Forestry, Faculty of
DSpace
UBCV
Todd, Leila Fazel
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
Municipal parks and their services have evolved during the past decades, from pastoral grounds to sport and recreation assets, urban agriculture hubs, and venues for cultural events. Public municipal parks can also play a significant role in achieving municipalities’ strategic goals and canopy targets. With a changing climate and biodiversity loss occurring around the world and particularly in urban areas, enhanced tree planting in parks could help meet demands for ecosystem services. However, various challenges are associated with these efforts. This study investigates park policy, planning, and design in Canadian municipalities and their incorporation of urban forestry objectives. The research includes in-depth, detailed examination of municipal public parks (case studies); park-user interviews and surveys; and interviews and surveys of professionals involved in park planning, design, and development in Canadian cities. Professional interviewees include municipal staff, landscape architects, and park planning consultants. Results show a lack of clear direction and coordination between urban forestry objectives and municipal park planning and design. The research identifies a need for more clear alignment between urban forestry policy and recommendations and park planning and design practices in selected Canadian municipal parks. While municipalities are working towards achieving sports, recreation, and cultural needs, restrained policy and design practices within Canadian municipal parks can negatively affect the fulfillment of municipal canopy targets and urban forestry programs in general. This study provides recommendations on how municipalities can manage their urban parks to better balance a range of objectives related to recreation, arts, and culture on the one hand, and environmental services and other urban forest objectives on the other.
PLANNING FOR PUBLIC PARKS TO MEET URBAN FOREST CANOPY OBJECTIVES: A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE by Leila Fazel Todd B.Sc., Simon Fraser University, 2007 M.L.A, University of Guelph, 2013 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) April 2023 © Leila Fazel Todd, 2023 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: Planning for Public Parks to Meet Urban Forestry Objectives: A Canadian Perspective submitted by Leila Fazel Todd in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Forestry Examining Committee: Cecil Konijnendijk, Professor, Forestry, UBC Co-supervisor Lorien Nesbitt, Assistant Professor, Forestry, UBC Co-supervisor Kees Lokman, Associate Professor, School of Architecture & Landscape Architecture, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Cynthia Girling, Professor, School of Architecture & Landscape Architecture, UBC University Examiner Jeanine Rhemtulla, Associate Professor, Forestry, UBC University Examiner Additional Supervisory Committee Members: Karen Landman, Professor, School of Environmental Design & Rural Development, University of Guelph Supervisory Committee Member iii Abstract Municipal parks and their services have evolved during the past decades, from pastoral grounds to sport and recreation assets, urban agriculture hubs, and venues for cultural events. Public municipal parks can also play a significant role in achieving municipalities’ strategic goals and canopy targets. With a changing climate and biodiversity loss occurring around the world and particularly in urban areas, enhanced tree planting in parks could help meet demands for ecosystem services. However, various challenges are associated with these efforts. This study investigates park policy, planning, and design in Canadian municipalities and their incorporation of urban forestry objectives. The research includes in-depth, detailed examination of municipal public parks (case studies); park-user interviews and surveys; and interviews and surveys of professionals involved in park planning, design, and development in Canadian cities. Professional interviewees include municipal staff, landscape architects, and park planning consultants. Results show a lack of clear direction and coordination between urban forestry objectives and municipal park planning and design. The research identifies a need for more clear alignment between urban forestry policy and recommendations and park planning and design practices in selected Canadian municipal parks. While municipalities are working towards achieving sports, recreation, and cultural needs, restrained policy and design practices within Canadian municipal parks can negatively affect the fulfillment of municipal canopy targets and urban forestry programs in general. This study provides recommendations on how municipalities can manage their urban parks to better balance a range of objectives related to recreation, arts, and culture on the one hand, and environmental services and other urban forest objectives on the other. iv Lay Summary City residents love parks for the opportunities they provide for recreation, sports, nature, and culture. At the same time, increasing climate change requires cities to come up with ways to deal with extreme weather events, such as flooding or heat waves. Well-treed parks can provide a range of adaptation benefits, such as regulating storm water and heat. Cities aim to plant more trees in parks, but sometimes find the different demands and needs of city residents for amenities, lack of policy direction, and uncreative designs to be in their way. Park users prefer parks with shade, but when asked what they like to see in the park, they may not mention trees and, instead, focus more on amenities. As this study suggests, however, there are ways in which municipalities can ensure parks provide a balance of recreation activities and urban forestry objectives that relate to, for example, climate adaptation. v Preface All completed by myself, Leila Todd, with intellectual contributions of committee members for identification and design of research program; performance of various parts of the research, and analysis of research data with the exceptions provided below: Chapter 3 - Data created was through the contributions of the interview participants. Roberta Fougere, friend and resident of Halifax, provided supplementary site photos of Halifax Commons. Chapter 4 - Jessica Quinton, PhD Student completed most of the survey analysis. Chapter 5 - Kaitlyn Pike, PhD Student, who completed Google review analysis and Ali Nayeri, P. Eng., who assisted and provided the drone for the drone imagery. No component of the research is published at this time. The research presented in Chapter 3, 4, and 5 required ethics approval. The Behavioural Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia approved the study (UBC BREB Numbers: H21-03316, H22-01674, and H22-01155). vi Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................... iv Preface .............................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... xiv Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xvi Dedication .................................................................................................................................. xvii Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Objectives .......................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Methodology and Research Questions .............................................................................. 5 Chapter 2: Policy analysis and literature review ....................................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Methods........................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.1 Literature Review .................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Review of Municipal Policy .................................................................................... 13 2.2 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................... 15 2.2.1 Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 15 2.2.2 Review of Municipal Urban Forests Policy ............................................................. 26 2.3 Limitations and Future Studies ....................................................................................... 27 2.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 28 vii Chapter 2: Canada Parks Case Study .................................................................................. 29 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 29 2.2 Methods..................................................................................................................... 30 3.2.1 Case Study Selection ................................................................................................ 31 3.2.2 Site Visits ................................................................................................................. 33 3.2.3 Current State Review ............................................................................................... 33 3.2.4 Key Informant Interviews ........................................................................................ 34 2.3 Results ....................................................................................................................... 36 3.3.1 Site Visits ................................................................................................................. 36 3.3.2 Current State Review ............................................................................................... 41 3.3.3 Key Informant Interviews ........................................................................................ 56 2.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 72 3.4.1 Parkland and Urban Forestry Targets ...................................................................... 73 3.4.2 Park Policy and Urban Forestry Targets .................................................................. 75 3.4.3 Engagement in Park Planning and Design and Urban Forestry Targets .................. 79 2.4.4 Governance and Government Structure Impacting Urban Forestry Targets ........ 83 2.4.5 Park Planning & Design and Urban Forestry Targets .......................................... 85 3.5 Limitations and Future Studies ....................................................................................... 91 3.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 92 Chapter 3: Survey of Municipal Staff and Other Professionals ......................................... 94 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 94 3.2 Methods and Analysis ............................................................................................... 96 4.2.1 Survey design and dissemination ............................................................................. 96 viii 4.2.2 Survey analysis ........................................................................................................ 97 3.3 Results ....................................................................................................................... 98 4.3.1 Respondent location and job position ...................................................................... 98 4.3.2 Motivations influencing tree planting in park planning, design, and development . 98 4.3.3 Canopy contributions by old and new parks .......................................................... 101 3.3.4 Challenges to planting trees in municipal parks ................................................. 104 3.3.5 Tree planting and canopy policies and design recommendations ....................... 105 3.4 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 105 4.4.1 Urban Forest Challenges in Municipal Parks ........................................................ 106 4.4.2 Lack of investment and direction ........................................................................... 108 4.4.3 Design considerations ............................................................................................ 110 4.4.4 Sector similarities and differences ...................................................................... 113 4.5 Limitations and Future Studies ..................................................................................... 114 4.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 115 Chapter 5: Coquitlam Parks Case Study ................................................................................. 