008; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Li and Weng, 2007; McConnachie and Shackleton, 2010; Ogneva-Himmelberger et al., 2009; Pearsall and Christman, 2012; Schwarz et al., 2015; Talarchek, 1990). To begin to fill this gap, this chapter presents an analysis of the relationships between urban vegetation resources and socioeconomic and contextual factors in 10 urbanized areas in the United States (US). The US was chosen as the study location because it provides multiple urban areas for which comparable, very high resolution urban vegetation data are available. These areas also represent diverse urban cultures, development histories, and geoclimatic conditions. The analysis examines correlations among the distribution of three types of urban vegetation resources and socioeconomic and contextual factors that may be related to   95 this distribution. It goes beyond previous research in the field in that it examines urban green equity in multiple large metro areas that represent a range of urban development types (Barbosa et al., 2007; Lafary et al., 2008; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Schwarz et al., 2015). This research also analyzes access to multiple types of urban vegetation resources that represent different ecosystem services provided by urban vegetation, painting a more complete picture of the state of green equity in US cities. 4.2 Materials and Methods 4.2.1 Data Collection 4.2.1.1 Study Sites The study sites consisted of 10 urbanized areas in the US as defined by the US Census Bureau for the most recent census year (2010) (Figure 4.1) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012): Chicago, IL – IN Urbanized Area; Houston, TX Urbanized Area; Indianapolis, IN Urbanized Area; Jacksonville, FL Urbanized Area; Los Angeles – Long Beach – Anaheim, CA Urbanized Area; New York – Newark, NY – NJ – CT Urbanized Area; Phoenix – Mesa, AZ Urbanized Area; Portland, OR – WA Urbanized Area; Seattle, WA Urbanized Area; St. Louis, MO – IL Urbanized Area. The study sites were restricted in Chicago, IL – IN, Portland, OR – WA, and St. Louis, MO – IL due to inconsistencies in available aerial imagery. As a result of the restrictions, areas falling within the state of Indiana were excluded from Chicago, IL – IN, areas falling within the state of Washington were excluded from Portland, OR – WA, and areas falling within the state of Illinois were excluded from St. Louis, MO – IL. The Census Bureau defines an urban area as “…a densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that meet minimum   96 population density requirements, along with contiguous territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core.” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) (p. 53,039). Urbanized areas are those urban areas that contain 50,000 or more people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).    Figure 4.1 Map of the 10 study areas.   97 Urbanized areas were chosen as the study sites in order to capture a range of urban development types in the analysis and examine the experiences of a wide range of urban dwellers. The final list of 10 urbanized areas was chosen using a two-step selection process. Thirty urbanized areas were screened and selected for possible inclusion in the study from a long list of the 48 most populous urbanized areas in North America. The urbanized areas were ranked according to the population densities of their core municipalities and split into three groups of 16, according to population density. Group 1 included cities with “high” core city residential densities (9 people/acre or more), group 2 included cities with “medium” core densities (5.8 – 8.9 people/acre), and group 3 included cities with “low” population densities (1 – 5.7 people/acre) as suggested by Harnik (2010). Ten urbanized areas were then randomly selected from each group of 16 for a total of 30 urbanized areas. The final list of 10 urbanized areas was selected according to the following criteria: • Must have high-quality data on canopy cover, parks, and other green spaces • Must collectively represent a range of residential densities • Must have comparable socioeconomic and zoning data • Must collectively represent a range of precipitation levels • Must collectively represent a range of average temperatures • Must be dispersed between eastern, central, and western North America The 10 urbanized areas represent a range of population sizes, population densities, housing ages, precipitation levels, average temperatures, and socioeconomic characteristics (Table 4.1) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017; U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a).    98 Table 4.1 A. Urbanized area population, average decade housing built, annual precipitation, average temperature, and B. socioeconomic characteristics for each urbanized area.  A Urbanized Area Population (2013) Population/km2 Average decade  housing built Average annual precip. (mm) Average annual temp. (°C) Chicago, IL – IN 8,637,199 1,365 1950-1959 937 9.9 Houston, TX 5,067,551 1,179 1970-1979 1,263 21.1 Indianapolis, IN 1,487,483 814 1960-1969 1,078 11.8 Jacksonville, FL 1,079,377 786 1970-1979 1,331 20.3 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 12,263,818 2,728 1960-1969 326 17.0 New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT 18,497,494 2,070 1950-1959 1,086 12.5 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 3,699,686 1,246 1970-1979 204 23.9 Portland, OR-WA 1,885,484 1,388 1960-1969 915 12.5 Seattle, WA 3,123,594 1,194 1970-1979 952 11.4 St Louis, MO-IL 2,154,436 901 1950-1959 1,040 13.9  B Urbanized Area % White % Black % Am. Indian % Asian % Latino Per capita income (USD) % No high school diploma % Bachelor's degree or higher Chicago, IL – IN 61 21 0.2 6 22 31,757 15 35 Houston, TX 63 20 0.5 6 41 29,391 23 28 Indianapolis, IN 66 25 0.1 2 8 25,223 16 27 Jacksonville, FL 62 30 0.3 3 7 26,725 13 25 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 55 8 0.5 15 45 29,649 23 29 New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT 58 19 0.3 10 23 35,990 16 36 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 81 5 2 3 30 26,507 16 27 Portland, OR-WA 80 4 1 7 11 31,754 9 40 Seattle, WA 71 6 1 13 9 36,614 9 40 St Louis, MO-IL 63 31 0.2 3 3 29,761 12 34     99 4.2.1.2 Socioeconomic Variables To better understand how different segments of the population in each metro area may access urban vegetation, socioeconomic data were gathered by block group, the smallest unit for which US decennial census data and American Community Survey data are publicly available across a wide range of topics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). To reduce potential errors due to edge effects, only block groups located entirely within and more than 100 m from the boundaries of the urbanized areas were included in the study, with additional restrictions as described above (Figure 4.2). To avoid eliminating coastal and waterfront areas, block groups that intersected with the boundary of urbanized areas along waterfronts were included even if they were within 100 m of the boundary. This reflects the common practice of extending waterfront block group boundaries beyond the shoreline to avoid alignment errors. Block group and urbanized area boundaries were obtained from the 2013 TIGER/Line Shapefiles produced by the US Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013b). It should be noted that urbanized areas are not always continuous shapes and sometimes contain rural ‘holes’. Rural ‘holes’ were not included in the study areas.      100  Figure 4.2 Urbanized areas and block groups for A) Chicago; B) Houston; C) Indianapolis; D) Jacksonville; E) Los Angeles; F) New York; G) Phoenix; H) Portland; I) Seattle; J) St. Louis.    101 To test accessibility across spatial scales, urban vegetation access was also measured by census tract, the second smallest unit for which US decennial census data and American Community Survey data are publicly-available (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). Census tract boundaries were obtained from the 2013 TIGER/Line Shapefiles produced by the US Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013b). Socioeconomic data were obtained from the 2013 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (US Census Bureau, 2014). The 2013 American Community Survey 5-year estimates include results from the American Community Survey and describe the entire 5-year data collection period, from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2013. Socioeconomic data were collected for the following variables (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a): • Median age • White population • Black or African American population • American Indian or Alaska Native population • Asian population • Hispanic or Latino population • Per capita income in the past 12 months • Level of education completed Data were also collected on contextual variables, including (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, 2013b): • Total population • Median year structure built   102 • Area of land and water Additional information on the socioeconomic variables used in the analysis can be found in Appendix B. The terms used to describe socioeconomic variables in the Methods and Results sections are those used by the US Census Bureau. Hispanic or Latino population refers to ethnicity rather than race, and thus the Hispanic or Latino population variable represents all residents of any race who identify as Hispanic or Latino (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a). Racial and cultural variables were normalized by block group population. Land area was used to calculate population density for each block group. Education variables were aggregated and normalized to represent those without a high school diploma and those who have completed a bachelor’s degree or higher. Median year structure built was aggregated by decade to make the variable more meaningful to an urban forestry timescale. The final socioeconomic variables included in the analysis were: • Median age • Proportion White population • Proportion Black or African American population • Proportion American Indian or Alaska Native population • Proportion Asian population • Proportion Hispanic or Latino population • Mean per capita income in the past 12 months • Proportion without a high school diploma • Proportion with a bachelor’s degree or higher • Population density/m2   103 • Median decade structure built (proxy for neighbourhood age) 4.2.1.3 Urban Vegetation Variables Urban vegetation resources were measured three ways: (1) mixed vegetation cover, (2) woody vegetation cover, and (3) public parks. The measures and data sources are described below. These three urban vegetation variables reflect the different ecosystem services urban residents receive from different elements of urban vegetation. For example, reduced surface water runoff (McPherson et al., 2011, 2005), psychological benefits from green views (Kaplan, 2007; Ulrich et al., 1991) and urban biodiversity conservation (Alvey, 2006; Goddard et al., 2009; Morimoto, 2011) are primarily associated with mixed vegetation cover, while improved air quality (Escobedo and Nowak, 2009; Nowak et al., 2006; Tallis et al., 2011) and lower air temperatures (Donovan and Butry, 2009; McPherson et al., 2005) are primarily associated with woody vegetation cover. Opportunities for recreation regardless of socioeconomic status, and the health benefits associated with recreation in urban nature, are primarily associated with public parks (Hansmann et al., 2007; Konijnendijk et al., 2013; Sherer and The Trust for Public Land, 2006).  4.2.1.3.1 Vegetation Cover Vegetation cover was estimated using aerial imagery produced by the US National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). The imagery was acquired by the NAIP program during the growing season (“leaf on”) between 2013 and 2015 and has a resolution of 1 m2. The images were captured with four bands of data: red, green, blue, and near infrared. Four-band imagery allows for the calculation of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) using the formula (NIR − Red)/(NIR + Red), where NIR is the near infrared wavelength band and Red is the red   104 wavelength band. NDVI is a measure of the visible and near-infrared light reflected by green vegetation and is commonly used to estimate the density and type of vegetation in remotely-sensed images (Sellers, 1987; Tucker, 1979). The benefits of using the NDVI to measure vegetation are that (1) it provides data that are comparable across large areas and many different contexts; and (2) it allows for differentiation between broad greenery types (e.g., woody vegetation and grassy vegetation). Two types of vegetation cover were identified from the aerial images using unsupervised image classification. NDVI values were calculated for each 1 m2 pixel and each pixel was reclassified as either “mixed vegetation” or “woody vegetation” as in Nesbitt and Meitner (2016). Mixed vegetation was defined as all urban vegetation, including grass, garden and crop plants, shrubs, hedges, and trees, and was identified as all pixels with NDVI values of 0.1 or higher (McBride, 2011). Woody vegetation was defined as trees of all sizes, large shrubs, and hedges, and was identified as all pixels above NDVI values determined via random point samples in each city. Reclassifications had accuracies of 94% for mixed vegetation and 72% for woody vegetation, as determined by a pixel-by-pixel comparison of reclassified pixels with aerial photos for each vegetation type. Image reclassification was performed using ENVI 5.3 + IDL 8.5. Vegetation cover values were aggregated and expressed as proportion vegetation cover/m2 per block group. See Figure 4.3 for an example map of mixed and woody vegetation cover by block group. Vegetation cover variables were normalized by land area in each block group to more accurately reflect vegetation density (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013b). These vegetation cover metrics represent the average mixed and woody vegetation resources available to residents of   105 each block group near their place of residence. Vegetation data aggregation was performed using ArcMap 10.4.1.     106   Figure 4.3 A. Mean mixed vegetation and B. Mean woody vegetation per block group for Portland.   A B   107 4.2.1.3.2 Parks Public parks were identified using the USA Parks GIS layer produced by Esri Data and Maps (Esri Data and Maps, 2010). The layer presents parks, gardens, and forests within the US at national, state, county, regional, and local levels. Parks included in this layer include national parks or forests, state parks or forests, county parks, regional parks, local parks, local forests, and gardens such as botanical and community gardens.  To estimate access to park resources in each Block Group, all parks within 1000 m (Euclidean distance) of weighted block group centroids were identified and the area in m2 of all parks within 1000 m of block group centroids were summed. See Figure 4.4 for an example map of park area within 1000m by block group. This simple accessibility metric provides an estimate of the park area resources available in each block group. Park access calculations were performed using ArcMap 10.4.1.    108  Figure 4.4 Park area within 1000m per block group for Portland.   A distance threshold of 1000 m was chosen to represent the way in which many urban residents access urban parks, current walkability standards in the US, and to reduce the number of block groups with an accessible park area of zero in park-poor cities. Evidence shows that urban residents in the US walk 1.3 mi, or just over 2 km, on average, during recreational walking trips, suggesting that 1000 m is the maximum average distance that most urban residents would walk to a park (Harnik and Martin, 2012). In addition, the Trust for Public Land ParkScore methodology, and many municipalities, use a 10-minute walk to a park, equivalent to about 1000 m, as a park accessibility target (Harnik and Martin, 2012; The Trust for Public Land, 2017). Finally, reducing the number of block groups with zero park access allows for a more accurate comparison of park accessibility among block groups with low park access.   109 4.2.2 Analysis The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate whether the distribution of urban vegetation resources (mixed vegetation, woody vegetation, and parks) is statistically associated with race, ethnicity, income, and age, while controlling for the effects of other potentially-relevant explanatory factors (population density and neighbourhood age). Bivariate and multivariate techniques were used in the analyses. Spearman’s bivariate correlations were used to examine pair-wise relationships between socioeconomic variables and urban vegetation resources. Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models were used to investigate the relationships among key socioeconomic variables and urban vegetation resources while accounting for the spatial structure of the data. 4.2.2.1 Bivariate Analyses Bivariate analysis is a commonly used analytical method in environmental justice research (Schwarz et al., 2015). Spearman’s correlations were used to establish a baseline picture of disparities in the distribution of urban vegetation resources and socioeconomic factors across all socioeconomic and urban vegetation variables and study cities. Spearman’s correlations were calculated at both the block group and census tract level to examine whether significant correlations were robust across spatial scales. All bivariate analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 24 software. 4.2.2.2 Spatial Autoregressive Analyses Spatial autocorrelation caused by geographic clustering is a common issue in the analysis of socioeconomic and ecological data (Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Schwarz et al., 2015). This   110 clustering means that observations at nearby locations are more similar or different from each other than would be expected from a random distribution. This is often described by Tobler’s Law that states that “everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things” (Tobler, 1970, p. 236). Ordinary Least Squares regression is based on assumptions of independent error terms and independent observations, both of which may be violated by geographic data clustering (Anselin, 1988; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009). Given the likelihood of spatial autocorrelation in the data, the Moran’s I-statistic was used to test for the presence of global autocorrelation and returned significant results for all study sites.  Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models provide a solution to address the problem of spatial autocorrelation by including the effects of spatial dependence in regression models (Anselin, 1988; Darmofal, 2015). There are two spatial autoregressive techniques that are commonly used to account for autoregression in spatial regression models: the spatial lag (SARlag) model and spatial error (SARerr) model (Anselin, 1988; Darmofal, 2015). The SARlag model assumes that the imposed spatial structure affects the dependent variable, possibly as a result of arbitrary administrative boundaries, socioeconomic conditions, local climate, and ecological processes, introducing a spatially-lagged dependent variable. The SARerr model assumes the presence of an autoregressive effect in the spatially dependent error term. Following the decision rules recommended by Anselin (2005), Lagrange multiplier test statistics and the nature of the variables indicated that the SARlag model was the most appropriate in this case. The form of the SARlag model is as follows:     111 y = rWy + Xb + e where Wy is a n x 1 vector of the spatially lagged response variable, r is the spatial autoregressive coefficient, X is a n x k matrix of observations on the covariates, b is the k x 1 vector of regression coefficients and e is a n x 1 vector of independently and identically distributed errors. SAR models require the development of a spatial weights matrix that describes the relationships between neighbouring observations. A queen contiguity matrix of the first order was selected as the most appropriate method to represent the spatial relationships in the data, due to the irregular polygon data and fact that the block group and census tract units of analysis are administrative units that are unlikely to reflect the spatial structure of the data; block groups and census tracts that share sides or corners are thus more likely to be similar to each other than those that do not (Anselin, 1988; Schwarz et al., 2015).  SAR models were developed using maximum likelihood estimation and a backwards stepwise method. Models were compared using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and log-likelihood statistics. A higher log-likelihood value and a lower AIC value indicate better model fit (Anselin, 2005). Best fit, parsimonious models are reported in the results. The GeoDa 1.10 software platform was used to develop all regression models, generate weights matrices, and calculate Moran’s I-statistics (Anselin, 2017).   112 4.3 Results 4.3.1 Bivariate Analyses The results of bivariate analyses are presented in condensed format in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 uses heat map colouring to indicate the strength of the correlations between mixed and woody vegetation, park area, and socioeconomic/contextual variables and only includes correlations significant at p > 0.05. Please note that Table 4.2 is meant as a visualization of the data only. Full results of the bivariate correlations can be found in Appendix C.1. All factors show variation in the strength and direction of correlation across study cities, urban vegetation resource types, and analysis units.      113 Table 4.2 Pairwise correlations each urbanized area.  0.60.50.40.30.20.10.0-0.1-0.2-0.3-0.4-0.5-0.6-0.7-0.8  114 4.3.1.1 Vegetation Cover Per capita income and proportion with higher education show the strongest significant positive correlations with mixed and woody vegetation across all cities for both analysis units. Median age and proportion White also show similar significant positive correlations with mixed and woody vegetation. Proportion without a high school diploma and proportion Latino show the strongest significant negative correlations with mixed and woody vegetation across all cities for both analysis units. Proportion Black and proportion American Indian show significant but weaker negative correlations with mixed and woody vegetation in most cities, often across both analysis units. Proportion Asian is more variable, showing significant but weaker positive and negative correlations with mixed and woody vegetation. Population density is significantly negatively correlated with mixed and woody vegetation in all cities, although this correlation is weak in Jacksonville. Median decade built is significantly correlated with mixed and woody vegetation but the direction and strength of these correlations are highly variable by city. There are some notable exceptions to these trends in Jacksonville and St. Louis. Proportion with higher education and median age are significantly negatively correlated with mixed vegetation in Jacksonville, while proportion without a high school diploma and proportion Latino are significantly positively correlated. Proportion Latino is also significantly positively correlated with woody vegetation in Jacksonville. Proportion without a high school diploma is positively correlated with mixed vegetation in St. Louis while proportion with higher education is negatively correlated. Per capita income is also significantly negatively correlated with mixed vegetation in St. Louis, although the correlation is small.   115 4.3.1.2 Parks Correlations among the socioeconomic/contextual factors and park area are somewhat similar to those observed for mixed and woody vegetation in general. However, park area appears to be more weakly correlated with socioeconomic/contextual factors and these relationships are more varied in direction. For example, per capita income, proportion with higher education, proportion White, and median age are significantly negatively correlated with park area in some cases (e.g., Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Houston, and St. Louis). Conversely, proportion without a high school diploma and proportion Latino are significantly positively correlated with park area in those cities. Proportion Black and proportion American Indian show variable correlations with park area depending on the city. Population density is significantly positively correlated with park area in most cities, as is house age.  4.3.2 Spatial Autoregressive Analyses Simplified results of SAR analyses for all study cities are presented in Table 4.3. Multicollinearity among independent variables required the creation of multiple SAR models for each vegetation type for some study cities. Table 4.3 presents z-statistics for all variables included in all models (p > 0.05) in each city for each vegetation type and across both the block group and census tract scales. Empty cells in the table indicate that the corresponding variable was not included in the final SAR model. The American Indian variable was removed from the tabular presentation of SAR results because it was not significant in any models across all urbanized areas. In the case that the same variable was included in more than one model, the mean value of the z-statistic for that variable is reported in the table, as z-statistic values for the same variable were extremely similar among the various models created for each vegetation type   116 in a city. Please note that Table 4.3 is meant as a visual representation of the data only. The full results of the SAR analyses are presented in Appendix C.2, including model coefficients along with z-statistics and levels of significance. In all models, the spatial lag variable is positive and highly significant. Measures of model fit are provided by the pseudo R2 and AIC. The relative importance of the statistically significant explanatory variables in each model can be compared using their corresponding z-statistic values.  The spatial lag coefficients are presented for each model in Table 4.4. Where multiple models were created for one vegetation type and urbanized area, spatial lag coefficients were extremely similar and thus the average value is reported in the table. The spatial lag coefficient measures the average influence on observations by their neighbouring observations (Anselin, 2005). When the spatial structure of the data is accounted for through SAR, the relationships among socioeconomic/contextual factors and urban vegetation resources show somewhat similar patterns to those observed in the bivariate analyses, while highlighting which variables are most strongly related to access to urban vegetation resources. All factors show variation in the strength and direction of relationships across study cities, urban vegetation resource types, and analysis units. However, the multivariate analyses appear to produce more consistent results than the bivariate analyses.     117 Table 4.3 Mean values for z-statistics across all models for each urbanized area.   1514131211109876543210-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-23-24-25-26-27  118 Table 4.4 Spatial lag coefficients across all models for each urbanized area.   4.3.2.1 Vegetation Cover Per capita income and proportion with higher education are significantly positively associated with mixed and woody vegetation in most study cities and across both analysis units in most cases. Per capita income and proportion with higher education are each significant variables in six mixed vegetation models. Proportion with higher education is a significant variable in eight woody vegetation models and per capita income in six. An examination of the z-statistics suggests that higher education is a slightly stronger predictor of both mixed and woody vegetation as it tends to play a stronger role than per capita income in many SAR models. Low education is also a significant negative predictor of mixed and woody vegetation in some cases. Median age appears to play a smaller role in the multivariate than the bivariate analyses and is significantly positively associated with only woody vegetation and in only two cities (Chicago and Houston).  Racial factors do not appear to play as strong as role in the multivariate analyses as education and income. Proportion White is significantly positively associated with mixed vegetation cover in Chicago and with woody vegetation cover in Houston and St. Louis, and is absent from other Block	Group Census	Tract Block	Group Census	Tract Block	Group Census	TractChicago,	IL	–	IN 0.644 0.578 0.743 0.742 0.854 0.773Houston,	TX 0.692 0.512 0.688 0.578 0.586 0.253Indianapolis,	IN 0.658 0.448 0.749 0.622 0.666 0.503Jacksonville,	FL 0.496 0.181 0.544 0.287 0.764 0.761Los	Angeles-Long	Beach-Anaheim,	CA 0.726 0.686 0.747 0.713 0.434 0.090New	York-Newark,	NY-NJ-CT 0.783 0.666 0.787 0.766 0.836 0.650Phoenix-Mesa,	AZ 0.505 0.407 0.505 0.408 0.720 0.460Portland,	OR-WA 0.447 0.401 0.733 0.568 0.467 0.506Seattle,	WA 0.655 0.519 0.627 0.521 0.770 0.609St	Louis,	MO-IL 0.847 0.834 0.788 0.817 0.838 0.663Mixed	vegetation Woody	vegetation Park	Area	1000mUrbanized	Area  119 models. Proportion Latino appears to be a less dominant factor in the multivariate than the bivariate analyses. It is significantly negatively associated with mixed vegetation in Chicago, Houston, and Seattle, and with woody vegetation in Chicago. In contrast to the bivariate correlations, proportion Latino is significantly positively associated with woody vegetation in Los Angeles. Proportion Asian is significantly negatively associated with mixed and woody vegetation in Chicago and New York and is absent from other models. Proportion Black is significantly negatively associated with mixed vegetation in Chicago, with woody vegetation in St. Louis and Houston, and is absent from other models. Proportion American Indian is not a significant factor in any of the SAR models. Population density is the strongest factor across the SAR models and is significantly negatively correlated with mixed vegetation in seven of ten cities and with woody vegetation in six of ten cities. It is also present in the largest number of SAR models across all study cities. An examination of the z-statistics reveals that population density is a stronger predictor than the other socioeconomic/contextual variables in many models. House age is both positively and negatively significantly associated with mixed and woody vegetation, depending on the city. As with the bivariate analyses, Jacksonville displays somewhat different associations than the other study cities, with per capita income significantly negatively associated with mixed and woody vegetation. 4.3.2.2 Parks As with mixed and woody vegetation, per capita income and proportion with higher education are often significantly positively associated with park area and each appear in models for four   120 cities. Racial factors play a minor role in the SAR models for park area, with proportion White significantly positively associated with park area in St. Louis, proportion Black negatively associated with park area in St. Louis, and proportion Latino negatively associated with park area in St. Louis. As before, Jacksonville is a somewhat unique case, in which proportion without a high school diploma is significantly positively associated with park area. Interestingly, population density is not a significant negative predictor of park area, and in fact is significantly positively associated with park area in five models and two cities. Median decade built is absent from the park area models. No significant models were found for park area in Phoenix and Indianapolis. 4.4 Discussion 4.4.1 Patterns of Inequity The findings presented above confirm that urban vegetation resources are generally associated with traditional markers of privilege in US cities and that green inequity is widespread. Higher incomes, higher education, and Caucasian heritage are often associated with increased access to resources, while visible minorities, lower incomes, and less education are often associated with deprivation (Heynen and Lindsey, 2003; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Oakley and Logan, 2015; Rishbeth, 2001; Schwarz et al., 2015; Thompson, 2002). This research shows similar patterns of privilege in most study cities, while highlighting the strong association between income and higher education, and urban vegetation resources, and elucidating the variation in how different types of urban vegetation resources are distributed in US urban environments.   121 Interestingly, this is the first study to show an association between higher education and multiple urban vegetation resources that is stronger than income across multiple urban environments.  Although race is more weakly associated with the distribution of urban vegetation resources, the associations among racial and ethnic heritage and urban vegetation resources are also revealing. Latinx urban residents show the lowest levels of access to urban vegetation resources in both bivariate and multivariate analyses, followed by African American and Indigenous residents. Interestingly, urban residents of Asian heritage show more variable associations with urban vegetation resources. These results may reflect variable patterns of dispersion and segregation among different racial and ethnic groups in different contexts (Bader and Warkentien, 2016). 4.4.2 Park Area Interestingly, socioeconomic variables appear to be less often associated with park area, as evidenced by the weaker bivariate correlations among socioeconomic factors and park area, the lower level of SAR model fit across these models, smaller z-statistics associated with socioeconomic factors in those models, and the reduced number of socioeconomic factors present in best-fit parsimonious models of park area (Table 4.3). Higher education and per capita income are most common in the SAR models across cities, with only two cities showing racial factors associated with park area. These findings suggest that parks are more equitably distributed in cities, at least in relation to socioeconomic variables, and that the additional inequity observed in the distribution of mixed and woody vegetation may be due to vegetation located on private land or street trees. These findings also show that the ecosystem services provided by urban vegetation are differentially distributed, with recreational benefits more equitably distributed than the microclimatic and psychological benefits provided by mixed and   122 woody vegetation near residential buildings. Disadvantaged urban residents are more likely to have access to recreational green spaces but they are also more likely to have to leave their homes to experience the microclimatic and psychological benefits provided by mixed and woody vegetation.  The park accessibility results also suggest ways in which cities can increase equitable access to urban vegetation resources in their cities. Street tree planting and pocket park creation in low-income and low-education neighbourhoods, and incentives to encourage tree planting and mixed vegetation cultivation on private properties in those neighbourhoods may help reduce green inequity over time. However, given the challenges associated with influencing public behaviour on private land, park establishment and expansion in newly developed areas may also be important tools for municipalities who wish to increase equitable access to urban vegetation resources in their cities. As noted above, bivariate analyses show that population density is significantly positively correlated with park area in most cities, as is neighbourhood age (median decade built). Population density is also significantly associated with park area in Chicago and St. Louis, two cities with long histories of park establishment (Chicago Park District, 2017; Harnik et al., 2012; Primm, 1998). This suggests that many park systems have important historical elements that were created when neighbourhoods were less dense. These legacy parks have likely been an important aspect of reducing green inequity over time as street tree and private property greening patterns have changed with changes to the local social and built environment. Establishing and protecting park areas as cities expand and suburban neighbourhoods develop may be a tool to support equitable access to urban vegetation resources across cities in the future.   123 4.4.3 Inequity, Health, and Climate Change The widespread green inequities described above become more serious issues when we consider the effects of urban vegetation on urban health and well-being. Urban residents with lower access to urban vegetation are also those who are most likely to experience poor public health outcomes that could be mitigated by adequate exposure to urban vegetation resources (Jackson, 2003; Wolch et al., 2014). In fact, there is evidence to suggest that exposure to urban vegetation has proportionally larger positive health effects in marginalized communities than in privileged ones (de Vries et al., 2003; Maas et al., 2006; Mitchell and Popham, 2008). The impact of urban vegetation resources on the health and well-being of marginalized communities may become even more critical as climate change progresses. When health inequalities intersect with poor access to urban vegetation resources, this intersection creates areas of high climate vulnerability. As climate change increases in intensity, cities are likely to experience a range of pressures and disturbances that can have negative effects on urban residents’ health. These include rising sea levels, increased storm surges, heat stress, drought, extreme precipitation events, flooding caused by early snow melt, landslides, and air pollution (Paavola and Adger, 2006; Revi, 2014). Although climate change impacts will vary by location, urban vegetation can moderate climate change impacts through microclimatic regulation and can help urban communities adapt to its effects (Fields, 2009; Mathey et al., 2011; Tyler and Moench, 2012). The inequities observed in the distribution of mixed and woody vegetation cover are particularly important in the context of climate vulnerabilities and ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change. The cooling effects of large trees are an important part of reducing air temperatures and ensuring that residents can remain in their homes during extreme heat events without developing   124 health issues related to heat stress (McPherson et al., 2005). Urban trees can also reduce the cost to residents of cooling their homes in the summer, an issue of particular importance to low-income residents (Donovan and Butry, 2009). Likewise, mixed vegetation around urban residents’ homes intercepts rainfall and provides soft surfaces into which water can infiltrate, reducing the potential for flooding and home damage during extreme rainfall events or early snow melt (Asadian, 2010; McPherson et al., 2011, 2005). While urban parks with canopy cover can provide similar services, and can be important cooling areas for cities experiencing heat stress (Lafortezza et al., 2009), parks do not provide the same widespread “at home” benefits as mixed and woody vegetation near residential buildings. 