117 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 117 5.2 Methods......................................................................................................................... 118 5.2.1 City Context and Site Selection ............................................................................. 119 5.2.2 Policy Review ........................................................................................................ 120 5.2.3 Site Observations ................................................................................................... 121 5.2.4 Governance Interviews .......................................................................................... 122 5.2.5 Park User Input ...................................................................................................... 123 5.2.6 Plantable space analysis ......................................................................................... 126 ix 5.3 Results ........................................................................................................................... 126 5.3.1 Policy Review ........................................................................................................ 127 5.3.2 Site Observations ................................................................................................... 132 5.3.3. Governance Interviews ......................................................................................... 136 5.3.4 Park User Walking Interviews ............................................................................... 140 5.3.5 Park User Survey ................................................................................................... 146 5.3.7 Plantable Spaces ..................................................................................................... 155 5.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 157 5.5 Limitations and Future Studies ..................................................................................... 161 5.6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 162 Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations ....................................................................... 164 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 164 6.2 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 165 6.2.1 In Canada, how are urban forest canopy targets considered by municipal policy and are they integrated into park planning and design? ........................................................ 165 6.2.2 What are the potential trade-offs and synergies between canopy targets and the other objectives and targets for parks? ............................................................................ 166 6.2.3. How can urban park planning and design be transformed to incorporate urban forestry objectives, including targets, better? ................................................................. 167 6.2.4. What are the roles and contributions of different municipal and community stakeholders and process components in meeting urban forestry canopy targets in urban parks? .............................................................................................................................. 169 6.3 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 170 x 6.3.1 Make urban forest preservation and protection in public parks a municipal priority......................................................................................................................................... 170 6.3.2 Ensure organizational structures support direct collaboration between park design, construction, and management on one hand, and urban forestry on the other ................ 171 6.3.3 Consider parks as assets that provide cultural, recreational, and environmental services ............................................................................................................................ 172 6.3.4 Include urban forestry needs and priorities in municipal park classifications ...... 172 6.3.5 Allocate a minimum of a third of a park to urban forest cover, where possible .... 173 6.3.6 Develop a spectrum of engagement and public influence from park policy to management. ................................................................................................................... 174 6.3.7 Prioritize urban forest objectives in park design and maximize space utilization for tree planting .................................................................................................................... 175 6.3.8 Strengthen tree-sensitive construction practices in parks through detailed documentation for soil and trees ..................................................................................... 176 6.4 Research Significance ................................................................................................... 176 6.5 Future Research ............................................................................................................ 177 Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................179 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................215 xi List of Tables Table 2.1 Summary of Canadian municipal urban forest policy reviewed………………………31 Table 3.1 Overview of key informants ……………………………………………………….…53 Table 3.2 Overview of case study parks ………………………………………………………...59 Table 3.3 Summary of current state review……………………………………………………...73 Table 3.4 A view from inside - city staff, operating partners, and park advocates ……………..77 Table 3.5 Advice from city staff, operating partners, and park advocates ………………….......78 Table 3.6 Trends in park planning …………………………………………………………...….81 Table 3.7 Opportunities and constraints in park planning in Canada ………………………...…82 Table 3.8 Opportunities and constraints in incorporating urban forest targets in parks ……….…84 Table 3.9 Balance of social, cultural, recreational, and ecological needs in parks ……………...87 Table 3.10 Advice from all key informants in achieving urban forest targets in parks ……........89 Table 5.1 Summary information of the 3 parks selected ……………………………………...138 Table 5.2 Summary of available city planning policies and relevant directions……………….149 Table 5.3 Summary and comparison of responses for two different groups……………….......154 Table 5.4 Key summary of findings of walking interviews………………………………….....158 Table 5.5 Summary of key highlights and tree preference of walking interviews……………..163 Table 5.6 Existing surface coverage of various components in the parks…………………...…173 Table 5.7 Plantable area analysis and proposed canopy increase………………………………174 xii List of Figures Figure 1.1 Diagram illustrating the two study themes and their area of intersection………...….21 Figure 1.2 Four stages of opportunity for urban forest canopy integration……………………...22 Figure 1.3 Overall study approach……………………………………………………………….23 Figure 3.1 Overview of chapter 3 methodology………………………………………………....48 Figure 3.2 Parks considered and evaluated……………………………………………………....50 Figure 3.3 Assiniboine park’s urban forest………………………………………………………54 Figure 3.4 Beacon Hill park’s urban forest………………………………………………………55 Figure 3.5 Halifax Commons and Public Gardens………………………………………………56 Figure 3.6 High park’s urban forest……………………………………………………………...58 Figure 4.1 The stages of the park development process during which trees are first considered………………………………………………………………………………………116 Figure 4.2 Motivators and objectives of tree planting during the municipal park design process…………………………………………………………………………………………..117 Figure 4.3 Tree related factors that influence the respondents’ daily park planning and design practices………………………………………………………………………………………...118 Figure 4.4 Contributions of new parks and established parks to the municipality’s urban forest canopy………………………………………………………………………………………......120 Figure 4.5 How new parks respectively established parks contribute to the urban forest canopy………………………………………………………………………………………......121 Figure 5.1 Overview of chapter 5 methodology……………………………………………..…136 Figure 5.2 Illustrating aerial imagery review for each park ……………………………………123 Figure 5.3 Galloway park site observations…………………………………………….......…..150 Figure 5.4 Mackin park site observations…………………………………………………........151 Figure 5.5 Riley park site observations.......................………………………………….............152 xiii Figure 5.6 Drone imagery of all three parks……………………………………………………153 Figure 5.7 Walking interview respondent opinions on number of trees in the park…………....162 Figure 5.8 Categorization of descriptive words about the parks and percent survey respondents..................................................................................................................................164 Figure 5.9 Categorization of one descriptive word and percent survey respondents…………..164 Figure 5.10 Level of importance of trees in parks to users according to survey results (in percent)………………………………………………………………………………………....165 Figure 5.11 Importance of trees in comparison to other park components as derived from the walking interviews (in percent)……………………………………………………………..….165 Figure 5.12 Opinion on number of trees in the park as expressed in the survey ……………....166 Figure 5.13 Preference on tree planting spaces in park as expressed by survey respondents.....167 Figure 5.14 Preferences of different types of trees amongst survey respondents………………168 Figure 5.15 Preferences of tree planting layout amongst survey respondents………………….168 Figure 5.16 Preferences of different types of trees as expressed by survey respondents ……...169 Figure 5.17 Categorization of comments about each park derived from Google data………....170 Figure 5.18 Proposed plantable spaces..................................……..……………………………173 xiv Glossary Canopy target: The aim or indicator to achieve a percentage of total tree canopy cover (Konijnendijk 2022) Ecosystem services: Nature’s provision of goods (e.g., food and fresh water) and benefits (e.g., aesthetic value cultural heritage significance, mental health and support for passive and active recreation) (Lam and Conway, 2018) Green infrastructure: A system of interconnected ecosystems, ecological and technological hybrids, and built infrastructure providing contextual social, environmental, and technological functions and benefits (Grabowski et al., 2022) Green space: Natural areas or urban vegetation including urban forest (Konijnendijk et al., 2006) public parks, street verges, cemeteries, and sports grounds (Taylor and Hochuli, 2017). Landscape architecture: The profession that integrates art and science in managing, planning, and designing the physical and cultural landscape (Motloch 2001) Municipal park: Parks that are located within the jurisdiction of local government and provide services for the use of general public (Karlis, 2016). Park design: The creative process of responding to conditions and concentrating meaning to relationships of spaces and functions in parks (Motloch 2001) Public Park: Urban green spaces that provide recreational services, places for social cohesion, better general health to all people in a city while also contributing to the sustainability of the urban landscapes (Shanahan et al., 2015) Urban forest canopy: The total spread of canopy of urban trees and associated vegetation (Miller et al. 2015) xv Urban forest: The system of trees in cities, suburbs, towns, and other urbanized areas, including public and private lands, spanning street trees and residential yards as well as highly designed and natural parks (Miller et al. 2015) Urban forestry: The art, science and technology of managing trees and forest resources in and around urban community ecosystems for the physiological, sociological, economic and aesthetic benefits trees provide society (Miller et al. 2015) xvi Acknowledgements I am grateful to Dr. Cecil Konijnendijk for his steadfast leadership, enthusiasm for bridging research and practice, and for being kind and supportive and always there for me. Dr. Lorien Nesbitt, for the local support and insightful contribution to my work. Dr. Karen Landman for close to 14 years of mentorship and continuous contribution to my education journey. Karen’s generosity of spirit is matchless. Mr. Kees Lokman, for keeping my landscape architecture roots strong and always offering a thoughtful approach. To my best friend and partner, Sean Todd, who is the answer to the question I am always asked: “how do you do it all?” Without his continuous support and mountain of patience, I would not be writing this acknowledgement today. Thanks to my children’s grandparents for giving me the village, I needed to do this. To my grandma and my parents for their continuous encouragement. Thank you to all those individuals who participated and contributed to this research. xvii Dedication This is for Ariana and Aileen, and our common love for discovery. Thanks for giving me the strength, the energy, and motivation to persist. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Climate change and biodiversity loss, combined with population increase in urban areas, will continue impacting highly modified urban landscapes (Mexia et al., 2018). Many municipalities worldwide are planning for resiliency and climate adaptation, investing in green spaces (Campbell et al., 2016) because of their multiple climate, health, biodiversity, and other benefits (Dobbs et al., 2017). As one type of urban green space, parks are considered important biodiversity hotspots in the cities (Nielsen et al., 2014). Policymakers consider urban parks to be contributors to climate change mitigation (Campbell et al., 2016), and many studies have investigated the cooling effects of parks in urban settings (Bowler et al., 2010). Park design strategies to deal with a warming climate are being considered worldwide (Crawford and Stephan, 2015). Despite their climate resilience benefits, parks have often been primarily designed to prioritize recreation services, while other ecosystem services have often been given secondary consideration (Pincetl and Gearin, 2005). Public parks were introduced as infrastructure assets in Canadian cities late 1800s (Karlis, 2016). Their purpose was to introduce green spaces to improve public health and the well-being of the urban population (Bunting and Filion, 2006). For example, one of the early introduction of public recreation components were the playgrounds. In the early 1900s in Canada, the Playground Movement played a significant role in providing public recreation in parks (Karlis, 2016). While the recreation benefits of parks are important, research has shown that recreational activities can conflict with other uses, such as biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation (Qui et al., 2013). Conflict is either rooted in incompatible values or in competition for a limited resource (Peltonen and Sairinen, 2010). 2 For decades, parks have been the grounds for discussion of land values, cultural power, and social privilege and injustice (Loughran, 2018). Moreover, park users often have different preferences, identified as early as 1982 by Schroeder (1982). Park users express different preferences for trees in the park, based on the environment they grew up in and their sociocultural backgrounds (Muratet et al., 2015; Ordóñez et al., 2016; Ordóñez-Barona, 2017). Values and knowledge of park users about trees' significance in the urban landscape are only sometimes clear to park planners, designers and managers of urban landscapes. Landscape architecture is the profession that integrates art and science in managing, planning, and designing the physical and cultural landscape (Motloch 2001). Landscape architects are involved in planning and designing parks which represent the creative process of responding to conditions and concentrating meaning to relationships of spaces and functions in parks (Motloch 2001). Landscape architects and park planners can play a decisive role in finding a balance between the different services that park spaces can provide. Balancing municipal park roles and uses has become very important, e.g., in light of new priorities for urban green space and trees. Climate adaptation is an important component of this, and landscape architects and their professional associations have taken related action. In the fall of 2022, the American Society of Landscape Architects issued a Climate Action Plan (ASLA, 2022), setting the standards for landscape architects and landscape architecture projects. Earlier in the year, the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA, 2022) participated in the national response to climate adaptation and delivered six focus areas, including park and natural heritage infrastructure. Urban forestry is the art, science and technology of managing trees and forest resources in and around urban community ecosystems for the physiological, sociological, economic and aesthetic 3 benefits trees provide society (Miller et al. 2015). In this study, urban forests are considered to be the collection of vegetation communities in urban areas, and urban forest canopy refers to the total area of the tree crowns in a specific urban area (Dobbs et al. 2017). Urban forests and urban canopy are obvious contributors to climate adaptation and other strategies for their contribution to carbon sequestration and temperature regulation (Cheng et al., 2021) however, despite the positive movement towards investment in green infrastructure at the national and local levels, there seem to be discrepancies and poor alignment between and across climate change and urban forest policies (Cheng et al., 2021) . This can be a problem; it indicates unclear direction and significant loss of opportunity. Many, especially larger, Canadian municipalities have been developing dedicated urban forest management plans (Ordóñez and Duinker, 2013; Cheng et al., 2021). However, the links between urban forestry targets and municipal parks are often unclear and leave room for improvement. There are a lot of demands on municipalities for recreation and other programmable elements that require significant dedicated space. By focusing on one important component of urban forestry strategies and plans–namely urban forest canopy targets–this study will investigate consideration of urban forestry and tree-planting directions in Canadian municipal parks. Another component of this study is to understand the root of park design practices and identify whether any changes are being considered in the light of new urban forestry demands and directions. Policies can provide valuable information to evaluate the direction that municipal parks are taking regarding canopy cover; however, it is design practices and guidelines that shape the landscape in parks. Rooted in the science of the landscape, both urban foresters and landscapes play significant roles in shaping the cities within their fields. Landscape architects are deeply involved in the design and construction of all aspects of parks and urban foresters are 4 focused on the ecological services of urban forests. There are many more components to these roles and associated fields that need to be studied. Figure 1.1 illustrates the intersection of the two fields of park planning and park design, and urban forest canopy policy. This intersection is the focus of this research. Figure 1.1 Diagram illustrating the two study themes and their area of intersection 1.1 Research Objectives The objectives of this research include: 1) Explore current and emerging trends of park planning and design in Canadian municipalities to, a. analyze if and how urban forest canopy targets are integrated into park policy, planning and design, and; b. determine potential trade-offs and synergies between canopy targets and other park planning and design goals. 2) Evaluate how park planning, design, and construction, can better incorporate urban forest canopy objectives and targets, using the framework illustrated in Figure 1.2. 3) Assess how urban forest and municipal park governance influences the implementation of canopy targets, with a specific focus on the role of actors such as municipal decision- Planning and Design of Municipal Parks Urban Forestry and Urban Canopy Policy 5 makers, municipal park planners and urban foresters, members of the public, external experts, and other key stakeholders. Figure 1.2 Four stages of opportunity for urban forest canopy integration Policy (guiding municipal direction), planning (creating plans), design (fitting the plan into a site), and development (construction) continue with changing landscape 1.2 Methodology and Research Questions The research approach had five interrelated steps. Each step was meant to help answer one or more of the research questions. 6 Figure 1.3. Overall study approach Chapter 1 – Introduction Chapter 1 provides an introduction to, and justification for, the research. It outlines the research objectives, research questions, approach, and methodology. Chapter 2 – Policy Analysis and Literature Review The objective of this part of the study study was to set the stage for, and frame the further research by 1) analyzing if and how urban forest canopy targets are integrated into park policy, planning and design, and; 2) determining potential trade-offs and synergies between canopy targets and other park planning and design goals. To meet this objectives I completed a preliminary scoping literature review to synthesize relevant, current, and available published knowledge (Deming and Swaffield, 2011), identify gaps within the literature, and illustrate how this study aims to address those gaps (Marshall and 7 Rossman, 2006; Creswell, 1994). I reviewed literature from both urban forestry and landscape architecture disciplines. The landscape architecture literature is important for this study as landscape architecture has a significant role in the growth and development of public parks and urban forestry. I looked to identify similarities, differences, paradigms, and, if any, potential lack of collaborations because of differences in urban planning and design philosophy. The review mostly focused on Canada with consideration of relevant international work to better identify gaps in Canadian research. A policy review and analysis was subsequently completed to understand governance issues, synergies and trade-offs in urban forest policies and relevant park design guidelines. This work was instrumental in understanding policy and planning opportunities and constraints in meeting urban forest canopy targets. Municipal urban forest policies were reviewed to verify directions provided for park planning and design. Research Question: In Canada, how are urban forest canopy targets considered by municipal policy and are they integrated into park planning and design? Chapter 3 – Case Study of Canadian Urban Parks The objective for this Chapter was to evaluate how park planning, design, and construction can better incorporate urban forest canopy objectives and targets, using the framework illustrated in Figure 1.2. I reviewed a selection of urban parks in Canada to identify trends and commonalities related to incorporating urban canopy. The format of this review followed landscape architecture case studies. Deming and Swaffield (2011) express that case studies are appropriate for landscape architectural research, as the focus of interest of the discipline is typically complex, 8 multidimensional, and embedded in a broader context. This task included interviews, review of policy and reports, a scan of local newspapers, and site visits, where possible, to strengthen the study. Although a desktop analysis can provide a lot of information, especially of a quantitative nature, in-person site visits and observations can capture the qualitative values of a site much better. Case study selection was established based on the literature review. Case selection parameters guided the selection of the sites by representing diversity in the park's size, municipality size, geographical distribution, regional climate, the extent of development, and park age. Sites (four) are in British Columbia, ,Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. Research Questions: 1) What are the potential trade-offs and synergies between canopy targets and the other objectives and targets of parks? and 2) How can urban park planning, and design be transformed to incorporate urban forestry objectives and targets better? Chapter 4 – Survey of Municipal Staff and Design Professionals Across Canada With the same objective as in Chapter 3,I conducted a descriptive social survey (Deming and Swaffield, 2011) with design professionals and municipal staff in Canadian cities as the target audience. This research method can be effective when the researcher is interested in information that can be found by asking people what they have seen or experienced (Deming and Swaffield, 2011). The survey questionnaire was distributed country-wide to understand challenges and opportunities, trends, available policies, and directions. The survey outcome helped me to understand the topic in the context of Canada. The online survey was