4.4.4 Green Equity and Local Context Ameliorating patterns of green inequity will require an understanding of how socioeconomic factors relate to urban vegetation at the local level. The SAR analyses display patterns that may provide some insight into how the relationships between socioeconomic variables and urban vegetation resources are affected by local context. Income plays a significant role in best-fit SAR models of mixed and woody vegetation distribution in cities that have relatively lower per capita incomes (Table 4.1 and Table 4.3). Those cities with higher per capita incomes show a stronger role for racial and ethnic variables in SAR models while income is not a significant predictor in these cases. This suggests that when incomes are high, additional socioeconomic variables may play a larger role in determining access to scarce resources. Racial and ethnic variables also appear to be more commonly associated with mixed and woody vegetation distributions in larger cities with lower Caucasian populations (Table 4.1 and Table 4.3). This may suggest that minority populations become more marginalized as they grow in size or that competition for   125 urban vegetation resources is more intense in larger cities, leading to increasing racial disparities in access to mixed and woody vegetation. Los Angeles is a notable exception to this trend, with the Latinx population showing a positive significant relationship with woody vegetation. This is in line with previous findings (Schwarz et al., 2015) and may reflect the fact that Los Angeles displays a higher level of racial integration in residential neighbourhoods than many large cities in the US (Bader and Warkentien, 2016).  Jacksonville is also a clear exception to many of the patterns described in this paper. In Jacksonville, socioeconomic factors show relatively weak relationships with urban vegetation resources in both the bivariate and SAR analyses (Table 4.2 and Table 4.3). In addition, low-income residents with lower levels of education and racial and ethnic minorities have greater access to mixed and woody vegetation and parks while those with higher incomes, more education, and Caucasian residents have lower levels of access. Jacksonville is the smallest urbanized area by population in the analysis and is the least dense metro area. Low population density may thus be a driving factor behind these somewhat more equitable urban vegetation distribution patterns. These results may also be influenced by Jacksonville’s extensive public park system, the largest in the US, that may provide higher levels of access to traditionally marginalized communities (Harnik, 2010). It should be noted that the observations above are exploratory in nature and are areas for future research.       126 Chapter 5: Conclusion 5.1 Overall Significance and Contributions A clear definition of urban green equity, its dimensions and it’s use, are key to understanding and applying the concept in urban forestry. The main goal of the research presented in this dissertation was to explore and develop the concept of urban green equity, in light of the multiple ecosystem services provided by urban vegetation and society’s growing awareness of their importance. This was accomplished using mixed-methods approaches that combined theoretical analysis, semi-structured interviews, thematic analysis, complex spatial modeling approaches, and remotely-sensed data. The research identified and analyzed the theoretical dimensions of urban green equity, examined practitioner conceptions and operationalization of urban green equity on the ground in local contexts, and identified and analyzed the socioeconomic and contextual variables associated with distributional inequity. In Chapter 2, the research found that theoretical conceptions of urban green equity revolve around the dimensions of distribution and recognition, with multiple sub-dimensions identified within each principal dimension. In Chapter 3, it conceived of models via which urban forestry practitioners understand and use urban green equity concepts, highlighted the focus on distributional equity among practitioners, and uncovered potential tensions in the application of urban green equity in practice. The distributional analysis in Chapter 4 found that distributional inequity exists across multiple cities, urban landscape types, spatial scales, and urban vegetation resources in the US, and that it is most closely associated with a lack of education and income. To the best of my knowledge, this represents the first time that urban green equity has been examined wholistically from multiple angles and employing multiple relevant methods. The research contributes to the knowledge base   127 of urban green equity research in that it presents a structure within which future urban green equity research can occur and, to my knowledge, presents one of the most ambitious approaches to distributional equity analysis in urban forestry to date. 5.2 Conclusions Conclusions are presented below by chapter theme and then wholistically. 5.2.1 Dimensions of Urban Green Equity The two dimensions of urban green equity, (1) the distributional equity of urban vegetation, and (2) recognitional equity in urban vegetation decision making, described in this dissertation are based on both historical and more recent definitions of social equity in the liberal philosophical tradition (Rawls, 1999; Schlosberg, 2007; Taylor, 1994; Young, 1990). They are also shaped and informed by the analysis of environmental justice and equity in the field of urban forestry (Buijs et al., 2016; Heynen, 2003; Heynen et al., 2006; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Schwarz et al., 2015). It appears that the dimensions presented in this dissertation are of current importance, as they reflect the discourses of social movements of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (Schlosberg, 2007). Social movements for justice and equitable rights in, for example, civil rights movements or the fight for multicultural respect and equality have and continue to simultaneously demand equitable access to resources in society, and recognition in decision making. Modern definitions of social and environmental justice often contain these two dimensions, supporting the case that they are also relevant in the field of urban forestry, and presenting opportunities for learning across disciplines and social movements (Schlosberg, 2007).    128 While the two dimensions are relevant to research and practice in urban forestry, the urban forestry field has only recently begun to consider these dimensions. Research in each dimension appears to be somewhat isolated from the other dimension, although they are occasionally integrated in the field of political ecology (Anders Sandberg et al., 2015). Research on recognitional equity in urban forestry in particular is in its infancy, with most contributions appearing in the literature on urban vegetation governance, which does not generally deal with recognitional urban green equity explicitly (Buijs et al., 2016; Lawrence et al., 2013). Nonetheless, existing research both within and outside of the urban forestry field provides a good foundation on which to build future green equity research. The dimensions presented in this dissertation provide a framework that may be used in future green equity research, hopefully helping future analyses consider and address the two dimensions, and yield results that may be used by local communities and urban forestry actors to improve urban green inequities in their societies. 5.2.2 Practitioner Conceptions of Urban Green Equity The analysis of practitioner conceptions of urban green equity revealed that practitioners collectively hold a complex and nuanced understanding of urban green equity in practice. Interestingly, similar themes of urban green equity emerged among practitioners in the three study cities, although urban green equity plays out through distinct local issues that reflect the local context. For example, urban green equity is particularly important for providing shade to low-income and Latinx populations in Phoenix, a city located in an extremely hot climate with a large Latinx population. In Portland, urban green equity is an important part of movements for social and racial justice, with a programming focus on planting trees in low-income and   129 racialized neighbourhoods that likely reflects Portland’s highly racist history and current affordability challenges. New York is focused on improving urban green equity for low-income populations with poor health outcomes, reflecting the public health challenges of living in a large, high-density city with limited opportunities for vegetation growth. Similarly, although conceptions of urban green equity were similar across the study cities, practitioner understandings of the meaning of fairness, and strategies employed to improve urban green equity, were sometimes variable. The most striking area of divergence among practitioners was the use of targeted tree and park establishment and maintenance as a strategy to improve urban green equity on one hand, and equal tree and park establishment and maintenance as a strategy to improve urban green equity on the other. These approaches represent very different understandings of what fairness is and the role of urban forestry practitioners in ameliorating urban forest inequities. It is important to reiterate that distributional green equity was emphasized over recognitional green equity by the urban forestry practitioners interviewed, with almost twice as many practitioners defining urban green equity from a distributional rather than a recognitional perspective. This focus on distributional green equity reflects the focus in the urban forestry literature described in Chapter 2 and highlights the limited nature of recognitional equity understanding in urban forestry. However, it appears that recognitional green equity may be starting to receive more attention, given the very recent policies and programs focused on recognitional equity that have been introduced in some cities, such as Portland Parks and Recreation’s Five-Year Racial Equity Plan, released in 2017, and equity policies in Portland’s urban forest action plans (Hendricks et al., 2017; Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015, 2007).   130 5.2.3 Distributional Urban Green Equity Analysis The results of this study support the conclusions that urban vegetation is inequitably distributed and governed in multiple urban areas in the US, and that this inequity reflects traditional socioeconomic divides in many cases. Those residents with higher levels of education and higher incomes were more likely to have higher levels of access to both mixed and woody urban vegetation, and racialized residents were less likely to have access to mixed and woody vegetation in large, dense urban areas. Interestingly, parks appeared to be more equitably distributed across the urban areas studied, suggesting that the role of government in providing publically-accessible urban green space is a key element of improving urban green inequity. However, it may also suggest that programming to improve urban green equity should focus more on street tree and private tree planting and residential vegetation generally, given that there appears to be more room for improvement in those areas. Urban green inequity is a problem that must be addressed if cities wish to foster the development of healthy, resilient urban communities that experience a high level of well-being. However, resolving the challenge of urban green inequity will require an in-depth understanding of the local issues that shape it. Urban vegetation management and socioeconomic realities are clearly influenced by local environments, development histories, and local government policies, and will thus vary among cities (Gobster and Westphal, 2004).  5.2.4 Overall Conclusions A wholistic analysis of the research findings presented in this dissertation reveals the potential for tension or conflict between the proposed dimensions of equity: distribution of urban   131 vegetation and recognition in urban vegetation decision making. This is a theme that reappears throughout the dissertation and represents the central challenge in urban green equity research and practice. When the results of the distributional analysis presented in Chapter 4 are analyzed according to the two dimensions proposed in Chapter 2 and emergent in Chapter 3, this potential for conflict becomes clearer. It is notable that public parks, those urban vegetation elements that are most likely to be managed by cities, were found to be the most equitably distributed urban vegetation resource in the distributional analysis. Public urban parks belong to and are managed for the benefit of the public. Their management is thus often explicitly focused on urban green equity, both in their distribution and in their governance (Portland Parks and Recreation, 2017c; Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2014). The results of the distributional analysis suggest that central control, via delegated democracy, is an efficient method of promoting distributional equity. However, the central control of urban vegetation appears to exist in opposition to current proposals that seek to increase recognitional equity in urban forestry through mosaic governance (Buijs et al., 2016; Buizer et al., 2016). Although the relationship is correlational, the results of the distributional analysis point to the importance of centralized control in the fair distribution of resources. The concern then becomes whether mosaic governance may undermine distributional equity. While this certainly appears to be a possibility, I suggest that the solution may lie in finding a balance between the two approaches to urban green equity. Democratic, inclusive, and collective approaches to urban vegetation decision making via mosaic governance, that operate at a smaller and arguably more relevant scale for residents than city-wide approaches to governance, may seek to support distributional equity within the confines of the space governed by each mosaic ‘tile’. The challenge them becomes avoiding marginalizing certain ‘tiles’ at the expense of others, and allowing for distributional and   132 recognitional equity across multiple spatial scales. Ultimately, as discussed in Chapter 2, specific definitions of equity and justice are context-specific and are for societies to decide for themselves via public conversation and action. Recognitional equity helps support the process of defining acceptable levels of both distributional and recognitional equity by ensuring that a multiplicity of voices is included and have power within decision processes, and thereby have influence on the urban vegetation resource. If diversity and justice (via recognitional and distributional equity) are to exist side by side, a societal commitment to justice is required along with a nuanced approach to managing our private and collective urban vegetation resources.  5.3 Limitations There are several limitations associated with the research presented in this dissertation. They are discussed by chapter theme below. 5.3.1 Dimensions of Urban Green Equity As noted above, the research on recognitional equity, particularly in the field of urban forestry, is quite limited, with most contributions coming from fields that are external to or tangentially related to urban forestry (Buijs et al., 2016; Heynen, 2003; Young, 1990). The conceptual representation of recognitional urban green equity and its sub-dimensions presented in this dissertation should be interpreted in this context. They are presented as a way of conceiving of recognitional urban green equity that may provide a framework for future research. However, this conceptualization of recognitional green equity has not been tested and will likely require further development and/or refinement in the future.    133 5.3.2 Practitioner Conceptions of Urban Green Equity The recognitional urban green equity limitation discussed above is also one of the central limitations to the analysis presented in Chapter 3. Only about half of the urban forestry practitioners interviewed discussed recognitional equity in their responses. The model of practitioner conceptions of recognitional urban green equity is thus based on fewer interview responses than the distributional equity model. It may be that further interviews with additional urban forestry professionals might lead to a refinement of the presented model, although theoretical saturation within the current dataset was achieved in the development of the presented themes and sub-themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006). A related limitation in the research is the number of practitioners interviewed in each study city and the distribution of practitioners among organization types. The research on practitioner conceptions of urban green equity presented in Chapter 3 is intended to be an exploratory analysis of how practitioners conceive of and use the concept of urban green equity. It does not purport to present a theory of urban green equity in practice, nor does it claim to present an analysis of how different urban forestry practitioners from different types of organizations understand and use the concept. Rather, the analysis presented in this dissertation offers exploratory models of urban green equity conceptions and practice as defined by urban forestry practitioners interviewed in the three study cities. The present analysis focused on urban forestry practitioners in municipal governments, as the primary urban vegetation managers in the study cities, supplemented by information from urban forestry practitioners from allied and associated organizations, including NGOs, academia, private citizens, and local business. The analysis is not a representative sample of those organizations and merely seeks to include perspectives from   134 key urban forestry actors that are closely involved in urban forestry in the study cities. It is possible that additional themes might emerge from an analysis of additional interviews with additional urban forestry professionals from each organization type or a broader range of urban forestry professionals. 5.3.3 Distributional Urban Green Equity Analysis A fundamental and basic limitation of the distributional urban green equity analysis is the data sources used to identify and describe urban vegetation and the socioeconomic factors used in the analysis. The mixed and woody vegetation data were derived from two-dimensional aerial images, which are a simplified representation of urban vegetation that does not capture factors such as vegetation height or tree crown depth, both factors that may influence people’s experience of urban vegetation and the ecosystem services it can provide. Likewise, the parks used in the analysis were identified using the USA Parks GIS layer produced by Esri Data and Maps (Esri Data and Maps, 2010). The accuracy of the parks analysis is only as good as the dataset used. Although the USA Parks layer is widely used to identify parks in the US, it is unclear whether some parks may be over- or under-represented by that layer. A related limitation is the lack of information on recreational facilities and vegetation present in the parks. The type and quality of the recreational experience, as well as the level of vegetation present in the park, could not be included in the analysis presented in this dissertation. As with the vegetation data, the socioeconomic data used in the distributional equity analysis are not a perfect representation of the socioeconomic realities in each urban area studied. Socioeconomic data were gathered from the American Community Survey 5-year estimates. As suggested by the name, these data are estimates only, based on sample populations rather than a   135 complete population sample as would be gathered by the decennial census. In addition, census data may be misreported by respondents, as they are able to choose their racial identity or may choose to misreport their income, for example. The results of the distributional equity analysis should be interpreted within this context.  