administered using Qualtrics; it enquired about participants’ perspectives on synergies between urban forest canopy targets and park design, as well as whether there are gaps to address and opportunities for improvement. The questionnaire included a combination of ‘closed’ and ‘open’ questions, to 9 give the respondents the choice to use their own words (Deming and Swaffield, 2011), as well as a range of directed responses. The results were evaluated to create a narrative and identify commonalities and differences. Thank you to Jessica Quinton, PhD Student, who provided additional support for the analysis of the result. Research Questions: What are the potential trade-offs and synergies between canopy targets and other objectives and targets for parks? How can urban park planning, and design be transformed to better incorporate urban forestry objectives, including and targets? Chapter 5 – Coquitlam Case Study The objective of this section was to assess how urban forest and municipal park governance influences the implementation of canopy targets, with a specific focus on the role of actors such as municipal decision-makers, municipal park planners and urban foresters, members of the public, external experts, and other key stakeholders. I used a multi-method approach of case studies, interviews with staff and elected officials, surveys, interviews with park users, and Google review analysis in Chapter 5. Thank you to Kaitlyn Pike, PhD Student, who completed Google review analysis and to Ali Nayeri, P. Eng., who assisted and provided the drone for the drone imagery. Coquitlam is one of the fastest-growing municipalities in British Columbia, home to 149,894 people (based on the 2019 Census) and covering an area of 122.3 km². Coquitlam offers a mix of older and newer neighbourhoods and parks systems. The municipality has over 80 parks and natural areas. Three sites were selected, with diversity in the sizes and ages of the parks. The benefit of looking at parks within one municipality is that it reduces the number of variables in the sites (for example, climate). The challenge with looking at three parks in one municipality is 10 that there is a possibility of having high similarity in design due to geographical conditions and the potential of relying on the same designers. I examined three parks to draw comparisons across three themes: 1) existing tree species, canopy cover, and size diversity; 2) park function and design attributes and 3) potential for additional tree planting based on available space (Quinton et al., 2020). A closer look at a number of parks allows one to examine various design practices. To understand the value of the urban forest for park users and the quality of experience, a descriptive social survey (Deming and Swaffield, 2011) was distributed amongst park users (targeting 20 completed surveys per park) at three parks in the City of Coquitlam. The intention of the survey was to understand the value of trees in the selected parks to the members of the public. Park users or residents of a city are actors and often decision-makers in a park's planning and design process. Ordóñez and Duinker (2013) found that not enough studies have been done in Canada to explore the value of urban forests to people. Coquitlam was selected as it is a growing municipality, medium in size, with diverse residents and ease of access for the researcher. The survey was available online, and paper-format surveys with stamped envelopes for return were distributed to park users at the parks. These efforts were made to address the following question: What are the roles and contributions of different municipal and community factors in meeting urban forestry canopy targets in urban parks?Chapter 6 – Recommendations Chapter 6 concludes the study with a discussion of the findings and provides recommendations on how parks can continue to meet recreational and cultural demands while balancing those with urban forestry objectives for a more resilient city. 11 Chapter 2: Policy analysis and literature review 2.1 Introduction The role of urban forest policies is to provide strategic direction for a city’s urban forest. Urban forest policies in Canadian municipalities have been explored to understand municipal direction and urban forest objectives (Ordóñez and Duinker, 2013; Almas and Conway, 2016; Ordóñez, et al. 2020) across the city. Public parks can be important habitat for urban biodiversity, and can provide recreation opportunities for urban residents (Shanahan et al., 2015) and as public land they can provide the space needs to nurture and enhance urban forest cover. However, it is unclear if urban forest policies provide park-specific urban forest canopy targets and tree planting recommendations. In Canada, landscape architects lead planning and design work for municipalities and a study of species selection decisions (Conway and Vander Vecht, 2015) found that more conversation, education, and direction is needed for practitioners for tree species selection. The links between urban forestry targets and municipal parks planning and design in Canada are unclear and this chapter’s objective is to explore current and emerging trends of park planning and design in Canadian municipalities to analyze if and how urban forest canopy targets are integrated into park policy, planning and design. This chapter presents a policy analysis to understand governance issues, as well as synergies and trade-offs between urban forest policies (and specifically urban forest canopy targets) on the one hand, and municipal park planning and design (e.g., in the form of guidelines) on the other. This work is instrumental in understanding policy and planning opportunities and constraints in meeting urban forest canopy targets, partly through municipal park planning and design. This in-depth review includes relevant, current, and published literature from both urban forestry and 12 landscape architecture disciplines, review of projects and some preliminary interviews. The study attempts to identify similarities, differences, paradigms, and, if any, potential lack of collaborations because of differences in urban planning and design philosophy. With a focus on Canada, the main question this chapter aims to answer is: How are urban forest canopy targets considered by municipal policy and are they integrated into park planning and design? 2.2 Methods A review of literature and policies was carried out to develop the framework for the study 2.2.1 Literature Review An integrative literature review synthesis was completed to serve the following three functions: 1. To synthesize relevant, current, and available published knowledge (Deming and Swaffield, 2011) and to create the framework for the next steps in the study. 2. To place the study into context with previous research (Babbie, 1998) to identify gaps within the literature and to illustrate how this study addressed those gaps (Marshall and Rossman, 2006). 3. To establish the importance of the study (Creswell, 1994). The following described the characteristics of the literature reviewed: ● Literature on urban forestry in Canada ● Landscape architecture, park planning, and design literature ● Urban forestry policy in Canadian municipalities 13 The search strategy included the finding the intersection of policy, planning, design, and management with public park and urban forest. The selection of the research focused on studies based out of Canada, and where there was a gap in information, I relied on international studies. I excluded any study that didn’t at least cover one of policy, planning, design, and management. There were in total 75 studies including 68 journal articles 7 book chapters. The research background is divided into two sections: A) Public Park Design and Management and; B) Urban Forest Policy and Planning. 2.2.2 Review of Municipal Policy This part of the study included reviewing the basics of urban forestry policy and park design. The policy sets a vision and overall goals, and the design implements the vision. The first step was to review urban forest management plans for selected Canadian municipalities. This study stage identified park-specific urban forest canopy targets and tree planting recommendations in parks, as listed in 20 municipal urban forest management plans. The cities were selected based on population size. This was then supplemented by reviewing cities of various sizes and locations that had their policies referenced in the first round of reviewed documents. These same municipalities' park tree by-laws or public tree by-laws were reviewed to assess the availability and potential overlap of information with the urban forest management plans. For example, the by-laws were searched for any mention of tree removal or tree planting or reference to urban forest management plan. Table 2.1 includes the 20 municipalities that were part of the review, as well as information about any urban forest policy present. Table 2.1 Summary of Canadian municipal urban forest policy reviewed 14 Province Municipality Urban Forest Policy Alberta Calgary Edmonton Calgary Parks Urban Forestry Strategic Plan (City of Calgary, 2007) Urban Forest Management Plan (City of Edmonton, 2012) British Columbia Kelowna New Westminster Vancouver Victoria Saanich Sustainable Urban Forest Strategy (City of Kelowna, 2011) Urban Forestry Strategic Plan (City of New Westminster, 2016) Urban Forest Strategy (City of Vancouver, 2018) Urban Forest Management Plan (City Victoria, 2013) Urban Forest Strategy (District of Saanich, 2010) Manitoba Winnipeg No urban forest strategy Nova Scotia Halifax Urban Forest Management Plan (Regional Municipality of Halifax, 2013) Ontario Barrie Kingston London Oakville Ottawa Peterborough Toronto Urban Forest Strategy (City of Barrie, 2013) Urban Forest Management Plan (City of Kingston, 2011) Urban Forest Strategy (City of London, 2014) Urban Forest Strategic Management Plan (Town of Oakville, 2008) Urban Forest Management Plan (City of Ottawa, 2017) Urban Forestry Strategic Plan (City of Peterborough, 2011) Strategic Forest Management Plan (City of Toronto, 2013) Quebec Montreal Quebec Urban Forestry Plan (City of Montreal: CN-NDG district, 2011) No urban forest strategy Saskatchewan Regina Saskatoon Urban Forest Management Strategy (City of Regina, 2000) No urban forest strategy 15 2.2 Results and Discussion 2.2.1 Literature Review Parks have many essential roles in cities. The social (Kuo et al., 1998), physical (Graham et al., 2016), and psychological benefits (Barnhart et al., 1998) of parks and green spaces for public health are widely recognized. Parks also play a significant role in adapting cities to climate change (Lanza and Brian Stone Jr., 2016). The role of parks has been dynamic, from a natural refuge to a sports complex, as a venue to address community needs, to a tool for cities to become more sustainable (Pincetl and Gearin, 2005). During the COVID-19 pandemic, discussions and debates about the future design of parks and public green spaces emerged, and their value was further emphasized (Honey-Rosés et al., 2020). Urban parks and public green spaces also offer an opportunity for tree planting and urban forest expansion. With the growing popularity of urban forest management plans in municipalities (Steenberg et al., 2013), some may believe those ambitious targets are achievable by relying on publicly owned lands such as parks. Municipal tree-planting efforts often focus on parks and streets, due to land ownership; however, in some cases, park tree-planting may provide more opportunities and expand the potential land area for tree planting. Moreover, research has shown that urban dwellers receive a more significant benefit from the passive use of natural settings than active recreation. Therefore, those involved in park planning should consider diversity and variety (Ulrich, 1986). Most park tree-planting conditions consider ample growing space for roots and low-to-no salt concerns for soil and groundwater, compared to high-pressure, heavily salted roadways in winter and narrow boulevard space (Lu et al., 2010) in many of Canada’s cities. Park trees are not 16 typically impacted vertically by overhead infrastructure (Appleton, 2006). However, there are a variety of challenges that prevent maximizing the potential of parks for increasing urban forest canopy, including during the planning and design phases. Recreational amenity demands (e.g., sports fields, spray parks, and playgrounds) from residents and community groups are high in park