Another limitation of the distributional equity research relates to individual preference. While there is strong evidence of the environmental, physical, psychological, and economic benefits of trees (Annerstedt et al., 2012; Crompton, 2005; Kaplan, 2001; Morales, 1980; Morita et al., 2007; Nesbitt et al., 2017; Nowak et al., 2013), and evidence of aesthetic preference for urban vegetation (Chenoweth and Gobster, 1990; Chiesura, 2004; Price, 2003), some urban residents may not wish to live near urban trees or other vegetation (Fraser and Kenney, 2000). Low levels of residential vegetation and long distances to urban parks may not be considered to be problematic by such residents. The current analysis cannot comment on such preferences. A central issue in developing solutions to green inequity will involve understanding the roles of public and private land in urban vegetation distribution patterns and their influence on recognition in decision making. The distributional analysis presented in this dissertation cannot differentiate between private and public land outside of park areas and thus cannot provide further guidance as to whether vegetation on private or public land is primarily responsible for observed inequities. Private land often contains a large portion of urban vegetation and is thus an important part of resolving existing green inequities (Goddard et al., 2009; Greene et al., 2011).    136 5.4 Future Research and Practice 5.4.1 Future Research A key area for future research is understanding the role of vegetation on public and private land in distributional urban green equity. Further analysis and additional data sources may help differentiate between vegetation on public and private land and may allow for an analysis of the relative contributions of public and private land to observed patterns of green inequity. While such analyses would provide important guidance to greening programs in low-canopy neighbourhoods, it may be challenging to accurately establish land ownership and responsibilities for urban vegetation management across large areas. Different municipalities have different urban vegetation governance and management arrangements, often leading to complex management relationships on both public and private land (City of Portland, 2012; Downtown Phoenix Inc., 2017). In addition to understanding the relationships between land tenure and urban vegetation, an important area for future research, and one in which the literature is gradually expanding, is residents’ perceptions of and preferences for urban vegetation (Buijs et al., 2009; Fraser and Kenney, 2000; Martin et al., 2003; Peckham et al., 2013). Such research would help elucidate urban vegetation preferences and how they operate in different contexts. A deeper, case study analysis of urban green inequity is needed to examine how vegetation type and condition, aesthetic and recreational quality, and local and cultural preferences affect how urban residents experience and benefit from urban vegetation (Fraser and Kenney, 2000; Greene et al., 2011; Zhang and Jim, 2014). For example, access to a nearby park may become a negative influence if that park is unsafe and poorly maintained (Wolch et al., 2014). While the analysis presented here   137 elucidates broad patterns of urban vegetation accessibility, these finer scale factors influence whether access to urban vegetation is beneficial and the magnitude of those benefits.  Finally, solutions to urban green inequity and environmental injustice in urban forestry will need to combine analyses of accessibility with examinations of urban vegetation governance and decision making, according to the two dimensions of urban green equity. It is notable that urban forestry practitioners more commonly defined and addressed urban green equity according to distributional equity. Green equity in diverse urban societies demands equitable recognition in governance and decision-making processes that shape access to and management of urban vegetation resources. Urban forestry practitioners will need to understand and use both dimensions of equity in their professional practice if they are to achieve increased urban green equity in their municipalities or neighbourhoods. Urban residents have multiple, sometimes competing goals for urban vegetation management that must be balanced via recognitional equity (Buijs et al., 2016). Equitable urban vegetation governance is a key ingredient in shaping more equitable, greener futures in cities around the world but has yet to be analyzed using empirical approaches that tie urban vegetation decisions to urban vegetation outcomes, such as distributional equity. In fact, recognitional equity standards are currently unclear, preventing a robust recognitional equity analysis such as the distributional equity analysis presented in Chapter 4. This is a key area for future research that would do much to advance both our theoretical knowledge of urban green equity and its application in practice. I believe that an important precursor to developing such standards would be to develop robust models of urban forestry decision processes that could be used to identify key decision points at which recognitional equity should be considered and where standards could be developed. Such   138 decision models could also be used to frame public conversations around acceptable levels of recognitional equity and the form they would take in practice in a variety of contexts. 5.4.2 Urban Green Equity in Practice The research presented in this dissertation provides some insights that may be relevant to the practice of urban forestry and urban vegetation management. They are briefly presented here. The theoretical research presented in Chapter 2 clearly indicates that both distributional and recognitional equity are important elements of urban green equity that interact with one another in practice. However, the results of the Chapter 3 analysis indicate that urban forestry professionals tend to focus on distributional equity in their practice at the expense of recognitional equity. While there is some evidence that recognitional equity may be a growing area of interest among practitioners, as shown by the recent increase in recognitional equity policies and programming in some of the study cities, cities could speed up this trend by intentionally focusing on recognitional equity education for urban forestry practitioners and developing recognitional policies to guide urban vegetation management in their cities. This practitioner focus would ideally be supported by the future research priorities discussed above.  A clearer area in which urban green equity could be improved in practice is distributional green equity, building on the results presented in Chapter 4. Urban forests in the US are clearly inequitably distributed along socioeconomic gradients. Income and education are particularly strong factors that predict access to urban vegetation, while parks are more equitably distributed. While some cities are aware of distributional equity issues and are working to address them (Nesbitt and Meitner, 2016; NYCParks, 2014; Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015), many cities   139 appear to be either unaware of or unwilling to address urban green inequities in their municipalities, choosing to conduct business as usual and allowing distributional inequities to persist (City of Phoenix, 2010). Those that do attempt to address urban green inequities are often focused on income, as discussed in Chapter 3, and many practitioners see parks establishment as an important tool in providing additional vegetation resources to underserved neighbourhoods. The distributional analysis in Chapter 4 clearly suggests that such approaches may be fruitless or may only address part of the problem, given that education was the factor most strongly positively associated with access to urban vegetation and that parks are the most equitably distributed type of urban vegetation resource in the analysis. Municipalities should likely consider additional socioeconomic factors, beyond income, when targeting public vegetation planting and management, and should develop strategies to support increased vegetation on private properties, for example through additional stewardship programming or policies that encourage vegetation planting and management on private land in low-income and low-education neighbourhoods. Such programming and policies should be based on local analyses of the barriers to urban green equity, particularly on private land. It is to be hoped that the results of this dissertation may be used by municipalities to redirect or refocus their efforts to improve urban green equity in their cities.     140 References Alvey, A.A., 2006. Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban For. Urban Green. 5, 195–201. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003 Anders Sandberg, L., Bardekjian, A., Butt, S., 2015. Urban Forests, Trees, and Greenspace: A Political Ecology Perspective. Routledge, New York. doi:10.4324/9781315882901 Annerstedt, M., Jönsson, P., Wallergård, M., Johansson, G., Karlson, B., Grahn, P., Hansen, Å.M., Währborg, P., 2013. Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest - Results from a pilot study. Physiol. Behav. 118, 240–250. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.05.023 Annerstedt, M., Östergren, P.-O., Björk, J., Grahn, P., Skärbäck, E., Währborg, P., 2012. Green qualities in the neighbourhood and mental health – results from a longitudinal cohort study in Southern Sweden. BMC Public Health 12, 337. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-337 Anselin, L., 2017. The GeoDa Book Exploring: Spatial Data. GeoDa Press LLC, Chicago, IL. Anselin, L., 2005. Exploring Spatial Data with GeoDa: A Workbook. doi:http://www.csiss.org/ Anselin, L., 1988. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, New York. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7799-1 Asadian, Y., 2010. Rainfall interception in an urban environment. University of British Columbia. Bader, M., Warkentien, S., 2016. The Fragmented Evolution of Racial Integration since the Civil Rights Movement. Sociol. Sci. 3, 135–164. doi:10.15195/v3.a8   141 Barbosa, O., Tratalos, J.A., Armsworth, P.R., Davies, R.G., Fuller, R.A., Johnson, P., Gaston, K.J., 2007. Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83, 187–195. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.004 Bengston, D.N., Fletcher, J.O., Nelson, K.C., 2004. Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69, 271–286. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.007 Berman, M.G., Jonides, J., Kaplan, S., 2008. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychol. Sci. 19, 1207–1212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x Bodenner, C., 2016. Gentrification in Portland: Residents and Readers Debate [WWW Document]. Atl. URL https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/08/albina/493793/ (accessed 10.4.17). Bonan, G.B., 2002. Ecological Climatology: Concepts and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Boone, C.G., 2002. An Assessment and Explanation of Environmental Inequity in Baltimore. Urban Geogr. 23, 581–595. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.23.6.581 Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Briassoulis, H., 2001. Sustainable Development and its Indicators: Through a (Planner’s) Glass Darkly. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 44, 409–427. doi:10.1080/09640560120046142 Britt, C., Johnston, M., 2008. Trees in Towns II: A new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management.   142 Buijs, A.E., Elands, B.H.M., Langers, F., 2009. No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 91, 113–123. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003 Buijs, A.E., Mattijssen, T.J.M., Van der Jagt, A.P.N., Ambrose-oji, B., Andersson, E., Elands, B.H.M., Møller, M.S., 2016. Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 22, 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002 Buizer, M., Elands, B., Vierikko, K., 2016. Governing cities reflexively—The biocultural diversity concept as an alternative to ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 62, 7–13. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.003 Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B., Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J., Woodside, U., 2012. Where are cultural and social ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62, 744–756. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7 Chenoweth, R., Gobster, P., 1990. The nature and ecology of aesthetic experiences in the landscape. Landscape 9, 1–18. Chicago Park District, 2017. History - Related Information | Chicago Park District [WWW Document]. URL http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/about-us/history/ (accessed 6.27.17). Chiesura, A., 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68, 129–138. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003   143 City of Melbourne, 2017a. Become a Citizen Forester [WWW Document]. URL http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/community/parks-open-spaces/urban-forest/pages/become-a-citizen-forester.aspx (accessed 10.12.17). City of Melbourne, 2017b. Urban Forest Precinct Plans [WWW Document]. URL http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/community/parks-open-spaces/urban-forest/pages/urban-forest-precinct-plans.aspx (accessed 10.12.17). City of Phoenix, 2010. City of Phoenix Tree and Shade Masterplan. Phoenix, AZ. City of Phoenix, 2009. Red fields to green fields: transforming a desert city. Phoenix, AZ. City of Portland, 2012. Title 11, Trees. United States of America. City of Seattle, 2016. 2016 Seattle Tree Canopy Assessment. Seattle, WA, WA. City of Vancouver, 2017. Access to Nature [WWW Document]. URL http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/access-to-nature.aspx (accessed 9.7.17). City of Vancouver, Greenest City 2020, Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2014. City of Vancouver Urban Forest Strategy. Vancouver, BC. Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., Green, E., 2008. Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landsc. Urban Plan. 86, 103–114. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.002 Conway, T.M., Vander Vecht, J., 2015. Growing a diverse urban forest: Species selection decisions by practitioners planting and supplying trees. Landsc. Urban Plan. 138, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.007 Cook, G.R., 1894. Report of the General Superintendent of Parks. Cambridge, MA.   144 Cranz, G., 1982. The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in North America. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Crompton, J.L., 2005. The impact of parks on property values: Emprical evidence from the past two decades in the United States. Manag. Leis. 10, 203–218. doi:10.1080/13606710500348060 D’Amato, N.E., Sydnor, T.D., Struve, D.K., 2002. Urban foresters identify Ohio’s tree needs. J. Arboric. 28, 291–296. Dadvand, P., de Nazelle, A., Figueras, F., Basagaña, X., Su, J., Amoly, E., Jerrett, M., Vrijheid, M., Sunyer, J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2012a. Green space, health inequality and pregnancy. Environ. Int. 40, 110–115. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.07.004 Dadvand, P., Sunyer, J., Basagaña, X., Ballester, F., Lertxundi, A., Fernández-Somoano, A., Estarlich, M., García-Esteban, R., Mendez, M.A., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2012b. Surrounding greenness and pregnancy outcomes in four Spanish birth cohorts. Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 1481–1487. doi:10.1289/ehp.1205244 Darmofal, D., 2015. Spatial Analysis for the Social Sciences. Cambridge, New York. de Vries, S., van Dillen, S.M.E., Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2013. Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Soc. Sci. Med. 94, 26–33. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.030 de Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2003. Natural environments - healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plan. A 35, 1717–1731. doi:10.1068/a35111   145 Dobson, A., 1998. Justice and the Environment: Conceptions of Environmental Sustainability and Theories of Distributive Justice. Oxford University Press, New York. Donovan, G.H., Butry, D.T., 2009. The value of shade: Estimating the effect of urban trees on summertime electricity use. Energy Build. 41, 662–668. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.01.002 Donovan, G.H., Butry, D.T., Michael, Y.L., Prestemon, J.P., Liebhold, A.M., Gatziolis, D., Mao, M.Y., 2013. The relationship between trees and human health: Evidence from the spread of the emerald ash borer. Am. J. Prev. Med. 44, 139–145. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.066 Donovan, G.H., Michael, Y.L., Butry, D.T., Sullivan, A.D., Chase, J.M., 2011. Urban trees and the risk of poor birth outcomes. Heal. Place 17, 390–393. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.11.004 Donovan, G.H., Prestemon, J.P., 2012. The effect of trees on crime in Portland, Oregon. Environ. Behav. 44, 3–30. doi:10.1177/0013916510383238 Downtown Phoenix Inc., 2017. Downtown Phoenix Field Services [WWW Document]. URL http://dtphx.org/about/field-services/ (accessed 6.27.17). Egleston, N.H., 1878. Villages and Village Life With Hints for Their Improvement. Harper and Brothers, Publishers, New York. Escobedo, F.J., Kroeger, T., Wagner, J.E., 2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 159, 2078–2087. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010 Escobedo, F.J., Nowak, D.J., 2009. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest. Landsc. Urban Plan. 90, 102–110. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.10.021   146 Esri Data and Maps, 2010. USA Parks [WWW Document]. ArcGIS Online. URL http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=578968f975774d3fab79fe56c8c90941 (accessed 9.23.16). Favretti, R.J., 1982. The ornamentation of New England towns: 1750-1850. J. Gard. Hist. 2, 325–342. Fernández-Juricic, E., 2000. Bird community composition patterns in urban parks or Madrid: the role of age, size and isolation. Ecol. Res. 15, 373–383. Fernow, B.E., 1910. The Care of Trees in Lawn, Street and Park. Henry Holt and Company, New York. Ferrini, F., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.C., Fini, A. (Eds.), 2017. Routledge Handbook of Urban Forestry. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19, 81–118. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002 Fields, B., 2009. From Green Dots to Greenways: Planning in the Age of Climate Change in Post-Katrina New Orleans. J. Urban Des. 14, 325–344. doi:10.1080/13574800903056515 Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 Fisher, D.R., Svendsen, E.S., Connolly, J., 2015. Urban Environmental stewardship and Civic Engagement: How planting trees strangthens the roots of democracy. Routledge, New York, NY, NY. Fontaine, L.C., Larson, B.M.H., 2016. The right tree at the right place? Exploring urban foresters’ perceptions of assisted migration. Urban For. Urban Green. 