space. The active recreation spaces are designed to standard sizes and can take up a large area in the park (Hopper, 2007). In the remaining space, tree planting can become limited by other factors, such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design considerations (Fennelly and Perry, 2018), park maintenance requirements, and final project budget reductions. This study includes a review of landscape architecture literature as a basis for design and considerations for the urban forest in public parks. Canada faces significant population growth especially in urban areas from 37.1 million in 2018 and projected to reach 44.4 - 70.2 million by 2061 (Statistics Canada, 2019),. The need to provide housing and infrastructure can result in development pressure on parkland and amenities. Haaland and Konijnendijk van den Bosch (2015) frame this pressure on parkland and other green space as a loss of space, quality, and low prioritization of green space. Depending on the size and geographical location, municipalities face different challenges. Cities with large populations have higher demands and an enhanced complexity of issues (Sancton and Young, 2019), and the municipal administration attempts to address those by creating and implementing policies. With recent attention on the climate emergency, there is an emphasis on urban forest management policies nationwide and on achieving municipal tree canopy targets (Steenberg et al., 2013). A) Public Park Design and Management Parks and Urban Forestry – with a Canadian focus 17 Urban forest management plan implementation is underway in many Canadian municipalities (Ordóñez and Duinker, 2013; Steenberg et al., 2013), often with ambitious tree-planting plans. Implementing urban canopy targets can be more complicated than it seems (Pincetl, 2010; Blum, 2016). Parks, which are important to both the health of people and natural systems, provide an opportunity for urban tree planting. Parks and green spaces also provide opportunities in adapting cities to climate change. Potential benefits include temperature cooling effects, carbon sequestration, air quality improvement, and stormwater management (Lanza and Brian Stone Jr., 2016). The social (Kuo et al., 1998), physical (Graham et al., 2016), and psychological benefits (Barnhart et al., 1998) of parks and green spaces for public health are widely recognized. Parks also play a significant role in adapting cities to climate change (Lanza and Brian Stone Jr., 2016). The role of parks has been dynamic, from a natural refuge to a sports complex, as a venue to address community needs, to a tool for cities to become more sustainable (Pincetl and Gearin, 2005). Urban parks and public green spaces also offer an opportunity for tree planting and urban forest expansion. With the growing popularity of urban forest management plans in municipalities (Steenberg et al., 2013), some may believe those ambitious targets are achievable by relying on publicly owned lands such as parks. Moreover, research has shown that urban dwellers receive a more significant benefit from the passive use of natural settings than active recreation. Therefore, those involved in park planning should consider diversity and variety (Ulrich, 1986). Most park tree-planting conditions consider ample growing space for roots and low-to-no salt concerns for soil and groundwater, compared to high-pressure, heavily salted roadways in winter and narrow boulevard space (Lu et al., 2010) in many of Canada’s cities. Park trees are not 18 typically impacted vertically by overhead infrastructure (Appleton, 2006). However, there are a variety of challenges that prevent maximizing the potential of parks for increasing urban forest canopy, including during the planning and design phases. Recreational amenity demands (e.g., sports fields, spray parks, and playgrounds) from residents and community groups are high in park space. The active recreation spaces are designed to standard sizes and can take up a large area in the park (Hopper, 2007). In the remaining space, tree planting can become limited by other factors, such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design considerations (Fennelly and Perry, 2018), park maintenance requirements, and final project budget reductions. This study includes a review of landscape architecture literature as a basis for design and considerations for the urban forest in public parks. The need to provide housing and infrastructure can result in development pressure on parkland and amenities. Haaland and Konijnendijk van den Bosch (2015) frame this pressure on parkland and other green space as a loss of space, quality, and low prioritization of green space. With recent attention on the climate emergency, there is an emphasis on urban forest management policies nationwide and on achieving municipal tree canopy targets (Steenberg et al., 2013). There has been an increasing recognition that parks’ role is undergoing evolution as they contribute to sustainability of the urban fabric (Pincetl and Gearin, 2005). For example, with the increase in green infrastructure efforts in North America in the past 20 years, cities are developing community gardens and urban farms within parks that support improved access to fresh food and quality of life overall (McLain et al., 2012). People's needs for parks can be one, or a combination of, the following: comfort, relaxation, passive and active engagement with the environment, and discovery (Carr et al., 1992). Different demands on amenities may be a small 19 step towards the reinvention of the public park (Pincetl and Gearin, 2005) and addressing communities' current and future needs. As mentioned, Canada faces significant population growth especially in its urban areas. This large increase in population and the need for housing can result in urban sprawl or increasing density in major urban centers. Often, the pressure to provide housing and keep up with infrastructure demand (e.g., roads and utilities) can significantly impact parkland, park components, and other green space, resulting in loss of green space area and quality. Parks and their associated challenges often compete for attention with other complex demands. Public parks in Canada and many other countries typically contain ample un-programmed open space; these provide an opportunity for increasing urban canopy and can play a significant role in a city's resilience to climate change (Gill et al., 2007). With the parks’ benefits mentioned above, significant tree planting in parks is an essential public investment and is generally considered an important task of municipal governments with the support of community residents. Due to space constraints, professionals designing streets, squares, and plazas tend to rely on public parks as the primary location for tree planting. Moreover, park planners and landscape architects face various challenges in protecting public lands and their trees. Some of these challenges are discussed in Section 1.3. Urban Park Design and its Evolution in Canada In Canadian cities, public parks were introduced as infrastructure assets around 1850, similar to many other countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States (Williams, 2014). Their purpose was to use the landscape to improve the public health and well-being of the urban population (Bunting and Filion, 2006). Before that, cemeteries were often the only extensive natural landscapes available to the public (Williams, 2014). In 1750, Halifax Commons, 20 Canada's first park, was established for pasture, general recreation, and leisure (Markham and Edginton, 1979). Various parcels of land with similar designs and sizes were adapted to become common green spaces from 1850 to 1880 in small and large cities in Canada (William, 2014). Frederick Law Olmsted's 1870 vision of Central Park in New York City was based on its future as a centrepiece for a city of millions, despite humble beginnings and associated usage (Tate, 2001). This type of thinking, planning, and design for future use was also introduced in Canada. Olmsted designed Mount Royal Park into a park after the Montreal city council made various development decisions for the purchased and amalgamated lands (Williams, 2014). Fredrick Todd, a landscape architect, trained under the tutelage of Olmsted, planned and designed the first land purchased by municipality with the intention for public use in Canada in the early 1900s (Jacobs, 1983). Todd was commissioned to design several parks in larger cities in Canada that were built before the First World War and continue to exist in their mature form today: Assiniboine Park, Winnipeg; Wascana Park, Regina; and Battlefields National Park, Quebec City (Jacobs, 1983). Understanding the origins of public park design in Canada is necessary for assessing and understanding the foundation of park design practices today. Tate (2015) states that St. James Park, London, England, was likely the first English town park designed for public use. It played a role in the evolution of western landscape design "from landscape gardening for private estates to landscape architecture for the public (p. 97).” Williams (2014) describes the design evolution of public parks in Canada as passive squares and public spaces for commercial cities (1800-40), to parks of considerably larger size with recreational components (towards 1850), and, finally, large naturalistic urban parks during the last decade of the 19th century. He further elaborates that the first parks designed for use by the 21 public were inspired by the famous parks of Great Britain, the design of which has seen little change up to the present day. The design examples of municipal parks discussed by Williams (2014) (City Park in Kingston, Ontario; Victoria Park, London, Ontario; Major's Hill Park, Ottawa, Ontario) consist of a large lawn surrounded by large trees, cultural and horticulture components, points of convergence, carriage roads and paths. These examples were designed by landscape design professionals. During the planning and design phases, some factors can limit the contribution to the urban forest canopy. Site design is influenced throughout different parts of the design process, such as during spatial programming, community engagement, identification of physical opportunities and constraints, and by available funding (Wirtz et al., 2021). Spatial design can be guided by assessing the community's needs and public and political interests; there will often be competing demands for the use of park space. Some studies have shown that urban dwellers receive better health, social, and economic benefits from the passive use of natural settings compared with active recreation (Harris et al., 1988; Harris and Dines, 1998; Wolf and Wohlfart, 2014; Veitech et al., 2022). Therefore, those involved in park planning should consider the diversity and variety of services offered by parks (Ulrich, 1986; Bratman et al., 2019). Parks provide the same general function regardless of size; therefore, in a small neighbourhood park a mix of leisure and physical activities and social interaction is necessary (Anuar and Muhamadan, 2018). Research in recreation management has noted a continuous increase in demand for outdoor recreation and the diversity of the type of recreation (Bell, 1997). One of the challenge that park planners and landscape architects face is that recreational amenity requests (e.g., sports fields, courts, and spray parks) in park spaces are high by residents and community groups (Bell, 1997; Karlis, 2016). The challenge includes both meeting the recreational needs in limited park space and be 22 considerate of urban forest canopy. Urban park features and amenities are sometimes used differently than the designer intended (Lindberg and Schipperijn, 2015). Often a large area of open lawn is dedicated to un-programmed recreation (e.g., picnics), but urban dwellers require more than an empty open space to meet their leisure needs (Pigram and Jenkins, 2006). Provision of Park Amenities and Service in Canadian Cities Between the two World Wars, the connection between public health, active recreation, and sports was further emphasized in park design (Woudstra and Fieldhouse, 2000) and became a more predominant service for municipalities to provide (Rogers, 2001). Recreation and the provision of amenities and spaces where people can be active continue to be a focus for municipal park services across the globe. There is also momentum for other activities, such as food production (e.g., through