18, 221–227. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.010   147 Fraser, E.D.G., Kenney, W.A., 2000. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. J. Arboric. 26, 106–113. Gatrell, J.D., Jensen, R.R., 2002. Growth through greening: developing and assessing alternative economic development programmes. Appl. Geogr. 22, 331–350. Gehl, J., 2010. Cities for People. Island Press, Washington, DC. Gerhardt, D., 2010. A Survey of Urban Tree Management in Local Authorities in Germany. Myerscough College. Germann-Chiari, C., Seeland, K., 2004. Are urban green spaces optimally distributed to act as places for social integration? Results of a geographical information system (GIS) approach for urban forestry research. For. Policy Econ. 6, 3–13. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00067-9 Gilbert, O.L., 1989. The ecology of urban habitats. Chapmann and Hall, New York. Gobster, P.H., Westphal, L.M., 2004. The human dimensions of urban greenways: Planning for recreation and related experiences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68, 147–165. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00162-2 Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J., Benton, T.G., 2009. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016 Goetz, L., 2017. Top 10 Most Expensive Cities in the U.S. [WWW Document]. Investopedia. URL http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/080916/top-10-most-expensive-cities-us.asp (accessed 10.1.17). Goličnik, B., Ward Thompson, C., 2010. Emerging relationships between design and use of   148 urban park spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 94, 38–53. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.016 Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019 Gould, C.C., 1996. Diversity and Democracy: Representing Differences, in: Benhabib, S. (Ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, NJ, p. 373. Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition, Ecojustice, 2012. Health, Prosperity and Sustainability: The Case for Green Infrastructure in Ontario. Greene, C.S., Millward, A.A., Ceh, B., 2011. Who is likely to plant a tree? The use of public socio-demographic data to characterize client participants in a private urban forestation program. Urban For. Urban Green. 10, 29–38. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2010.11.004 Grey, G.W., Deneke, F.J., 1978. Urban Forestry. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Groenewegen, P.P., van den Berg, A.E., de Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., 2006. Vitamin G: effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health 6, 149. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-149 Groenewegen, P.P., van den Berg, A.E., Maas, J., Verheij, R. a., de Vries, S., 2012. Is a Green Residential Environment Better for Health? If So, Why? Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 102, 996–1003. doi:10.1080/00045608.2012.674899 Hansmann, R., Hug, S.-M., Seeland, K., 2007. Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 6, 213–225. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.08.004   149 Harnik, P., 2010. Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Island Press, Washington, DC. Harnik, P., Donahue, R., Weiswerda, L., 2012. 2012 City Park Facts. Harnik, P., Martin, A., 2012. Close-to-Home Parks: A Half-Mile or Less. Heidt, V., Neef, M., 2008. Benefits of Urban Green Space for Improving Urban Climate, in: Carreiro, M., Song, Y., Wu, J. (Eds.), Ecology, Planning, and Management of Urban Forests. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 84–96. Hendricks, A., Lee, C., Guillén-Chapman, K., Horner, B., Cairo, J., Yocom, J., Hallquist, J., Kennedy-Wong, E., Rodríguez, M., Smith, J., Evans, M., Lam, T., 2017. Five-Year Racial Equity Plan. Portland, OR. Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic. 29, 434–444. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013 Herzog, T.R., Maguire, P., Nebel, M.B., 2003. Assessing the restorative components of environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 23, 159–170. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00113-5 Heynen, N.C., 2003. The scalar production of injustice within the urban forest. Antipode 35, 980–998. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2003.00367.x Heynen, N.C., Lindsey, G., 2003. Correlates of urban forest canopy cover: Implications for local public works. Public Work. Manag. Policy 8, 33–47. doi:10.1177/1087724X03253604 Heynen, N.C., Perkins, H.A., Parama, R., 2006. The political ecology of uneven urban green space: The impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality n Milwaukee. Urban Aff. Rev. 42, 3–25.   150 Jackson, L.E., 2003. The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 64, 191–200. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00230-X Jiang, B., Chang, C.Y., Sullivan, W.C., 2014. A dose of nature: Tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 132, 26–36. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.005 Johnston, M., Collins, K., Rushton, B., 1999. A Survey of Urban Forestry in the Republic of Ireland, in: Proceedings of Ireland’s Third Urban Forestry Conference, Galway City, 22-24 April, 1998. Kant, I., 1998. Critique of pure reason. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Kaplan, R., 2007. Employees’ reactions to nearby nature at their workplace: The wild and the tame. Landsc. Urban Plan. 82, 17–24. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.012 Kaplan, R., 2001. The Nature of the View from Home: Psychological Benefits. Environ. Behav. 33, 507–542. doi:10.1177/00139160121973115 Kaplan, R., 1993. The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landsc. Urban Plan. 26, 193–201. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(93)90016-7 Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York. Kendal, D., 2014. City of Melbourne Urban Forest Community Engagement 2013-2014 Final Report - June 2014. Melbourne, AU. Kirkpatrick, J.B., Daniels, G.D., Davison, A., 2011. Temporal and spatial variation in garden and street trees in six eastern Australian cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 101, 244–252. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.029   151 Konijnendijk, C.C., Annerstedt, M., Nielsen, A.B., Maruthaveeran, S., 2013. Benefits of Urban Parks - A systematic review, International Federation of Parks and Recreation Administration. Copenhagen and Alnarp. Konijnendijk, C.C., Ricard, R.M., Kenney, A., Randrup, T.B., 2006. Defining urban forestry – A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban For. Urban Green. 4, 93–103. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2005.11.003 Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environ. Behav. 33, 343–367. doi:10.1177/0013916501333002 Kweon, B.-S., Sullivan, W.C., Wiley, A.R., 1998. Green common spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Environ. Behav. 30, 832–858. doi:10.1177/001391659803000605 Lafary, E.W., Gatrell, J.D., Jensen, R.R., 2008. People, pixels and weights in Vanderburgh County, Indiana: toward a new urban geography of human–environment interactions. Geocarto Int. 23, 53–66. doi:10.1080/10106040701494575 Lafortezza, R., Carrus, G., Sanesi, G., Davies, C., 2009. Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban For. Urban Green. 8, 97–108. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.02.003 Landry, S.M., Chakraborty, J., 2009. Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environ. Plan. A 41, 2651–2670. doi:10.1068/a41236 Lawrence, A., De Vreese, R., Johnston, M., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.C., Sanesi, G., 2013. Urban forest governance: Towards a framework for comparing approaches. Urban For.   152 Urban Green. 12, 464–473. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2013.05.002 Lawrence, H.W., 1995. Changing forms and persistent values: historical perspectives on the urban forest, in: Bradley, G.A. (Ed.), Urban Landscapes: Integrating Multidisciplinary Perspectives. University of Washington Press, Seattle, pp. 17–40. Li, G., Weng, Q., 2007. Measuring the quality of life in city of Indianapolis by integration of remote sensing and census data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 28, 249–267. doi:10.1080/01431160600735624 Lottrup, L., Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2013. Workplace greenery and perceived level of stress: Benefits of access to a green outdoor environment at the workplace. Landsc. Urban Plan. 110, 5–11. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.002 Lottrup, L., Stigsdotter, U.K., Meilby, H., Claudi, A.G., 2015. The Workplace Window View: A Determinant of Office Workers’ Work Ability and Job Satisfaction. Landsc. Res. 40, 57–75. doi:10.1080/01426397.2013.829806 Lovasi, G.S., Jacobson, J.S., Quinn, J.W., Neckerman, K.M., Ashby-Thompson, M.N., Rundle, A., 2011. Is the environment near home and school associated with physical activity and adiposity of urban preschool children? J. Urban Heal. 88, 1143–1157. doi:10.1007/s11524-011-9604-3 Lovasi, G.S., Quinn, J.W., Neckerman, K.M., Perzanowski, M.S., Rundle, A., 2008. Children living in areas with more street trees have lower prevalence of asthma. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 62, 647–9. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.071894 Lovell, S.T., 2010. Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the   153 United States. Sustainability 2, 2499–2522. doi:10.3390/su2082499 Low, N., Gleeson, B., 1998. Justice, Society, and Nature: An Exploration of Political Ecology. Psychology Press, New York. Luck, G.W., 2007. A review of the relationships between human population density and biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 82, 607–645. Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2006. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 60, 587–92. doi:10.1136/jech.2005.043125 Maco, S.E., McPherson, E.G., 2003. A practical approach to assessing structure, function and value of street tree populations in small communities. J. Arboric. 29, 84–97. Mansfield, C., Pattanayak, S.K., McDow, W., McDonald, R., Halpin, P., 2005. Shades of Green: Measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market. J. For. Econ. 11, 177–199. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2005.08.002 Martens, D., Gutscher, H., Bauer, N., 2011. Walking in “wild” and “tended” urban forests: The impact on psychological well-being. J. Environ. Psychol. 31, 36–44. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.001 Martin, C.A., Peterson, K.A., Stabler, L.B., 2003. Residential landscaping in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.: Practices and preferences relative to covenants, codes, and restrictions. J. Arboric. 29, 9–17. doi:10.1145/820127.820132 Mathey, J., Rößler, S., Lehmann, I., Bräuer, A., 2011. Resilient Cities 479–485. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0785-6   154 McBride, J., 2011. Mapping Chicago area urban tree canopy using color infrared imagery. Masters Thesis. Lund University. McConnachie, M.M., Shackleton, C.M., 2010. Public green space inequality in small towns in South Africa. Habitat Int. 34, 244–248. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.09.009 McLain, R., MacFarland, K., Brody, L., Hebert, J., Hurley, P., Poe, M., Buttolph, L.P., Gabriel, N., Dzuna, M., Emery, M.R., Charnley, S., 2012a. Gathering in the City: An Annotated Bibliography and Review of the Literature About Human-Plant Interactions in Urban Ecosystems, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-849. Portland, OR. McLain, R., Poe, M., Hurley, P.T., Lecompte-Mastenbrook, J., Emery, M.R., 2012b. Producing edible landscapes in Seattle’s urban forest. Urban For. Urban Green. 11, 187–194. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.12.002 McPhearson, T., Auch, R., Alberti, M., 2013. Regional Assessment of North America: Urbanization Trends, Biodiversity Patterns, and Ecosystem Services, in: Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., Parnell, S., Schewenius, M., Sendstad, M., Seto, K.C., Wilkinson, C. (Eds.), Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer Netherlands, New York, pp. 279–286. McPherson, E.G., Nowak, D., Heisler, G., Grimmond, S., Souch, C., Grant, R., Rowntree, R., 1997. Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban Ecosyst. 1, 49–61. McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Peper, P.J., Maco, S.E., Xiao, Q., 2005. Municipal Forest Benefits and Costs in Five US Cities. J. For. 103, 411–416.   155 McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Xiao, Q., Wu, C., 2011. Million trees Los Angeles canopy cover and benefit assessment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 99, 40–50. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.011 McPherson, G., Simpson, J.R., Peper, P.J., Xiao, Q., 1999. Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto’s municipal urban forest. J. Arboric. 25, 235–248. Michael, S.E., Hull, R.B., Zahm, D.L., 2001. Environmental factors influencing auto burglary: A case study. Environ. Behav. 33, 368–388. doi:10.1177/00139160121973034 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Mincey, S.K., Hutten, M., Fischer, B.C., Evans, T.P., Stewart, S.I., Vogt, J.M., 2013. Structuring institutional analysis for urban ecosystems: A key to sustainable urban forest management. Urban Ecosyst. 16, 553–571. doi:10.1007/s11252-013-0286-3 Mitchell, R., Popham, F., 2008. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 372, 1655–1660. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61689-X Mitchell, R., Popham, F., 2007. Greenspace, urbanity and health: relationships in England. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 61, 681–3. doi:10.1136/jech.2006.053553 Mooney, P., Brown, G., 2013. Ecosystem services, natural capital and nature’s benefits in the urban region: Information for professionals and citizens. Vancouver, BC. Morales, D.J., 1980. The contribution of trees to residential property value. J. Arboric. 11, 305–308.   156 Morani, A., Nowak, D.J., Hirabayashi, S., Calfapietra, C., 2011. How to select the best tree planting locations to enhance air pollution removal in the MillionTreesNYC initiative. Environ. Pollut. 159, 1040–1047. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2010.11.022 Morimoto, Y., 2011. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in urban areas for smart adaptation to climate change: “Do you Kyoto”? Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 7, 9–16. doi:10.1007/s11355-010-0140-1 Morita, E., Fukuda, S., Nagano, J., Hamajima, N., Yamamoto, H., Iwai, Y., Nakashima, T., Ohira, H., Shirakawa, T., 2007. Psychological effects of forest environments on healthy adults: Shinrin-yoku (forest-air bathing, walking) as a possible method of stress reduction. Public Health 121, 54–63. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2006.05.024 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017. 1981-2010 Normals | Data Tools | Climate Data Online (CDO) | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) [WWW Document]. URL https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals (accessed 5.29.16). Nesbitt, L., Hotte, N., Barron, S., Cowan, J., Sheppard, S.R.J., 2017. The social and economic value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America: A review and suggestions for future research. Urban For. Urban Green. 25, 103–111. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.005 Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M.J., 2016. Exploring relationships between socioeconomic background and urban greenery in Portland, OR. Forests 7, 1–14. doi:10.3390/f7080162 New York City Environmental Protection, 2017. Air Pollution [WWW Document]. URL http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/air/index.shtml (accessed 10.1.17).   157 Newig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level - and effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 19, 197–214. doi:10.1002/eet.509 Nowak, D.J., 1994. Air pollution removal by Chicago’s urban forest, in: McPherson, E., Nowak, D. (Eds.), Chicago’s Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. United States Department of Agriculture, Radnor, pp. 63–81. Nowak, D.J., Civerolo, K.L., Trivikrama Rao, S., Gopal Sistla, Luley, C.J., E. Crane, D., 2000. A modeling study of the impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmos. Environ. 34, 1601–1613. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00394-5 Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ. Pollut. 116, 381–389. Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., Stevens, J.C., 2006. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For. Urban Green. 4, 115–123. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007 Nowak, D.J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A., Hoehn, R., 2013. Modeled PM2.5 removal by trees in ten U.S. cities and associated health effects. Environ. Pollut. 178, 395–402. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.050 NYC Parks, 2017a. NYC Parks: Green Neighborhoods Program [WWW Document]. URL https://www.nycgovparks.org/reg/greenneighborhoods (accessed 9.6.17). NYC Parks, 2017b. About Parks: NYC Parks [WWW Document]. URL https://www.nycgovparks.org/about (accessed 10.3.17). NYC Parks, 2017c. Parks Without Borders [WWW Document]. URL https://www.nycgovparks.org/planning-and-building/planning/parks-without-borders   158 (accessed 10.3.17). NYC Parks, 2017d. MillionTreesNYC [WWW Document]. URL https://www.nycgovparks.org/trees/milliontreesnyc (accessed 10.3.17). NYCParks, 2014. NYC Parks: Framework for an Equitable Future. New York, NY. Oakley, D.A., Logan, J.R., 2015. A Spatial Analysis of the Urban Landscape: What Accounts for Differences Across Neighbourhoods?, in: Lobao, L.M., Hooks, G., Tickamyer, A.R. (Eds.), The Sociology of Spatial Inequality. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 215–230. Ogneva-Himmelberger, Y., Pearsall, H., Rakshit, R., 2009. Concrete evidence & geographically weighted regression: A regional analysis of wealth and the land cover in Massachusetts. Appl. Geogr. 29, 478–487. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.03.001 Oke, T.R., 1973. City size and the urban heat island. Atmos. Environ. 14, 769–779. Paavola, J., Adger, W.N., 2006. Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol. Econ. 56, 594–609. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.015 Park, B.J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Kasetani, T., Kagawa, T., Miyazaki, Y., 2010. The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): Evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 15, 18–26. doi:10.1007/s12199-009-0086-9 Pearsall, H., Christman, Z., 2012. Tree-lined lanes or vacant lots? Evaluating non-stationarity between urban greenness and socio-economic conditions in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA at multiple scales. Appl. Geogr. 35, 257–264.   159 Peck, S., 2000. Green infrastructure funds. Altern. J. 26, 39. Peckham, S.C., Duinker, P.N., Ordoñez, C., 2013. Urban forest values in Canada: Views of citizens in Calgary and Halifax. Urban For. Urban Green. 