urban agriculture) in parks (Thompson, 2002). Parks’ environmental and ecological functions are mainly the result of the physiological capacity of plants and the role they play as a system. For example, trees can remove air pollutants from the atmosphere through their stomata and rough and hairy leaf surfaces, and, by creating shade, trees cool the air. Through evapotranspiration, they can also contribute to the change of microclimate in the surrounding environment (Vieira et al., 2018). B) Urban Forest Policy and Planning Urban Forest Policy for Parks in the Canadian Municipalities Ordóñez and Duinker (2013) state that, in Canada, urban forest management plans have become the defining policy document behind urban forest management. Urban forest management plans, urban forest strategies, urban forest master plans, or a policy with a name similar to these titles have become more common in Canadian municipalities in the last two decades (Ordóñez and Duinker, 2013; Steenberg, 2013). They are often elected-officially approved documents, 23 providing high-level direction for the municipality. Most of the cities with urban forest management plans in place for the past few years are now in the implementation phase, and they are identifying gaps and flagging lessons learned. Gibbons and Ryan (2015) define urban forest management plans as documents that extend "beyond natural area planning," and include "trees in public parks." Still, an initial scan of municipal urban forest management in Canada found that the inclusion of park information is very minimal and vague. Some urban forest policies categorize their land-ownership type (Steenberg, 2013) but, when it comes to public parks, the information, if any, could be more strategic and practical. The neighbourhoods approach used in Halifax, Canada (Steenberg, 2013) recognizes those neighbourhoods where the urban canopy benefits from significant parks, and identifies those that can be improved by using park space. At a more operational level, there are relevant bylaws available to municipalities, such as tree bylaws and parks bylaws. The bylaws provide the legal authority to municipalities to regulate tree issues, but they mainly focus on preservation, and their effectiveness is unclear (Ordóñez and Duinker, 2013). They can be helpful when harm is done, but only if there is evidence to prove it. My review showed that there is little or no linkage between the bylaws, the urban forest management plan, or any strategic direction regarding improvement, growth, and expansion. Urban forest history in Canada has yet to be extensively studied (Roman et al., 2018); however, as discussed earlier, the origins of park design are rooted in British landscape history. Large green spaces, wide pathways through the parks, and recreational areas take up significant spaces in these parks. These spatial allocations in park design and development have continued over time. With a high demand for parkland in Canadian urban centers and various competing programs occurring in parks, providing urban forest canopy in parks becomes more challenging. 24 Public participation in park planning and urban forest policymaking The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) explains that public participation is any process that involves the public in problem-solving or decision making and uses the public input to make sustainable decisions (IAP2, 2016). The discussion on public participation is important to this research as it is a significant component of park planning and design, as well as urban forestry, and informs the prioritization of different planning and design alternatives. Planning and design can impact the public directly, and therefore, as part of iterative processes, public participation is sought by planners, designers, and policymakers. One of the central features of urban forestry is the significance of public participation contributions to the strategic and tactical levels (Ottitsch and Krott, 2005). Research in community psychology shows that public participation during the development of parks and subsequent utilization brings the community together (Kuo et al., 1998). Meaningful public participation that fosters positive connections between engaged citizens and municipal staff is essential for establishing projects that promote land care and stewardship. While research has found little documented evidence for direct links between public participation and the physical quality of green space (Fors et al., 2015), public participation is a necessary component of successful urban forestry programs and municipal park planning. In Canada, local governments may seek public opinion using the powers given to them by the provincial legislation (e.g., Local Government Act or Municipal Act), but the outcome of this process is not binding (BC Government, 2022). Obstacles, such as low trust in the administration and unintended constraints imposed by policies (Loures and Crawford, 2008), can result in low level or unsustained engagement. "Public participation can be messy, unpredictable and uncertain" 25 (Forester, 2006, p.448), and it is common for a planning or design project to change direction because of a special-interest group. For example, during consecutive public engagement sessions during the park design process, the most vocal group in attendance may advocate for a splash pad (seasonal water-play area) that can take up a significant area of the park. The political pressure and substantial public interest can cause the park designer to make compromises to accommodate this new demand. There are lists of demands and wishes and site-specific challenges and needs that need to be met during the design phase. The initial approach to site planning and design is about defining the problem at hand (Motloch, 2001). Often a problem has a different meaning to the designer than the public. Forester (2006) says that planners and public managers need to have "skill and thick skin" and the ability to inform citizens of "looming vulnerabilities and practical opportunities." The desires and perception of needs expressed by the community can also be different. In my professional experience as a park planner and landscape architect in a Canadian context, significant tree planting is only sometimes requested during public engagement. However, high-cost recreational opportunities (e.g., splash pad) and associated amenities (e.g., drinking fountains) are frequently requested. By the end of the design process, the project budget is often used up, and even the cheapest item (i.e., trees) cannot be afforded. If a policy is in place, such as a park-specific urban forest policy, it can act as an implementation tool (van der Jagt and Lawrence, 2019) to guide the planning and design processes. This study intends to identify the public's role in promoting and supporting urban forest canopy. Effective public participation acknowledges that each individual brings their values to the process and that their values shape their choices and opinions (IAP2, 2016). Many assumptions are made about how people value trees. These values must be shared and consistent within 26 communities (Peckham et al., 2013). To the best of my knowledge, little research has been done in Canadian cities to understand the values associated with tree planting in urban parks (Millward and Sabir, 2001). Canada comprises a mosaic of people with diverse experiences with nature and parks. Canadians are mainly urban dwellers and have strong connections with trees in the city (Sinclair et al., 2014). In a value discussion exercise in the city of Winnipeg, Canada, the top value expressed by participants was "naturalness" (Sinclair et al., 2014). In a study of urban forest values in Calgary and Halifax, participants expressed appreciation for "aesthetic, psychological, and moral benefits provided by nearby access to nature" (Peckham et al., 2013). An understanding of park user preferences and values for an urban park in terms of its urban canopy will be an essential component of this study. 2.2.2 Review of Municipal Urban Forests Policy At the time of this research, 16 out of the 20 municipalities reviewed (see Table 2.1) had an urban forest strategy. Six of those municipalities had a tree canopy target (%) specifically for parks, and one municipality had a target for short-term increase of the canopy goal for parks. The six municipalities with long-term canopy targets for parks were: Edmonton (20%), Ottawa (30%), Oakville (33%), Halifax (40%), New Westminster (45%), and Toronto (55%). Three municipalities provided species recommendations for tree planting in parks, and Oakville’s urban forest policy discusses areas of the parks suitable for tree planting. The urban forest strategies for nine municipalities did not include canopy target information. These nine municipalities were investigated further based on their Parks and Public Tree By-laws. None provided information on canopy targets or tree planting recommendations in parks. One by-law reflected upon the urban forest strategy for that municipality and the importance of the preservation of the canopy. 27 Three of the six municipalities described their process for determining a canopy target for parkland. Not all three provided the same level of detail in achieving that target. Halifax undertook a neighbourhood approach to emphasize the difference in urban forest management needs across a large municipality (Steenberg et al., 2013). Naturally, each park's urban forest strategy would depend on the neighbourhood's urban forest needs and what the park could provide based on its existing conditions. Another municipality set its overall target and then worked on calculating the contribution of each land-use type toward supporting the overall target. This was explicitly reflected in new park development but not in existing parks. In general, most urban forest strategies provided limited park-specific information on mandating tree planting in parks or providing guidance for tree planting in parks during the development phase. There was an overall theme of encouraging tree planting wherever possible, however. 2.3 Limitations and Future Studies This preliminary scoping review guided the wider research project in exploring the interface between park design and urban forestry.. Solely relying on strategy documents and municipal websites, and not reaching out to appropriate staff to confirm information, can also be considered limitations. Future studies could include the analysis of public park design in Canada and understanding any changes in the trends since these parks originated. Also, understanding landscape architects’ obstacles when designing for parks and urban forests can be beneficial. This can inform improved collaboration between landscape architects and urban foresters, which will benefit the implementation of municipal urban forest strategies. This scoping review provided the foundational content for the survey questionnaires, identifying sites and study participants in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. 28 2.4 Conclusion With the growing population in Canadian cities, the pressure on parkland is inevitable. The recreational and cultural demands will compete with the urban forest role of parks. Canadian municipalities are developing urban forest strategies, but most need park-specific directions and objectives for parks/ There are opportunities and challenges with incorporating urban forest canopy in parks and revealed the topic worth exploring in further detail and further investigation is needed to understand design treatments and efforts that are made in public parks to protect the existing urban forest canopy and addition of new trees. 29 Chapter 2: Canada Parks Case Study 3.1 Introduction This chapter includes the analysis of a series of large urban parks in Canada to identify trends and commonalities in incorporating urban forest targets. Much of the urban forest we see today in large parks is the outcome of the original concept designs, dedication, and continuous effort by municipal park staff and park advocates. The evolution of parks in Canada has been studied (Williams 2013; Tate 2015). Frederick Law Olmsted, a prominent American figure in landscape architecture, worked in Canada in the 19th Century (Taylor, 2010). Olmsted’s contribution continued indirectly through the work of those who apprenticed with him. In Canada, the first land purchased with the intention to design a public park, Assiniboine Park in Winnipeg, got its inspiration from Olmsted's work in parks such as Central Park in New York and Mount Royal Park in Montreal (Williams, 2014). Its designer, Fredrick Todd, then continued working on various urban projects in Canada as a landscape architect in the early 1900s (Jacobs, 1983). Since then the public’s involvement in park planning and design has significantly increased, but research has not found a direct link between public participation and the physical quality of a green space (Fors et al., 2015); in certain cases, public participation still faces obstacles such as low trust in administration and constraints developed by policies (Loures and Crawford, 2008). Also, there is a gap in literature on Canadian parks and incorporation of urban forestry objective (Roman et al., 2018) and the level of strategic direction, political support, and resource investment needed for those parks to be in their current shape. The format of this analysis is a landscape architecture case study. Deming and Swaffield (2011) argue that case studies are appropriate for landscape architectural research, as the focus of interest of the discipline is typically complex, multidimensional, and embedded in a broader 30 context. This task is primarily a current-state analysis with site visits, where possible, to capture the qualitative values of the site. Interviews were conducted to gather more information that may have been missed during the analysis of the site visit, as well as to receive other input and perceptions on the case. The two main questions that this chapter aims to answer are: 1) What are the potential trade-offs and synergies between canopy targets and the other objectives and targets of parks? and 2) How can urban park planning, and design be transformed to incorporate urban forestry objectives and targets better? Answering these questions will help guide the overall research to understand the contributions of park planning and design to urban forestry targets and the active role that the local government and community play. 2.2 Methods Case studies are multi-faceted investigations into a particular place or a strategy to explore new topics (Deming and Swaffield, 2011). The intention of the present study component is a comparative analysis, and the outcome is to explore the elements in park planning and design and urban forest that seems to be doing well in meeting urban forest objectives. Four Canadian parks were selected based on a set of criteria and evaluation described below. In general, the methodology used in this study included: 1) a current state review, 2) site visits, and 3) key informant interviews, including municipal staff and landscape architects, park planners, recreation planners, ecologists, and urban foresters who are considered subject-matter experts in their field and have local knowledge of the case study parks and of the municipalities in which they are located. Figure 3.1 illustrates the methodology used in this chapter. 31 Figure 3.1 Overview of Chapter 3 methodology 3.2.1 Case Study Selection To get a representation of parks across Canada, site selection criteria were developed; these criteria included: diversity in park size, municipality size, geographical distribution, regional climate, the extent of development in the parks, and park age. The primary and secondary selection criteria directed the site selection. The following details the criteria used to select the four sites: Primary Selection Criteria - Required parameters: Park Size: 40 - 200 hectares This range is selected as the city's largest parks, and the largest parks provide the most opportunity for urban forest development. Municipality Population: Cities with high populations have the most pressure in their park systems to accommodate recreational, cultural, and ecological systems. According to the census, nearly two in five Canadians live in the 15 largest municipalities. The selected municipalities are 32 in the top 24 most-populated cities, or the selected municipalities are considered a tourism destination and have a high influx of visitors (Census Canada, 2020). Geographical Distribution: The selected sites are in one of the four regions (western, central, eastern, and northern). Western is defined as British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, central as Ontario and Quebec, and eastern as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island. Northern includes Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. Park Development Legacy: The selected parks are one of the older parks in the Canadian municipal landscape and have existed for at least 100 years and have faced many changes due to various trends in park design and development. Park Development Extent: The selected municipalities attempt to balance the park’s recreational elements. The park is considered a cultural and social asset and is not entirely forested. Secondary Selection Criteria - Considered parameters: Urban Forest Policy: The selected municipalities have an Urban Forest Policy (e.g., Urban Forest Strategy or Urban Forest Management Plan), or an urban forest policy is underway. Municipality Size (area): The selected municipalities are considered one of the largest municipalities in their region or province. Jurisdiction Representation: Each site is in a major city in each province or territory that can be recognized as a representation of that jurisdiction. Park Master Plan or Management Plan: Each selected municipality has a plan for the park that sets the vision for the future state of the park, such as a master plan or management plan information about the park's direction. 33 Figure 3.2. Parks considered and evaluated in the study 3.2.2 Site Visits Site observations are foundational in planning and design practice, particularly in landscape architecture research; it is essential to observe landscape features and human activities, and to understand the social and cultural meaning of a place (Deming and Swaffield, 2011). The case study parks were visited once over the course of the study for approximately three hours each. Despite differences in times, site observations provided additional data for understanding these parks. 3.2.3 Current State Review This component of the study included the utilization of various information sources. A review of available urban forest, park planning, and design policy was completed. Some policy documents were available online, and some were retrieved from archives. In some cases, the municipal staff interviewees spoke to these documents. Park design legacy review included looking back at the origins of the park assembly and design to understand how the park came to fruition, contributing to a high-level review of the park's changes. Governance structure, including the 34 municipal council and staff, were the two most influential components of policy development and implementation. An online scan of local newspaper articles over the past four years was completed to understand some of the topics picked up by the news outlets. Since news articles are not driven by municipalities, this review was only completed to understand what some of the local attention and interests are regarding the parks. Park advocacy groups were identified, their mandates were reviewed, and they were contacted for interviews. 3.2.4 Key Informant Interviews Key informant interviews were undertaken, one-on-one, for in-depth conversation (Deming and Swaffield, 2011) about an aspect of the practice or a particular place, in this case, one of the four case study parks. Twenty key informants representing multiple facets of study projects were selected to respond to a series of questions. Table 3.1 illustrates an overview of the key informants’ expertise and their park of interest. The following describes the criteria used to select the key informants: 1. Key informants’ academic background must be one of Urban Forestry, Landscape Architecture, or Park Planning or relevant. AND: 2. Key informants must have ten years of experience within their field of expertise. OR: 3. Park advocacy, stewardship, and promotes awareness of the park for at least ten years. 35 AND one of the following: 3a. Key informants’ primary position must be either a Canadian municipal staff or; 3b. A member of academia with an interest in park planning or urban forestry or; 3c. Professionals with expertise in park planning and design or; 3d. Key informant has experience in the planning, design, or development of parks in Canadian municipalities or; 3e. Key informant is knowledgeable about at least one of the four parks of the case study. 3f. Key informant has experience in the planning, design, or development of parks in Canadian municipalities or; 3g. Key informant is knowledgeable about at least one of the four parks of the case study. Table 3.1 Overview of key informants Case Study Park Academia Industry Municipal Staff Advocate Park Planning & Design Urban Forestry & Ecology Assiniboine 1 3 2 1 4 3 Beacon Hill 1 2 2 - 2 3 Common 1 1 1 - 2 1 High Park 1 1 2 1 3 2 The questions for the key informants’ interviews were developed based on literature review and the objectives of this study. The questions start with understanding their role and experience and their knowledge of the case study parks. Then the focus of the questions shifts to these parks’ 36 ability to balance all needs, their contribution to the urban forest and nature, and any opportunities and challenges the key informants see in incorporating urban forest targets within the parks. Key informants were asked about urban forest targets for the entire city and for parks specifically. Finally, they were all asked if they have any advice for policymakers, planners, designers, and all those involved in municipal parks when it comes to urban forestry targets in municipal parks. For analysis and comparison purposes, their responses were categorized into two viewpoints: 1) view from inside the municipal organization; and 2) view from outside of the organization. The detailed questions are provided in Appendix A1 and A2. Approval from the Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) was received to conduct this study (H22-01674). Interviews were conducted virtually or over the phone. The questions were shared with the participants in advance of the interview. I took notes and the text from the open-ended questions, were coded in an inductive format using ad hoc meaning generation and thematic organization (Kvale, 1996; Braun & Clarke, 2006). 2.3 Results 3.3.1 Site Visits Assiniboine Park Site Visit - Winnipeg, Manitoba Date: October 19, 2019 – Clear skies and snow on the ground Assiniboine Park was covered in snow during the visit, and the park and the city were recovering from a storm that impacted many trees. The white landscape showed an even stronger contrast between the treed areas and areas with no trees (Figure 3.2b). There are large expanses in this park, with wide road spans, and ample parking. The Assiniboine Forest provides a significant urban forest canopy in the background to the south, and the trees forming the riparian edge of the Assiniboine River, to the north, frame the park. Between those trees, there are two central 37 spaces: the public and free component, and the park's ticketed area (i.e., zoo). The Leaf (a botanical conservatory) was under construction, as were the Diversity Gardens. Understandably, there were hardly any users in the park during that time due to the weather conditions. A few older adults had driven to the park for a walk, and a couple of runners ran towards the Assiniboine forest area. The park has a fun and creative playground, a sculpture garden, duck pond (Figure 3.2c), and an English rose garden. There are many heritage components, paying tribute to various significant locals with whom residents connected. The existing urban forest in Assiniboine Park is surrounded by mature trees along the river corridor and the adjacent Assiniboine Forest (Figure 3.2a). a. view towards Assiniboine forest b. large lawn and urban forest c. riley family duck pond Figure 3.3 Assiniboine Park’s urban forest (Photo credit: Leila Todd) Beacon Hill Park Site Visit - Victoria, British Columbia Date: September 19, 2019 – Sunny The contrast between the native landscapes of west coast Canada and colonial and British parks is very evident: from the coastal native firs (Figure 3.2c) to exotic peacocks walking the green lawns. The park was busy with families and other visitors. Victoria is a tourist destination, and Beacon Hill Park is conveniently within walking distance from downtown. Many families with small children were there, visiting the large playground and the petting farm. 38 There were also many families gathered around the ponds where the ducks were. Feeding the birds seemed like a widespread behaviour and perhaps a daily recreation for some. A park lighting upgrade project was happening at the time, and there was clear signage about this work. There are wooded areas in the park, connected canopy cover with mature trees (Figure 3.2b) and many trails. More extensive recreation facilities take up space in the park, including lawn bowling facilities. Beacon Hill Park is an ocean-front park and green space. Although the walking access to this area is not as convenient due to the roads surrounding the park, proximity to the ocean is appreciated. The urban forest in Beacon Hill is diverse in species, age, and size (Figure 3.2a) a. tree diversity and large lawn b. park tree canopy c. coastal native trees Figure 3.4 Beacon Hill Park urban forest (Photo Credit: Leila Todd) Halifax Common Site Visit - Halifax, Nova Scotia Date: October 11, 2019 – Cold breeze and partially cloudy The large lawn lacks shelter and feels vulnerable and exposed. During this site visit, there were walkers, particularly those following a diagonal desire line, moving towards the northwest corner of the park. There was no play in action on the baseball fields. There were some people using the tennis courts. 