12, 154–162. Pitt, D., Soergell II, K., Zube, E., 1979. Trees in the city, in: Laurie, I. (Ed.), Nature in Cities: The Natural Environment in the Design and Development of Urban Green Space. Wiley, Chichester, New York. Portland Parks and Recreation, 2017a. Partnerships & Donations [WWW Document]. URL https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/46239 (accessed 10.2.17). Portland Parks and Recreation, 2017b. Urban Forestry Commission [WWW Document]. URL https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/41487 (accessed 10.2.17). Portland Parks and Recreation, 2017c. Equity & Inclusion [WWW Document]. URL https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/72012 (accessed 10.2.17). Portland Parks and Recreation, 2015. Urban Forest Action Plan, 2014 Implementation Update. Portland, OR. Portland Parks and Recreation, 2007. Urban Forest Action Plan. Portland, OR. Portland Parks and Recreation, Urban Forestry Management Plan Technical Advisory Committee, 2004. Portland Urban Forestry Management Plan 2004. Portland, OR. Poudyal, N.C., Hodges, D.G., Merrett, C.D., 2009. A hedonic analysis of the demand for and benefits of urban recreation parks. Land use policy 26, 975–983. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.11.008 Price, C., 2003. Quantifying the aesthetic benefits of urban forestry. Urban For. Urban Green. 1,   160 123–133. doi:10.1078/1618-8667-00013 Primm, J.N., 1998. Lion of the Valley: St. Louis, Missouri, 1764-1980. Missouri History Museum, St. Louis. QSR International Pty Ltd., 2017. NVivo qualitative data analysis Software. Rawls, J., 1999. A Theory of Justice, Revised ed. ed. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, MA. Revi,  a., 2014. 8. Urban Areas 535–612. Ricard, R.M., 2005. Shade Trees and Tree Wardens: Revising the History of Urban Forestry. J. For. 103, 230–233. Rishbeth, C., 2004. Ethno-cultural representation in the urban landscape. J. Urban Des. 9, 311–333. doi:10.1080/1357480042000283878 Rishbeth, C., 2001. Ethnic Minority Groups and the Design of Public Open Space: An inclusive landscape? Landsc. Res. 26, 351–366. doi:10.1080/0142639012009014 Rizzotto, M.L.F., Bortoloto, C., 2011. The concept of equity for designing social policies: political and ideological assumptions of the development proposal of CEPAL. Interface (Botucatu) 15, 793–804. Roy, S., Byrne, J., Pickering, C., 2012. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban For. Urban Green. 11, 351–363. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.006 Sanesi, G., Gallis, C., Kasperidus, H.D., 2011. Urban forests and their ecosystem services in relation to human health, in: Nilsson, K., Sangster, M., Gallis, C., Hartig, T., de Vries, S.,   161 Seeland, K., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Forests, Trees and Human Health. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 23–40. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9806-1 Sanesi, G., Padoa-Schioppa, E., Lafortezza, R., Lorusso, L., Bottoni, L., 2009. Avian ecological diversity as indicator of urban forest functionality. Results from two case studies in Northern and Southern Italy. Arboric. Urban For. 35, 53–59. Saretok, L., 2006. A Survey of Urban Forestry in Sweden. Myerscough College. Savard, J.-P.L., Clergeau, P., Mennechez, G., 2000. Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 48, 131–142. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00037-2 Schlosberg, D., 2007. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford University Press, New York. Schwarz, K., Fragkias, M., Boone, C.G., Zhou, W., McHale, M., Grove, J.M., O’Neil-Dunne, J., McFadden, J.P., Buckley, G.L., Childers, D., Ogden, L., Pincetl, S., Pataki, D., Whitmer, A., Cadenasso, M.L., 2015. Trees grow on money: urban tree canopy cover and environmental justice. PLoS One 10, 1–17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122051 Sellers, P.J., 1987. Relations between canopy reflectance, photosynthesis and transpiration: Links between optics, biophysics and canopy architecture. Adv. Sp. Res. 7, 27–44. Semeuls, A., 2016. The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America [WWW Document]. Atl. URL https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/racist-history-portland/492035/ (accessed 10.2.17). Sherer, P.M., The Trust for Public Land, 2006. The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space.   162 Sieghardt, M., Mursch-Radlgruber, E., Paoletti, E., Couenberg, E., Dimitrakopoulus, A., Rego, F., Hatzistathis, A., Randrup, T.B., 2005. The abiotic urban environment: Impact of urban growing conditons on urban vegetation, in: Konijnendijk, C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T., Schipperijn, J. (Eds.), Urban Forests and Trees. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 281–323. doi:10.1007/3-540-27684-X Smith, N., 2008. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space, Third Edit. ed. Athens, GA. Solotaroff, W., 1911. Shade Trees in Towns and Cities. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Svendsen, E.S., Campbell, L.K., 2008. Urban ecological stewardship: understanding the structure, function and network of community-based urban land management. Cities Environ. 1, 1–32. Swyngedouw, E., Kaïka, M., Castro, E., 2002. Urban Water: A Political-Ecology Perspective. Built Environ. 28, 124–137. doi:10.2307/23288796 Takano, T., Nakamura, K., Watanabe, M., 2002. Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 56, 913–918. doi:10.1136/jech.56.12.913 Talarchek, G., 1990. The urban forests of New Orleans: an exploratory analysis of relationships. Urban Geogr. 11, 65–86. Tallis, M., Taylor, G., Sinnett, D., Freer-Smith, P., 2011. Estimating the removal of atmospheric particulate pollution by the urban tree canopy of London, under current and future environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 103, 129–138. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.07.003   163 Taylor, C., 1994. Multiculturalism. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, NJ. Taylor, R.W., 2012. Urbanization, Local Government, and Planning for Sustainability, in: Weintsein, M.P., Turner, R.E. (Eds.), Sustainability Science: The Emerging Paradigm and the Urban Environment. Springer, New York, p. 446. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-62709-4.00003-8 The Trust for Public Land, 2017. ParkScore 2017: Methodology [WWW Document]. Park. 2017. URL http://parkscore.tpl.org/methodology.php#sm.01hkpmt719khfkh10ep270n41fh8o (accessed 4.23.17). Thompson, C.W., 2002. Urban open space in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 60, 59–72. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00059-2 Tjallingii, S.P., 2000. Ecology on the edge : Landscape and ecology between town and country. Landsc. Urban Plan. 48, 103–119. Tobler, W.R., 1970. A Computer Movie Simulation Urban Growth in Detroit Region. Econ. Geogr. 46, 234–240. doi:10.1126/science.11.277.620 Troy, A., Grove, J.M., O’Neil-Dunne, J., 2012. The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban-rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landsc. Urban Plan. 106, 262–270. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.010 Tucker, C.J., 1979. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens. Environ. 8, 127–150. Tyler, S., Moench, M., 2012. A framework for urban climate resilience. Clim. Dev. 4, 311–326. doi:10.1080/17565529.2012.745389   164 Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A., Korpela, K., Lanki, T., Tsunetsugu, Y., Kagawa, T., 2014. The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.005 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017. Geographic Terms and Concepts - Census Tract [WWW Document]. URL https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_ct.html (accessed 6.21.17). U.S. Census Bureau, 2016. Geographic Terms and Concepts - Block Groups [WWW Document]. URL https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_bg.html (accessed 4.13.16). U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a. American Community Survey and Puerto Rico Community Survey: 2013 Subject Definitions. U.S. Census Bureau, 2013b. 2013 TIGER/Line Shapefiles (machine-readable data files). U.S. Census Bureau, 2012. Part IV, Qualifying Urban Areas for the 2010 Census; Notice. Fed. Regist. 77, 18652–18669. U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. Urban Area Criteria for the 2010 Census. Fed. Regist. 76, 53030–53043. Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. a., Zelson, M., 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 11, 201–230. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2015. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. New York. US Census Bureau, 2017. QuickFacts selected: Portland city, Oregon; Phoenix city, Arizona;   165 New York city, New York [WWW Document]. US Census Bur. QuickFacts. URL https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/portlandcityoregon,phoenixcityarizona,newyorkcitynewyork/PST045216 (accessed 10.3.17). US Census Bureau, 2015. ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates [WWW Document]. URL https://factfinder.census.gov/ (accessed 10.3.17). US Census Bureau, 2014. American FactFinder - About the Data [WWW Document]. URL http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=dataset&id=dataset.en.ACS_13_5YR (accessed 4.20.16). US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017. Environmental Justice [WWW Document]. URL https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice (accessed 9.8.17). Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 2014. Rewilding Vancouver. Ward Thompson, C., Aspinall, P. a., 2011. Natural environments and their impact on activity, health, and quality of life. Appl. Psychol. Heal. Well-Being 3, 230–260. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01053.x Ward Thompson, C., Roe, J., Aspinall, P., Mitchell, R., Clow, A., Miller, D., 2012. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 105, 221–229. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.015 Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P., 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough.” Landsc. Urban Plan. 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017   166 Wolf, K.L., 2005. Business district streetscapes, trees, and consumer response. J. For. 103, 396–400. Wolf, K.L., 2003. Public response to the urban forest in inner-city business districts. J. Arboric. 29, 117–126. Yamaguchi, M., Deguchi, M., Miyazaki, Y., 2006. The effects of exercise in forest and urban environments on sympathetic nervous activity of normal young adults. J. Int. Med. Res. 34, 152–159. Yang, J., McBride, J., Zhou, J., Sun, Z., 2004. The urban forest in Beijing and its role in air pollution reduction. Urban For. Urban Green. 3, 65–78. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2004.09.001 Young, I.M., 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, NJ. Zhang, H., Jim, C.Y., 2014. Species diversity and performance assessment of trees in domestic gardens. Landsc. Urban Plan. 128, 23–34. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.017    167 Appendices Appendix A   A.1 Electronic Flyer    Version	2:	October	6,	2016,	2016	 	 Page	1	of	1		AN	EXPLORATION	OF	URBAN	GREEN	EQUITY	IN	NORTH	AMERICA:	A	CALL	FOR	PARTICIPANTS		The	IDEAL	Lab	in	the	Faculty	of	Forestry,	University	of	British	Columbia,	is	recruiting	experts	and	key	informants	in	the	areas	of	urban	forestry,	public	and	open	space	design	and	management,	and	neighborhood	greening	to	take	part	in	an	interview	on	equitable	access	to	urban	greenery.	We	would	like	to	learn	more	about	urban	forestry	in	your	city	and	your	personal	and	organizational	perspectives	on	equitable	access	to	urban	greenery.	Interviews	will	be	semi-structured	and	will	be	conducted	in	person.	 		Study	Title:	An	Exploration	of	Urban	Green	Equity	in	North	America	Date:	Early	November,	2016	–	to	be	arranged	with	participants	 	Time:	By	appointment	–	approximately	30-60	minutes	Contact	information:	 	Email:	 	Phone:	 		Abstract:	 Urban	 forests	 generate	 many	 widely-accepted	 benefits,	 from	 microclimatic	regulation	to	improved	public	health.	Despite	the	clear	importance	of	these	benefits	in	urban	environments,	it	is	unclear	whether	urban	residents	are	able	to	experience	these	benefits	in	an	 equitable	 way.	 This	 research	 project	 develops	 the	 concept	 of	 urban	 green	 equity	 and	assesses	its	implications	for	urban	forest	management.	The	first	phase	of	the	project	explores	ways	in	which	urban	societies	experience	greenery	in	the	city,	and	how	the	spatial	distribution	of	urban	greenery	affects	 these	experiences.	The	second	phase	of	 the	project	uses	a	case-study	approach	to	examine	how	local	communities	and	municipalities	understand	the	concept	of	urban	green	equity,	and	how	other	 factors,	 such	as	species	or	 intangible	services,	affect	urban	green	equity	in	the	local	context.	 		Eligibility:	 To	 be	 eligible	 to	 participate	 in	 the	 study,	 you	 must	 have	 at	 least	 6	 months	 of	professional	or	volunteer	experience	 in	 the	areas	of	urban	 forestry,	public	and	open	space	design,	planning	or	management,	or	neighbourhood	greening	in	your	city.		Details:	For	more	details,	please	contact	Lorien.			Regards,		Michael	J.	Meitner,	Associate	Professor,	Faculty	of	Forestry	Lorien	Nesbitt,	Ph.D.	Candidate,	Faculty	of	Forestry				  168 A.2 Informed Consent Form  Page 1 of 2  The	University	of	British	Columbia	Faculty	of	Forestry,	Forest	Resources	Management	2nd	Floor,	Forest	Sciences	Centre	2045,	2424	Main	Mall,	Vancouver,	B.C.,	V6T	1Z4			Consent	Form	An	Exploration	of	Urban	Green	Equity	in	North	America		Principal	 Investigator:	 Dr.	 Michael	 J.	 Meitner,	 Faculty	 of	 Forestry,	 Forest	 Resources	Management.		Co-Investigator:	 Lorien	 Nesbitt	 (PhD	 Candidate),	 Faculty	 of	 Forestry,	 Forest	 Resources	Management.		Purpose:	This	research	project	develops	the	concept	of	urban	green	equity	and	assesses	its	implications	 for	urban	 forest	management.	The	 first	phase	of	 the	project	explores	ways	 in	which	 urban	 societies	 experience	 greenery	 in	 the	 city,	 and	 how	 the	 spatial	 distribution	 of	urban	greenery	affects	these	experiences.	 	 The	second	phase	of	the	project	uses	a	case-study	approach	to	examine	how	local	communities	and	municipalities	understand	the	concept	of	urban	green	equity,	and	how	other	factors,	such	as	species	or	intangible	services,	affect	urban	green	equity	in	the	local	context.		Confidentiality:	The	information	that	you	provide	in	this	experiment	will	be	held	in	confidence	and	only	the	investigators	will	have	access	to	the	information.	Each	subject	will	be	assigned	an	 anonymous	 ID	 (identification	 number)	 that	 will	 be	 associated	 with	 your	 results.	 No	personally	 identifiable	 information	 will	 be	 collected	 and	 associated	 with	 the	 ID.	 Some	demographic	data	may	be	collected.	Any	data	resulting	from	this	experiment	will	be	stored	in	a	 password	 protected	 computer	 database	 and	 only	 the	 ID	 will	 be	 used	 to	 identify	 your	responses.	All	data	will	be	stored	for	a	minimum	of	5	years.	 		Note:	This	data	will	be	used	for	publication	in	academic	journals		Study	 Procedure:	 By	 signing	 this	 form,	 you	 agree	 to	 participate	 in	 a	 research	 project	conducted	by	the	investigators	regarding	your	understanding	of	and	perspectives	on	urban	forestry	and	equitable	access	to	urban	green	equity	in	the	city	in	which	you	live	or	work.	You	will	be	asked	a	series	of	semi-structured	interview	questions	and	will	be	asked	to	respond.	Your	responses	will	be	recorded	on	an	audio-recording	device.	 		 	 	You	will	participate	in	the	research	project,	subject	to	the	following	conditions:		• You	have	at	least	6	months’	experience	in	urban	forestry,	open	or	green	space	design	and	management,	 or	 neighbourhood	 greening	 and	 have	 knowledge	 of	 the	 urban	 forestry	context	in	the	city	in	which	you	live	or	work.	  169   Page 2 of 2  	• If	you	have	any	questions	or	concerns	about	 the	procedures	used	 in	 this	 research,	the	investigators	have	agreed	to	answer	any	questions	and	inquiries	that	you	may	have.		Who	can	you	contact	if	you	have	questions,	complaints	or	concerns	about	the	study?	If	you	have	any	questions	or	concerns	about	this	research	project,	you	may	contact	Lorien	Nesbitt	or	Dr.	Michael	Meitner	at	the	Faculty	of	Forestry,	University	of	British	Columbia.	If	you	have	any	 concerns	 or	 complaints	 about	 your	 rights	 as	 a	 research	 participant	 and/or	 your	experiences	while	participating	in	this	study,	contact	the	Research	Participant	Complaint	Line	in	the	UBC	Office	of	Research	Ethics	or	if	long	distance	e-mail	or	call	toll	free.		Research	 Results:	 If	 you	 wish	 to	 be	 informed	 of	 the	 research	 results,	 you	 will	 have	 an	opportunity	 to	 inform	 the	 researchers	 at	 the	 end	 of	 your	 interview.	 The	 researchers	 will	request	your	contact	information	and	will	share	a	results	brief	with	you	upon	completing	of	the	study.		Consent:	Your	participation	in	this	study	is	entirely	voluntary	and	you	may	refuse	to	participate	or	withdraw	from	the	study	at	any	time.		Your	signature	below	indicates	that	you	have	been	asked	if	you	would	like	to	have	a	copy	of	this	consent	form	and	if	so,	a	copy	has	been	given	to	you.		Your	signature	indicates	that	you	consent	to	participate	in	this	study.	 	 			Name	(please	print)	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 			Signature:	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Date:	 	 	 	 		 			  170 A.3 Interview Protocol  Version	2:	November	29,	2016	An	Exploration	of	Urban	Green	Equity	in	North	America:	Interview	Questions	for	Case	Study	Cities	November	29,	2016	Thank	you	for	agreeing	to	conduct	an	interview	as	part	of	our	research.	We	are	conducting	these	interviews	to	learn	more	about	the	local	context	of	urban	forestry	in	your	city.	We	would	particularly	like	to	gain	your	perspective	on	equitable	access	to	urban	greenery,	both	from	the	perspective	of	your	organization	and	from	your	personal	perspective.	For	the	purposes	of	this	interview,	we	define	urban	forests	and	greenery	broadly	as	all	vegetation	in	the	urban	environment.	Our	definition	of	“urban	green	equity”	is	people-focused	and	refers	to	fair	access	to	or	governance	of	urban	greenery	regardless	of	differentiating	factors	such	as	race,	cultural	background,	education,	or	income.		1 Demographic	information	1.1 Age	1.2 Gender	1.3 Education	2 Organizational	perspective	on	urban	green	equity	I’d	now	like	to	ask	you	a	few	questions	about	your	organization’s	perspectives	and	understanding	of	urban	forest	issues	and	urban	green	equity.	We’ll	come	back	to	your	personal	perspectives	later	in	the	interview.	2.1 What	is	your	job	title	and	organization?	2.2 In	your	current	role,	what	is	your	relationship	with	urban	forestry/what	are	your	primary	responsibilities?	2.3 What	is	your	background	in	or	experience	with	urban	forestry?	2.4 Do	you	know	about	the	history	of	urban	forest	management	in	your	city?		2.4.1 If	yes:	Please	tell	me	about	the	history	of	urban	forest	management	in	your	city.	Open	ended	at	first,	then	prompt	if	necessary:	How	were	urban	forests	managed	in	the	past?	Did	urban	forest	management	change	over	time?	How	did	it	change?	When	did	it	change?	What	motivated	these	changes?	2.5 If	participant	works	for	the	municipality:	How	are	urban	forests	defined	in	your	municipality?	How	are	they	managed?	What	is	the	management	structure?	Who	is	responsible	for	what?	2.6 Does	the	city	have	an	urban	forest	management	plan?	  171  Version	2:	November	29,	2016	2.7 What	are	the	current	urban	forest	priorities	and	focus	in	your	city?	Open	ended	at	first,	then	prompt	additional	issues	if	only	1	or	2	mentioned.	Are	these	priorities	formalized	in,	for	example,	the	management	plan	or	other	strategic	document?	What	is	the	political	status	of	this	document	(e.g.	formally	adopted	by	city	council)?	2.8 What	is	your	understanding	of	the	municipality’s	future	urban	forest	management	priorities	in	your	city?	What’s	on	the	horizon?	2.9 How	are	urban	forest	management	decisions	made	in	your	city?	How	are	decision-making	processes	typically	organized?	What	are	the	“rules	of	the	game”?	What	is	the	role	of	public	participation?		2.9.1 Who	are	the	principal	actors	in	urban	forest	management	in	your	city?	How	do	these	actors	each	influence	urban	forest	planning,	management,	and	priority	setting,	including	allocation	of	resources?	What	are	their	relationships	to	each	other?	Are	these	relationships	and	levels	of	influence	changing?	2.9.2 If	this	hasn’t	already	been	answered:	How	do	these	actors	influence	urban	forestry	priorities	in	your	city?	For	example,	who	has	influence	through	‘formal’	channels	(e.g.	municipality,	municipal	contractors)	and	who	has	influence	through	‘informal’	channels	(e.g.	through	lobbying	efforts	or	person	contacts).	2.10 How	can	or	do	individuals	influence	tree/parks	planning,	planting,	and	management	in	the	city?	2.11 Is	urban	green	equity	something	that	your	organization	is	aware	of?		2.11.1 If	yes:	What	is	meant	by	urban	green	equity	in	this	city?	2.11.2 If	yes:	How	and	when	did	urban	green	equity	become	an	issue?	2.12 How	is	urban	green	equity	reflected	in	your	organization’s	programming	and	policies?	2.13 Thinking	of	the	work	and	priorities	of	your	organization,	could	you	rank	urban	green	equity	in	relation	to	other	urban	forest	issues	in	the	city?	If	needed,	can	prompt	with:	For	example,	urban	forest	issues	could	include	urban	forest	pests,	the	impacts	of	climate	change	on	urban	forests,	street	tree	retention,	etc.	2.14 If	participant	isn’t	a	municipal	employee:	Based	on	your	knowledge	of	the	municipality,	could	you	rank	urban	green	equity	in	relation	to	other	urban	forest	issues	in	the	city?		  172  Version	2:	November	29,	2016	2.15 If	participant	isn’t	a	municipal	employee:	Do	you	believe	that	urban	green	equity	is	an	important	issue	for	the	municipality?	Why?		2.16 If	participant	isn’t	a	municipal	employee:	Do	you	believe	that	the	municipality	has	programming/policies	on	urban	green	equity?	2.17 How	do	you	believe	other	urban	forestry-related	organizations	in	the	city	view	the	importance	of	urban	green	equity?	Are	there	any	‘champions’	of	green	equity	in	current	decision	making?	2.18 What	are	some	of	the	barriers	to	urban	green	equity	in	your	city?		2.19 What	is	the	city	/	your	organization	doing	to	overcome	these	barriers?	2.20 If	this	doesn’t	come	up	earlier:	What	are	some	of	the	local	pressures/challenges	in	urban	forest	management?	2.21 Present	spatial	analysis	maps	here.	Large	format	maps	of	1)	mixed	vegetation	cover	and	2)	predominantly	woody	vegetation	cover.	Please	take	a	look	at	these	maps.	Can	you	comment	on	the	patterns	you	see?	Why	do	you	think	these	patterns	exist?	2.22 Have	the	maps	changed	your	mind	on	issues	around	urban	green	inequity?	Have	they	made	you	think	of	anything	else	we	should	discuss	related	to	urban	green	inequity?	2.23 This	is	the	end	of	the	organizational	section	of	the	interview.	Before	I	move	on,	is	there	anything	else	we	have	missed	that	we	should	discuss?	3 Personal	perspective	on	urban	green	equity	This	section	of	the	interview	is	focused	on	understanding	your	personal	experience	and	opinions.	It	is	an	opportunity	for	you	to	tell	me	about	your	personal	preferences	and	reflections.		3.1 Aside	from	what	we’ve	talked	about	previously,	what	is	your	personal	perspective	on	urban	green	equity?	3.2 Can	you	list	examples	of	inequitable	urban	green	inequity	in	your	city?	In	your	neighbourhood?	3.3 Think	about	your	favourite	part	of	the	urban	forest	(e.g.	a	certain	tree,	park,	garden).	What	do	you	like	best	about	it?		3.3.1 Please	mark	it	on	the	map.	3.4 Think	about	your	least	favourite	part	of	the	urban	forest	(e.g.	a	certain	tree,	park,	garden).	What	do	you	dislike	most	about	it?		3.4.1 Please	mark	it	on	the	map.		  173   Version	2:	November	29,	2016	3.5 Thinking	about	what	you	“like”	and	“dislike”,	how	do	these	preferences	affect	how	you	think	about	urban	green	equity?	How	do	issues	of	preference	play	into	concepts	of	urban	green	equity	and	management?	If	necessary,	can	prompt	with:	For	example,	how	do	individual	preferences	for	certain	trees	species	or	park	facilities	affect	equitable	access	to	urban	greenery?	How	do	they	affect	issues	of	identity	and	place	or	seeing	personal	culture	reflected	in	the	urban	forest?		  174 Appendix B   The socioeconomic variables used in the analysis are defined below as in the 2013 American Community Survey 2013 Subject Definitions (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a). B.1 Median Age “The data on age were derived from answers to Question 4 in the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS). The age classification is based on the age of the person in complete years at the time of interview. Both age and date of birth are used in combination to calculate the most accurate age at the time of the interview. Respondents are asked to give an age in whole, completed years as of interview date as well as the month, day and year of birth. People are not to round an age up if the person is close to having a birthday, and to estimate an age if the exact age is not known. An additional instruction on babies also asks respondents to print “0” for babies less than one year old. Inconsistently reported and missing values are assigned or imputed based on the values of other variables for that person, from other people in the household, or from people in other households (“hot deck” imputation).” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, p. 48) “The median age is the age that divides the population into two equal-size groups. Half of the population is older than the median age and half is younger. Median age is based on a standard distribution of the population by single years of age and is shown to the nearest tenth of a year.” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, p. 49)   175 B.2 Race “The data on race were derived from answers to the question on race that was asked of all people (Question 6 in the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS)). The U.S. Census Bureau collects race data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and these data are based on self-identification. The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. In addition, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include racial and national origin or sociocultural groups. People may choose to report more than one race to indicate their racial mixture, such as “American Indian” and “White.” People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race. The racial classifications used by the Census Bureau adhere to the October 30, 1997, Federal Register notice entitled, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity” issued by OMB. These standards govern the categories used to collect and present federal data on race and ethnicity. OMB requires five minimum categories (White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander) for race. The race categories are described below with a sixth category, “Some Other Race,” added with OMB approval. In addition to the five race groups, OMB also states that respondents should be offered the option of selecting one or more races. If an individual did not provide a race response, the race or races of the householder or other household members were imputed using specific rules of precedence of household relationship.   176 For example, if race was missing for a natural-born child in the household, then either the race or races of the householder, another natural-born child, or spouse of the householder were imputed. If race was not reported for anyone in the household, then the race or races of a householder in a previously processed household were imputed.  Definitions from OMB guide the Census Bureau in classifying written responses to the race question.” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, p. 108) White		“A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “White” or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, p. 108) Black	or	African	American	population	“A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “Black, African Am., or Negro” or report entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, p. 108) American	Indian	or	Alaska	Native		“A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. This category includes people who indicate their race as “American Indian or Alaska Native” or report entries   177 such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup’ik, or Central American Indian groups, or South American Indian groups.” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, p. 109) Asian	“A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes people who indicate their race as “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,” “Korean,” “Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” and “Other Asian” or provide other detailed Asian responses.” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, p. 110) B.3 Hispanic or Latino “The data on the Hispanic or Latino population were derived from answers to a question that was asked of all people (Question 5 in the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS)). The terms “Hispanic,” “Latino,” and “Spanish” are used interchangeably. Some respondents identify with all three terms while others may identify with only one of these three specific terms. Hispanics or Latinos who identify with the terms “Hispanic,” “Latino,” or “Spanish” are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish categories listed on the questionnaire (“Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” or “Cuban”) as well as those who indicate that they are “another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.” People who do not identify with one of the specific origins listed on the questionnaire but indicate that they are “another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin” are those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, or the Dominican Republic. Up to two write-in responses to the “another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin” category are coded.   178 Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race.” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, p. 73) B.4 Income in the Past 12 Months “The data on income were derived from answers to Questions 47 and 48 in the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS), which were asked of the population 15 years old and over. “Total income” is the sum of the amounts reported separately for wage or salary income; net self-employment income; interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad Retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income. Receipts from the following sources are not included as income: capital gains, money received from the sale of property (unless the recipient was engaged in the business of selling such property); the value of income “in kind” from food stamps, public housing subsidies, medical care, employer contributions for individuals, etc.; withdrawal of bank deposits; money borrowed; tax refunds; exchange of money between relatives living in the same household; gifts and lump-sum inheritances, insurance payments, and other types of lump- sum receipts.” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, p. 80)   179 B.5 Level of Education Completed The variables representing level of education completed were aggregated to represent the population with less than a high school degree and the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher.  “Data on educational attainment were derived from answers to Question 11 on the 2013 ACS, which was asked of all respondents. Educational attainment data are tabulated for people 18 years old and over. Respondents are classified according to the highest degree or the highest level of school completed. The question included instructions for persons currently enrolled in school to report the level of the previous grade attended or the highest degree received. The educational attainment question included a response category that allowed people to report completing the 12th grade without receiving a high school diploma. Respondents who received a regular high school diploma and did not attend college were instructed to report “Regular high school diploma.” Respondents who received the equivalent of a high school diploma (for example, passed the test of General Educational Development (G.E.D.)), and did not attend college, were instructed to report “GED or alternative credential.” “Some college” is in two categories: “Some college credit, but less than 1 year of college credit” and “1 or more years of college credit, no degree.” The category “Associate’s degree” included people whose highest degree is an associate’s degree, which generally requires 2 years of college level work and is either in an occupational program that prepares them for a specific occupation, or an academic program primarily in the arts and sciences. The course work may or may not be transferable to a bachelor’s degree. Master’s degrees include the traditional MA and MS degrees and field-specific degrees, such as MSW, MEd, MBA, MLS, and MEng. Instructions included in the   180 respondent instruction guide for mailout/mailback respondents only provided the following examples of professional school degrees: medicine, dentistry, chiropractic, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, veterinary medicine, law, and theology. The order in which degrees were listed suggested that doctorate degrees were “higher” than professional school degrees, which were “higher” than master's degrees. If more than one box was filled, the response was edited to the highest level or degree reported.” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, p. 61) B.6 Median Year Structure Built The data on median year structure built were aggregated by decade, as this was judged to be a more acceptable level of accuracy for the analysis. “The data on year structure built were obtained from Housing Question 2 in the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS). The question was asked at both occupied and vacant housing units. Year structure built refers to when the building was first constructed, not when it was remodeled, added to, or converted. Housing units under construction are included as vacant housing if they meet the housing unit definition, that is, all exterior windows, doors, and final usable floors are in place. For mobile homes, houseboats, RVs, etc., the manufacturer's model year was assumed to be the year built. The data relate to the number of units built during the specified periods that were still in existence at the time of interview. The year the structure was built provides information on the age of housing units. These data help identify new housing construction and measures the disappearance of old housing from the inventory, when used in combination with data from previous years. The data also serve to aid in   181 the development of formulas to determine substandard housing and provide assistance in forecasting future services, such as energy consumption and fire protection. Median year structure built divides the distribution into two equal parts: one-half of the cases falling below the median year structure built and one-half above the median. Median year structure built is computed on the basis of a standard distribution. (See the “Median Standard Distributions” section in Appendix A.) The median is rounded to the nearest calendar year. Median age of housing can be obtained by subtracting median year structure built from survey year. For example, if the median year structure built is 1969, the median age of housing in that area is 44 years (2013 minus 1969).” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a, p. 45)     182 Appendix C   C.1 Bivariate Correlation Results * p > 0.05, ** p > 0.01   Coeff-bg Coeff-ct Coeff-bg Coeff-ct Coeff-bg Coeff-ctMedian	Age 0.315** 0.418** 0.207** 0.246** 0.031* 0.063**Proportion	White 0.244** 0.252** 0.073** 0.063** 0.026 -0.004Proportion	Black -0.103** -0.096** 0.087** 0.100** 0.008 0.035Proportion	Am	Indian -0.095** -0.13** -0.081** -0.109** -0.018 -0.042Proportion	Asian 0.005 0.01 0.022 0.013 0.185** 0.222**Proportion	Latino -0.335** -0.354** -0.388** -0.439** -0.129** -0.140**Proportion	no	high	school -0.234** -0.308** -0.224** -0.274** -0.123** -0.147**Proportion	bachelor	or	higher 0.243** 0.211** 0.358** 0.364** 0.196** 0.196**Per	capita	income 0.241** 0.275** 0.271** 0.312** 0.134** 0.142**Population	density -0.459** -0.577** -0.057** -0.057** 0.076** 0.041Median	house	age -0.234** -0.343** 0.085** 0.074** -0.062** -0.082**n 5196 1773 5196 1773 5196 1773Median	Age 0.196** 0.189** 0.223** 0.235** 0.040 0.084*Proportion	White 0.028 -0.001 0.082** 0.045 0.052* 0.023Proportion	Black 0.026 0.071* -0.044* 0.002 -0.081* -0.058Proportion	Am	Indian 0.011 0.006 0.000 0.023 -0.004 0.018Proportion	Asian -0.119** -0.160** -0.112** -0.118** -0.127** -0.126**Proportion	Latino -0.122** -0.129** -0.118** -0.119** 0.078** 0.079*Proportion	no	high	school -0.071** -0.071* -0.070** -0.048 0.099** 0.125**Proportion	bachelor	or	higher -0.026 -0.066 0.001 -0.046 -0.044* -0.061Per	capita	income 0.059** 0.009 0.078** 0.026 -0.042 -0.061Population	density -0.373** -0.445** -0.252** -0.306** 0.061** 0.058Median	house	age -0.002 -0.070* 0.114** 0.081* 0.291** 0.329**n 2135 802 2135 802 2135 802City Factor Mixed	vegetation Woody	vegetation Park	Area	1000mChicagoHouston  183  n 2135 802 2135 802 2135 802Coeff-bg Coeff-ct Coeff-bg Coeff-ct Coeff-bg Coeff-ctMedian	Age 0.221** 0.228** 0.154** 0.173** 0.000 -0.008Proportion	White 0.121** 0.120 0.070 0.052 -0.151** -0.165**Proportion	Black -0.123** -0.122* -0.071 -0.052 0.139** 0.175**Proportion	Am	Indian -0.095* -0.071 -0.091* -0.055 0.030 0.071Proportion	Asian 0.161** 0.217** 0.179** 0.218** -0.180** -0.178**Proportion	Latino -0.148** -0.165** -0.124** -0.151* -0.042 -0.030Proportion	no	high	school -0.390** -0.433** -0.373** -0.405** 0.186** 0.169**Proportion	bachelor	or	higher 0.337** 0.359** 0.349** 0.374** -0.185** -0.163**Per	capita	income 0.401** 0.435** 0.364** 0.393** -0.184** -0.184**Population	density -0.243** -0.334** -0.179** -0.258** 0.17** 0.218**Median	house	age -0.270** -0.343** -0.201** -0.263** 0.324** 0.348**n 701 263 701 263 701 263Median	Age -0.097* -0.165* -0.112** -0.094 -0.068 -0.145*Proportion	White -0.037 -0.118 -0.038 -0.042 -0.160** -0.211**Proportion	Black 0.015 0.087 0.019 0.017 0.198** 0.264**Proportion	Am	Indian 0.005 -0.020 -0.018 -0.070 -0.044 -0.001Proportion	Asian 0.105* 0.194** 0.091* 0.134 -0.269** -0.313**Proportion	Latino 0.106* 0.133 0.103* 0.077 -0.165** -0.125Proportion	no	high	school 0.052** 0.086 0.013 -0.029 0.152** 0.223**Proportion	bachelor	or	higher -0.126** -0.126 -0.044 0.031 -0.110* -0.158*Per	capita	income -0.076 -0.122 -0.038 0.002 -0.167** -0.209**Population	density -0.091* -0.140 -0.062 -0.134 0.120** 0.145*Median	house	age -0.277** -0.390** -0.333** -0.441** 0.287** 0.282**n 499 189 499 189 499 189Factor Mixed	vegetation Woody	vegetationIndianapolisJacksonvillePark	Area	1000mCityHouston  184   n 499 189 499 189 499 189Coeff-bg Coeff-ct Coeff-bg Coeff-ct Coeff-bg Coeff-ctMedian	Age 0.383** 0.460** 0.364** 0.440** 0.099** 0.166**Proportion	White 0.224** 0.266** 0.253** 0.295** 0.125** 0.174**Proportion	Black -0.147** -0.143** -0.150** -0.138** -0.060** -0.058**Proportion	Am	Indian -0.068** -0.072** -0.070** -0.079** 0.008 -0.012Proportion	Asian 0.171** 0.211** 0.177** 0.213** 0.061** 0.075**Proportion	Latino -0.364** -0.405** -0.361** -0.405** -0.157** -0.212**Proportion	no	high	school -0.446** -0.507** -0.452** -0.515** -0.176** -0.233**Proportion	bachelor	or	higher 0.422** 0.467** 0.456** 0.504** 0.168** 0.215**Per	capita	income 0.448** 0.501** 0.456** 0.506** 0.173** 0.222**Population	density -0.404** -0.530** -0.351** -0.472** -0.087** -0.165**Median	house	age 0.116** 0.066** 0.092** 0.047** -0.077** -0.085**n 7574 2680 7574 2680 7574 2680Median	Age 0.303** 0.364** 0.259** 0.326** -0.032** -0.051*Proportion	White 0.315** 0.459** 0.247** 0.398** -0.094** -0.135**Proportion	Black -0.163** -0.349** -0.124** -0.319** 0.091** 0.121**Proportion	Am	Indian -0.091** -0.203** -0.075** -0.177** 0.025** 0.121**Proportion	Asian -0.018* 0.001 -0.018* 0.011 -0.021* 0.103**Proportion	Latino -0.302** -0.388** -0.249** -0.326** 0.112** 0.181**Proportion	no	high	school -0.380** -0.528** -0.318** -0.469** 0.020* 0.124**Proportion	bachelor	or	higher 0.223** 0.334** 0.211** 0.334** 0.065** 0.061**Per	capita	income 0.313** 0.398** 0.271** 0.367** 0.012 0.004Population	density -0.706** -0.761** -0.555** -0.625** 0.207** 0.254**Median	house	age -0.323** -0.483** -0.242** -0.373** 0.102** 0.156**n 12985 2536 12985 2536 12985 2536Factor Mixed	vegetation Woody	vegetation Park	Area	1000mCityNew	YorkJacksonvilleLos	Angeles  185   n 12985 2536 12985 2536 12985 2536Coeff-bg Coeff-ct Coeff-bg Coeff-ct Coeff-bg Coeff-ctMedian	Age 0.242** 0.272** 0.244** 0.273** -0.080** -0.055Proportion	White 0.159** 0.227** 0.159** 0.228** -0.095** -0.123**Proportion	Black -0.104** -0.148** -0.103** -0.147** 0.019 0.058Proportion	Am	Indian -0.093** -0.183** -0.093** -0.182** 0.043 0.115**Proportion	Asian 0.141** 0.180** 0.141** 0.180** 0.079** 0.136**Proportion	Latino -0.346** -0.387** -0.348** -0.389** 0.084** 0.080*Proportion	no	high	school -0.427** -0.506** -0.428** -0.506** 0.019 0.018Proportion	bachelor	or	higher 0.491** 0.534** 0.491** 0.533** 0.038 0.077*Per	capita	income 0.473** 0.526** 0.473** 0.526** -0.010 0.027Population	density -0.165** -0.219** -0.165** -0.219** 0.155** 0.194**Median	house	age -0.009 -0.044 -0.008 -0.043 0.119** 0.131**n 2012 763 2012 763 2012 763Median	Age 0.318** 0.455** 0.323** 0.469** -0.037 0.001Proportion	White 0.301** 0.386** 0.343** 0.422** 0.018 0.080Proportion	Black -0.229** -0.317** -0.284** -0.351** -0.058 -0.009Proportion	Am	Indian -0.055 -0.208** -0.053 -0.192** -0.029 -0.032Proportion	Asian 0.051 0.056 0.045 0.063 0.058 0.055Proportion	Latino -0.25** -0.373** -0.268** -0.422** -0.056 -0.104Proportion	no	high	school -0.263** -0.351** -0.33** -0.429** -0.149** -0.157**Proportion	bachelor	or	higher 0.213** 0.254** 0.297** 0.351** 0.259** 0.248**Per	capita	income 0.315** 0.372** 0.387** 0.469** 0.155** 0.203**Population	density -0.365** -0.460** -0.348** -0.447** 0.069* 0.057Median	house	age -0.118** -0.170** -0.136** -0.173** 0.107** 0.075n 830 292 830 292 830 292Woody	vegetation Park	Area	1000mFactor Mixed	vegetationNew	YorkPhoenixPortlandCity  186         n 830 292 830 292 830 292Coeff-bg Coeff-ct Coeff-bg Coeff-ct Coeff-bg Coeff-ctMedian	Age 0.133** 0.136** 0.117** 0.166** 0.122** 0.171**Proportion	White 0.088** 0.093* 0.122** 0.145** -0.025 -0.052Proportion	Black -0.158** -0.189** -0.162** -0.203** -0.021 -0.034Proportion	Am	Indian -0.070** -0.095* -0.065** -0.085* -0.045* -0.095*Proportion	Asian 0.036 0.045 0.021 0.027 0.110** 0.182**Proportion	Latino -0.081** -0.112** -0.061** -0.128** -0.058** -0.132**Proportion	no	high	school -0.102** -0.123** -0.14** -0.196** -0.130** -0.167**Proportion	bachelor	or	higher 0.030 0.014 0.095** 0.122** 0.246** 0.307**Per	capita	income 0.103** 0.099* 0.137** 0.177** 0.199** 0.252**Population	density -0.383** -0.449** -0.326** -0.381** 0.131** 0.152**Median	house	age -0.216** -0.34** -0.211** -0.284** 0.174** 0.201**n 1999 599 1999 599 1999 599Median	Age 0.078** 0.154** 0.241** 0.343** -0.073* -0.141**Proportion	White -0.029 0.048 0.346** 0.428** -0.18** -0.228**Proportion	Black 0.018 -0.066 -0.349** -0.446** 0.183** 0.258**Proportion	Am	Indian -0.018 -0.052 -0.056 -0.072 0.018 0.101Proportion	Asian -0.092** -0.142** -0.013 0.038 -0.057 -0.082Proportion	Latino -0.089** -0.19** -0.042 -0.099 -0.026 0.013Proportion	no	high	school 0.066* 0.059 -0.308** -0.380** 0.145** 0.226**Proportion	bachelor	or	higher -0.134** -0.162** 0.180** 0.191** -0.058* -0.071Per	capita	income -0.059* -0.065 0.299** 0.327** -0.108** -0.146**Population	density -0.066* -0.123* -0.336** -0.417** 0.234** 0.350**Median	house	age -0.025 -0.070* -0.317** -0.371** 0.357** 0.441**n 1134 362 1134 362 1134 362Park	Area	1000mSeattleCityPortlandSt.	LouisFactor Mixed	vegetation Woody	vegetation  187 C.2 SAR Results * p > 0.05, ** p > 0.01    Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueMedian	Age 9.400E-04 5.347**Proportion	White 2.900E-02 6.599**Proportion	Black -3.190E-02 -6.831**Proportion	Asian -1.180E-01 -7.612** -8.570E-02 -5.904** -1.070E-01 -7.256**Proportion	Latino -8.670E-02 -13.874** -7.130E-02 -12.464** -4.660E-02 -7.225** -3.274E+05 -4.022**Proportion	bach	+ 9.180E-02 12.973**Population	density -1.438E+00 -6.815** -1.437E+00 -6.803** 1.513E+07 4.763**Median	house	age 8.840E-03 -7.225**Constant 2.850E-01 26.829** 2.550E-01 25.234** -2.950E-02 -2.994** 1.664E+05 5.226**Lag 6.440E-01 47.839** 6.440E-01 47.859** 7.430E-01 68.021** 8.540E-01 101.424**Pseudo	R2AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueMedian	Age 2.020E-03 5.991**Proportion	White 3.970E-02 5.974**Proportion	Black -4.220E-02 -6.072**Proportion	Asian -2.040E-01 -7.619** -1.600E-01 -6.492** -1.680E-01 -6.65**Proportion	Latino -1.180E-01 -12.066** -9.810E-02 -11.075** -5.420E-02 -5.411** -4.381E+05 -3.025**Proportion	bach	+ 9.450E-02 8.736**Population	density -2.861E+00 -8.986** -2.868E+00 -9.003** 2.520E+07 4.531**Median	house	age 8.610E-03 7.199**Constant 3.470E-01 20.277** 3.070E-01 19.069** -6.360E-02 -3.71** 2.592E+05 4.572**Lag 5.780E-01 26.498** 5.780E-01 26.473** 7.420E-01 42.189** 7.730E-01 42.513**Pseudo	R2AICPark	area	ChicagoFactor Mixed	vegetation	1 Mixed	vegetation	2 Woody	vegetation	1Factor Mixed	vegetation	1 Mixed	vegetation	20.536 0.535 0.690 0.550Woody	vegetation	 Park	area	0.495 0.494 0.648 0.643-8763.200 -8769.090 -8899.090 163409.000-3630.730 -3629.450 -3624.740 55629.500Block	GroupCensus	Tract  188 AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueMedian	Age 8.880E-04 3.413** 1.150E-03 5.141** 1.190E-03 5.375**Proportion	White 1.800E-02 2.53**Proportion	Black -1.400E-02 -1.98*Proportion	Latino -1.650E-02 -2.133**Proportion	no	HS -3.150E-02 -2.694**Per	capita	income 2.581E-07 2.759** 2.175E-07 2.373* 5.729E+00 5.094**Population	density -1.534E+01 -16.296** -1.527E+01 -15.983** -1.542E+01 -16.145** -9.285E+00 -11.662** -9.176E+00 -11.501** -9.282E+00 -11.642**Median	house	age 5.840E-03 4.329** 6.520E-03 4.624** 6.100E-03 4.387** 7.780E-03 6.762** 7.030E-03 6.259** 7.230E-03 6.443**Constant 1.810E-01 13.715** 1.950E-01 15.112** 1.980E-01 15.248** 5.380E-02 4.792** 4.350E-02 3.757** 5.470E-02 4.804** -3.735E+04 -0.909Lag 6.920E-01 38.926** 6.860E-01 38.198** 6.840E-01 37.953** 6.880E-01 37.855** 6.880E-01 37.828** 6.890E-01 37.904** 5.860E-01 25.3**Pseudo	R2AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueMedian	Age 2.440E-03 4.458** 2.180E-03 5.006** 2.200E-03 5.106**Proportion	White 1.350E-03 0.114Proportion	Black 4.130E-03 0.36Proportion	Latino -1.210E-02 -0.921Proportion	no	HS -1.490E-03 -0.073Per	capita	income -3.888E-08 -0.249 -1.223E-07 -0.758 1.186E+01 4.142**Population	density -2.479E+01 -13.542** -2.466E+01 -13.297** -2.433E+01 -13.195** -1.315E+01 -8.754** -1.316E+01 -8.778** -1.318E+01 -8.795**Median	house	age 1.710E-03 0.739 1.880E-03 0.764 2.450E-03 1.03 6.860E-03 3.388** 6.860E-03 3.686** 6.810E-03 3.652**Constant 3.370E-01 13.659** 3.340E-01 14.354** 3.350E-01 14.314** 6.440E-02 2.976** 6.440E-02 3.07** 6.480E-02 3.161** -9.687E+04 -0.96Lag 5.120E-01 15.784** 5.140E-01 15.895** 5.150E-01 15.91** 5.780E-01 17.991** 5.820E-01 18.217** 5.800E-01 18.061** 2.530E-01 5.039**Pseudo	R2AICChicago-3630.730 -3629.450 -3624.740 55629.500HoustonFactor Mixed	vegetation	1 Mixed	vegetation	2 Mixed	vegetation	3 Woody	vegetation	10.551 0.550 0.549 0.509Factor-4473.2400.509 0.508 0.242Woody	vegetation	2 Woody	vegetation	3 Park	area	0.481 0.481 0.482 0.459 0.459 0.459 0.056655833.800Mixed	vegetation	1 Mixed	vegetation	2 Mixed	vegetation	3 Woody	vegetation	1 Woody	vegetation	2 Woody	vegetation	3 Park	area	-3680.030 -3679.860 -3677.170 -4474.010 -4471.47025265.100-1532.540 -1532.490 -1533.330 -1853.390 -1852.850 -1852.960Block	GroupCensus	Tract  189 AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	no	HS -1.340E-01 0.031** -1.050E-01 -4.646**Proportion	bach	+ 7.260E-02 3.856** 6.970E-02 4.859**Per	capita	income 1.471E-06 4.925** 1.332E-06 6.044**Population	density -1.598E+01 -4.042** -1.872E+01 -4.832** -1.718E+01 -4.339**Median	house	ageConstant 1.290E-01 7.862** 1.480E-01 9.329** 1.900E-01 10.8** 1.770E-02 2.552* 3.110E-02 4.922** 6.620E-02 8.161**Lag 6.590E-01 19.967** 6.650E-01 20.126** 6.580E-01 19.846** 7.490E-01 26.917** 7.540E-01 26.556** 7.600E-01 27.63**Pseudo	R2AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	no	HS -2.050E-01 -3.568** -1.640E-01 -3.733**Proportion	bach	+ 8.540E-02 2.58** 9.000E-02 3.391**Per	capita	income 2.181E-06 3.879** 2.025E-06 4.683**Population	density -3.252E+01 -3.584** -4.016E+01 -4.562** -3.486E+01 -3.857**Median	house	ageConstant 2.240E-01 7.277** 2.620E-01 8.941** 3.180E-01 10.267** 2.980E-02 2.242* 5.340E-02 4.353** 1.050E-01 6.663**Lag 4.480E-01 7.833** 4.620E-01 7.97** 4.420E-01 7.644** 6.220E-01 11.763** 6.360E-01 11.87** 6.360E-01 12.03**Pseudo	R2AICHouston-1475.2500.518 0.513 0.514 0.615 0.608 0.608IndianapolisFactor Mixed	vegetation	1 Mixed	vegetation	2 Mixed	vegetation	3 Woody	vegetation	1 Woody	vegetation	2 Woody	vegetation	3-1532.540 -1532.490 -1533.330 -1853.390 -1852.850 -1852.960Factor Mixed	vegetation	1 Mixed	vegetation	2 Mixed	vegetation	3 Woody	vegetation	1 Woody	vegetation	2-1148.810 -1139.200 -1142.200 -1491.700 -1478.280-537.445 -539.6800.408 0.391 0.401 0.495 0.476 0.481Woody	vegetation	3-451.827 -443.401 -449.044 -548.388Block	GroupCensus	Tract  190     AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	Black -7.091E+06 -2.412*Proportion	no	HS 1.308E+07 1.994* 2.499E+07 3.064**Per	capita	income -1.806E-06 -6.013** -5.216E-07 -3.391**Median	house	age -1.400E-02 -4.48** -8.000E-03 -5.084**Constant 3.260E-01 10.24** 1.300E-01 8.885** -1.175E+06 -1.043 -5.889E+05 -0.512Lag 4.960E-01 10.153** 5.440E-01 11.423** 7.640E-01 22.81** 7.590E-01 22.485**Pseudo	R2AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	Black -7.155E+06 -1.592Proportion	no	HS 1.414E+07 1.339 2.978E+07 2.072*Per	capita	income -2.310E-06 -4.021** -4.906E-07 -1.613Median	house	age -2.600E-02 -5.095** -1.500E-02 -5.137**Constant 5.240E-01 9.187** 1.990E-01 7.565** -1.033E+06 -0.634 -9.362E+05 -0.576Lag 1.810E-01 1.98* 2.870E-01 3.182** 7.610E-01 15.178** 7.550E-01 14.859**Pseudo	R2AICIndianapolisPark	area	1 Park	area	2JacksonvilleFactor Mixed	vegetation	 Woody	vegetation	Factor Mixed	vegetation	-451.827 -443.401 -449.044 -548.388Woody	vegetation	 Park	area	1 Park	area	20.344 0.357 0.455 0.460-667.026 -1312.130 18016.800 18013.000-303.920 -537.565 6757.290 6756.7600.236 0.264 0.447 0.453Block	GroupCensus	Tract  191   AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	Latino 8.560E-03 3.17**Proportion	bach	+ 4.560E-02 8.826** 4.400E-02 9.772** 3.490E-02 9.892** 1.388E+07 2.017*Per	capita	income 2.889E-07 5.646** 2.542E-07 7.325** 2.495E-07 7.197**Population	density -2.612E+00 -14.31** -1.319E+00 -10.672** -1.252E+00 -10.257**Median	house	age 7.540E-03 14.341** 4.570E-03 12.845** 4.690E-03 13.24**Constant 1.190E-02 2.84** -1.150E-02 -3.596** -6.140E-03 -2.274* -6.404E+05 -0.256Lag 7.260E-01 76.453** 7.470E-01 82.81** 7.480E-01 83.013** 4.540E-01 28.021**Pseudo	R2AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	Latino 1.720E-02 3.628**Proportion	bach	+ 6.920E-02 7.074** 7.030E-02 8.052** 4.920E-02 7.464** 1.547E+07 0.398Per	capita	income 1.849E-07 1.8142 2.016E-07 3.005** 2.096E-07 3.126**Population	density -3.949E+00 -13.405** -2.179E+00 -11.141** -2.035E+00 -10.583**Median	house	age 9.800E-03 10.735** 5.900E-03 9.672** 6.140E-03 10.102**Constant 1.070E-02 1.516 -2.070E-02 -3.821** -9.840E-03 -2.2** 1.323E+06 0.342Lag 6.860E-01 42.072** 7.130E-01 46.447** 7.170E-01 46.917** 8.960E-02 0.804**Pseudo	R2AICJacksonville-303.920 -537.565 6757.290 6756.760Los	AngelesFactor Mixed	vegetation	 Woody	vegetation	10.619 0.664 0.664 0.108-19564.700 -25467.900 -25459.900 304558.000Woody	vegetation	2 Park	area	0.005-7529.750 -9691.220 -9680.150 107088.000Park	areaFactor Mixed	vegetation	 Woody	vegetation	1 Woody	vegetation	20.631 0.680 0.679Block	GroupCensus	Tract  192   AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	Asian -5.410E-02 -8.173** -4.070E-02 -8.043**Proportion	bach	+ 6.020E-02 13.512** 4.710E-02 13.75** 3.136E+05 2.098*Population	density -1.682E+00 -26.468** -9.080E-01 -19.761**Median	house	age -3.720E-03 -5.967** -2.010E-03 -4.227**Constant 1.160E-01 20.551** 5.550E-02 14.092** 1.190E+05 1.890Lag 7.830E-01 131.788** 7.870E-01 129.294** 8.360E-01 151.714**Pseudo	R2AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	Asian -6.750E-02 -4.099** -6.480E-02 -5.16**Proportion	bach	+ 1.470E-01 11.12** 1.060E-01 10.528** 7.377E+05 0.848Population	density -3.842E+00 -17.785** -1.566E+00 -10.237**Median	house	age -1.520E-02 -8.979** -6.640E-03 -5.26**Constant 2.430E-01 15.679** 8.730E-02 8.467** 2.871E+05 0.852Lag 6.660E-01 41.508** 7.660E-01 51.711** 6.500E-01 29.294**Pseudo	R2AICLos	Angeles-7529.750 -9691.220 -9680.150Park	areaNew	YorkFactor Mixed	vegetation	 Woody	vegetation	Factor Mixed	vegetation	0.714 0.693 0.190-4205.700 -5534.800 87503.100Woody	vegetation	 Park	area0.749 0.698 0.506-18695.200 -25497.400 424177.000Block	GroupCensus	Tract  193  AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	bach	+ 7.390E-02 6.023** 7.300E-02 6.007**Per	capita	income 7.604E-07 4.909** 7.510E-07 4.901**Constant 5.090E-02 11.714** 4.900E-02 11.52**Lag 5.050E-01 20.166** 5.050E-01 20.177**Pseudo	R2AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	bach	+ 5.940E-02 2.591** 5.790E-02 2.552*Per	capita	income 1.220E-06 4.194** 1.208E-06 4.197**Constant 6.020E-02 8.783** 5.780E-02 8.624**Lag 4.070E-01 10.090** 4.080E-01 10.093**Pseudo	R2AICNew	York-4205.700 -5534.8000.382 0.381-5275.850 -5318.620Factor Mixed	vegetation	 Woody	vegetation	PhoenixFactor Mixed	vegetation	 Woody	vegetation	0.374 0.373-2162.220 -2177.700Block	GroupCensus	Tract  194 AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	Latino -9.140E-02 -3.49**Proportion	bach	+ 2.730E-02 2.232* 4.680E-02 4.865** 2.989E+05 3.806**Per	capita	income 2.916E+00 2.937**Population	density -8.515E+00 -8.659** -9.038E+00 -9.093** -6.456E+00 -8.457**Median	house	age -4.670E-03 -4.11**Constant 1.780E-01 16.711** 1.600E-01 14.347** 1.100E-01 12.037** 4.642E+04 1.313 5.498E+04 1.356Lag 6.550E-01 31.072** 6.560E-01 31.106** 6.270E-01 28.426** 7.700E-01 45.669** 7.760E-01 46.591**Pseudo	R2AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	Latino -1.630E-01 -2.901**Proportion	bach	+ 4.200E-02 2.01* 7.190E-02 4.467** 5.619E+05 3.594**Per	capita	income 4.010E+00 2.159*Population	density -1.565E+01 -7.935** -1.666E+01 -8.23** -1.018E+01 -6.783**Median	house	age -7.860E-03 -3.824**Constant 2.610E-01 12.295** 2.330E-01 10.846** 1.510E-01 9.143** 4.193E+04 0.633 9.722E+04 1.281Lag 5.190E-01 12.634** 5.160E-01 12.457** 5.210E-01 12.565** 6.090E-01 15.478** 6.340E-01 16.781**Pseudo	R2AICBlock	Group-544.236 -550.530 -600.184 -604.646 9436.420SeattleFactor Mixed	vegetation	1 Mixed	vegetation	2Portland0.434 0.433 0.406-1003.340 -999.007 -1351.2500.490 0.490Census	TractWoody	vegetation	 Park	area	1 Park	area	2Park	Area	1 Park	Area	2-2667.870 -2660.690 -3736.930 60030.300 60036.200Factor Mixed	vegetation	1 Mixed	vegetation	2 Woody	vegetation	117955.200 17963.4000.413 0.409 0.405 0.340 0.337  195 AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	bach	+ 1.190E-01 6.954** 1.200E-01 7.734**Per	capita	income 1.735E-06 7.075** 1.470E-06 7.032** 1.269E+01 2.538*Population	density -1.769E+01 9.579** -1.497E+01 -8.143** 1.007E+01 -6.538** -8.703E+00 5.692**Median	house	age -6.170E-03 -4.092**Constant 2.580E-01 13.764** 2.400E-01 12.406** 1.000E-01 7.865** 5.900E-02 5.465** -2.566E+04 -0.148Lag 4.470E-01 11.917** 4.550E-01 12.254** 7.330E-01 28.751** 7.400E-01 28.866** 4.670E-01 10.691**Pseudo	R2AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	bach	+ 1.570E-01 5.403** 1.900E-01 6.777**Per	capita	income 2.611E-06 6.033** 2.869E-06 7.12** 2.424E+01 2.16*Population	density -3.050E+01 -7.772** -2.581E+01 -6.69** -2.124E+01 -5.858** -1.883E+01 -5.466**Median	house	age -9.190E-03 -3.196**Constant 2.950E-01 10.713** 2.690E-01 9.331** 1.720E-01 7.345** 9.860E-02 4.822** -3.968E+05 -1.031Lag 4.140E-01 8.192** 3.990E-01 7.853** 5.680E-01 12.029** 5.640E-01 11.703** 5.060E-01 7.436**Pseudo	R2AICPhoenix0.575 0.204Woody	vegetation	2 Park	area-1574.900 -1573.210 -1671.290 -1656.800 26393.400Factor Mixed	vegetation	1 Mixed	vegetation	2 Woody	vegetation	1-544.236 -550.530 -600.184 -604.646 9436.420PortlandFactor0.433 0.444 0.5720.453 0.457 0.639Woody	vegetation	1Mixed	vegetation	1 Mixed	vegetation	2Block	GroupCensus	Tract0.633 0.207Woody	vegetation	2 Park	area	-2162.220 -2177.700  196  AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	White 2.280E-02 4.063** 1.198E+05 2.036*Proportion	Black -2.050E-02 -3.805** -1.199E+05 -2.105*Proportion	bach	+ 2.680E-02 3.276** 3.054E+05 3.367**Per	capita	income 3.322E-07 2.112* 5.125E-07 4.458** 3.764E+00 3.006**Population	density -8.218E+00 -6.027** -9.200E+00 -6.848** -8.496E+00 -6.255** -8.796E+00 -6.510** 5.035E+07 3.475** 5.562E+07 3.725** 5.091E+07 3.426** 4.983E+07 3.388**Constant 6.110E-02 6.75** 4.970E-02 8.165** 6.660E-02 9.388** 6.190E-02 8.704** 8.280E-02 10.784** -1.046E+05 -2.155* -1.274E+05 -2.234* -8.216E+04 -1.452 3.311E+04 0.868Lag 8.470E-01 49.365** 7.880E-01 39.949** 7.930E-01 40.357** 7.850E-01 38.838** 7.860E-01 39.08** 8.380E-01 47.736** 8.440E-01 48.927** 8.450E-01 49.112** 8.450E-01 48.967**Pseudo	R2AICCoefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-valueProportion	White 1.660E-02 1.871 2.689E+05 2.262*Proportion	Black -1.350E-02 -1.609 -2.607E+05 -2.288*Proportion	bach	+ 2.700E-02 1.956 7.976E+05 4.116**Per	capita	income 3.273E-07 1.084 5.768E-07 2.811** 7.628E+00 2.738**Population	density -9.985E+00 -3.594** -1.134E+01 -4.148** -1.052E+01 -3.754** -1.092E+01 -3.923** 1.540E+08 4.22** 1.610E+08 4.192** 1.577E+08 4.056** 1.543E+08 4.026**Constant 6.740E-02 4.197** 5.280E-02 4.343** 6.160E-02 5.296** 5.980E-02 4.964** 7.480E-02 6.145** -3.870E+05 -3.687** -3.655E+05 -2.845** -3.098E+04 -2.453* -5.161E+04 -0.663Lag 8.340E-01 28.321** 8.170E-01 27.945** 8.250E-01 28.61** 8.190E-01 27.432** 8.210E-01 27.711** 6.630E-01 14.836** 6.770E-01 15.315** 6.800E-01 15.481** 6.790E-01 15.393**Pseudo	R2AICSeattle-1003.340 -999.007 -1351.250 17955.200 17963.400St.	LouisFactor Mixed	vegetation	1Block	Group0.664 0.684 0.682 0.682 0.682 0.603 0.603 0.602Woody	vegetation	1 Woody	vegetation	2 Woody	vegetation	3 Woody	vegetation	4 Park	area	1 Park	area	2Woody	vegetation	4 Park	Area	1 Park	Area	2 Park	Area	3 Park	Area	4Factor Mixed	vegetation	1 Woody	vegetation	1 Woody	vegetation	2Census	Tract0.602-2083.450 -2985.580 -2975.840 -2983.010 -2980.620 33829.300 33831.800 33836.800 33836.500Park	area	3 Park	area	410828.000 10827.9000.418 0.415 0.415-715.510 -1063.420 -1059.000 -1058.760 -1057.720 10815.200 10825.6000.621 0.747 0.745 0.744 0.743 0.431Woody	vegetation	3

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0362401/manifest

Comment

Related Items