39 The weather at the time of the visit was not suitable for picnicking. Local connections and friends who are residents of Halifax told me that the Halifax Common is a place for events, socializing, and visiting friends during the summer. The Halifax Citadel National Historic Site vertically dominated the open space; this former military site was once surrounded by open space for a strategic, unobstructed view of the area, and this character has remained. A visit to the park very quickly turns the visitor’s attention to the Halifax Public Gardens and the heritage cemetery close by, once part of the larger common space used by the residents of Halifax and the surrounding area. The Halifax Public Gardens have the qualities of a British garden, including trees, a pond, and a heritage bandshell (Figure 3.3a). Just a block over from the Halifax Common, the public park, the urban forest in the public gardens is unique and well-established. a. public garden bandshell b. the Halifax Commons c. the common’s baseball fields Figure 3.5. Halifax Commons and Public Gardens (Photo Credit: 3.3aLeila Todd October 2019 and 3.3b and 3.3 Roberta Fougère January 2023) High Park Site Visit - Toronto, Ontario Date: October 6, 2022 – Sunny 40 The diversity of spaces in High Park is quite impressive. There is a combination of wetland, lake, woodland, savannah, steep slopes, and flat areas to areas of highly maintained French topiary garden with water features and planters. During the site visit, there were multiple wildlife sightings, including a hawk, woodpecker, swan, squirrels, and a raccoon sleeping in a high canopy of a fruiting Ginkgo biloba. Various fence styles protect natural heritage areas (e.g., metal fencing, wood fencing). The park was busy with a variety of users. There were multiple classes being taught outdoors, children playing soccer, and many passive uses such as yoga under the shade trees and book reading. While there were many mature trees and the canopy cover was expansive (Figure 3.3a), there were many open spaces (Figure 3.3b), views, and vistas throughout the park. The road through the park was sometimes busy with cars or cyclists, and pedestrians seemed cautious. A mix of pathways and trails is available with a wide range of accessibility. The park has many connections to the surrounding neighbourhoods. The cultural component of the park is an exciting feature. Heritage walks are offered by the City of Toronto, provided by a historian who walks the park with visitors and explains the historical context. John and Jemima Howard, who donated the land to the City of Toronto to use as parkland, are also buried at the park. The burial place is enclosed with an ornamental iron fence which has created a heritage component in the landscape. The urban forest in High Park includes tree diversity, bird biodiversity, and understory species which has created visual interest. The pathways through long grass (Figure 3.3c), along the water edge, and under the tree canopy provides a sense of wonder. 41 a. high traffic and picnic area b. open lawn seating area c. oak meadow and tall grass Figure 3.6. High Park’s urban forest (Photo Credit: Leila Todd) 3.3.2 Current State Review Table 3.2 illustrates an overview of each of the case study parks and how they related to each other. The table includes park-specific information and provides the city context. Table 3.2 Overview of case study parks Analysis Assiniboine Park Beacon Hill Park Halifax Commons High Park Park Size 160 ha 75 ha 17 ha*** 161 ha Park Canopy Cover 47%* 50% 7% 80%**** Target Canopy 60%** No target in policy 20% 40% City Location Winnipeg Victoria Halifax Toronto Population 749,607 94,400 450,586 2.93 million City Area 46,410 ha 1947 ha 23,829 ha 63,020 ha Total Parkland Area 3,500 ha 254 ha 5,721 ha 7,700 ha * Calculated by iTree Canopy v7.1 using Quinton et al. (2020) method **As per city staff, the target is being set at 60% for parks pending final approvals *** Established as 95ha in 1763 *** Including trees and shrubs 42 Policy Review for Case Study Parks Assiniboine Park Policy Review The City of Winnipeg's Official Plan (OurWinnipeg, 2022) recognizes the importance of urban forests and parks as part of an action to "leverage green infrastructure." The Complete Communities Directions Strategy 2.0 is supported by the Ecologically Significant Natural Lands Strategy and Policy and directs future development of the Parks Strategy, Recreation Strategy, and Comprehensive Urban Forest Strategy. Under the category of Parks and Recreation (Complete Communities 2.0), the protection and enhancement of urban forests following a comprehensive forest strategy is included. This recognition within two high-level city vision and strategic directions helps with policy alignment and internal collaboration. The development of an Urban Forest Strategy for the City of Winnipeg was underway during the study completion. Pending the City Council's approval of the Urban Forest Strategy, the project team is considering a 24% target for the entire City and a 60% target for all parks, including Assiniboine Park. Although the Assiniboine Park operation is under the authority of the Assiniboine Conservancy, this 60% would be considered City policy which the Park would follow. The Board of the Assiniboine Park Conservancy has approved a Tree Management Plan to be developed for Assiniboine Park. In 2021, the City of Winnipeg published two strategies to guide Parks and Recreation in Winnipeg: The Parks Strategy and The Recreation Strategy. The Park Strategy outlines the level of service for parks, including five key service categories: outdoor play, leisure and gathering, outdoor sport, nature experience, and trail-based recreation. The Recreation Strategy defines service provision, including programs and services, partnerships or agreements, facilities, and 43 parks. Having two separate strategies for parks and recreation shows the value put on the park system as an asset. Recreation is a service that can be provided in various settings and assets. The Assiniboine Park Framework Plan (2004) provides park values to protect and enhance the historical integrity and illustrates opportunities and actions for revitalization. The Framework Plan asks for the protection and preservation of the park's natural heritage (e.g., river, meadows, and forest). The Assiniboine Park Framework Plan (2004, p.8) goes as far as outlining that "this includes the responsibility to respect avenue planting of elm trees along Conservatory Drive and around the Formal Garden.” Beacon Hill Park Policy Review Beacon Hill Park was granted in Trust (City of Victoria, 2022) to the City by the Province in 1882. Victoria Heritage Foundation designated the park a heritage site in 2010 under the institutional category. The City of Victoria’s Official Plan (2022) highlights Beacon Hill Park as an ecological asset, including all sensitive ecosystems of the coastal bluff, terrestrial herbaceous, older forest, woodland, and wetland. The Parks and Open Space Masterplan (2017) was influenced by the Urban Forest Management Plan (2013) and the Green Way Plan (2003). The Parks and Open Space Master Plan provides guidance on the management and enhancement of the treed environment throughout Victoria, including within parks and open spaces. As an action, the Parks and Open Space Masterplan (2017, p.63), gives direction on continuing to implement the Urban Forest Management Plan. The document notes that “many recommendations in the Urban Forest Master Plan apply to parks and open spaces, such as the development of an Urban Forest Action Plan and a Tree Risk Management Program for public trees.” The Parks and Open Space Masterplan incorporated 44 findings of the Greenway Plan. It is recognized in the Parks and Open Space Masterplan (2017, p.10) that “many linkages and synergies exist between the urban forest and the parks and open spaces system.” This connection and linkage between policies supports internal collaboration and ensures the commitments are met. The City of Victoria’s Urban Forest Master Plan (2013) recognizes Beacon Hill Park as a “heavily treed (50-100% density)” area of the city. Beacon Hill Park is acknowledged for its significant natural areas, such as the Older Forest, Garry Oak Ecosystem, and large habitat patches that can support biodiversity. Additionally, the Urban Forest Master Plan recommends treating Beacon Hill Park as an educational venue by labelling trees. The Urban Forest Master Plan does not recommend a specific canopy target for public parks. It cautiously reviews other jurisdictions' works and targets for private and public lands. The public land recommendations include operational resourcing, identifying new planting areas, managing existing mature trees, developing a risk management plan, and, finally, completing and implementing a 5-year plan for the park division. Beacon Hill Park Management Plan (2001), assembled and developed through engagement and technical review, focuses on the carrying capacity of the park and the ecological areas for human use and impact. There does not seem to be a park planning component in the summary report retrieved from the City of Victoria’s archive. When it comes to the urban forest component, it focuses on the existing trees within the unique ecosystem and lacks any tree-specific recommendations. The Beacon Hill Park Heritage Landscape Management Plan (2004) highlights the legacy of tree planting, tree removals and vandalism in the park. It also includes a recommended action to survey trees to locate and identify the components of the entire collection. 45 Halifax Commons Policy Review In 2008, the Province of Nova Scotia approved the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter to grant the Regional Council the authority to pass by-laws and rights to govern anything considered appropriate within their jurisdiction. The Halifax Charter clearly outlines the parkland dedication requirements for subdivision development. However, it needs clear direction on requirements for when densification is occurring. In other words, high-rise developments are not required to pay the Regional Municipality for increased density and impact on the park system. This creates significant implications for the park system, as there is a higher demand to access the parks, but the development and operation funds do not match this increase. The Council can purchase land to address the gap (with other funds), but there is also the challenge of the availability of purchasable land. There is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Regional Municipality of Halifax regarding the Common, including some design principles for architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture in the Common land, but no specific mention of urban forestry or trees. The Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (2014) is under review to ensure it reflects the current development and growth goals. The Strategy refers to the Urban Forest Master Plan (2012) and recognizes its importance for planning, programming, and regulatory activities related to managing and enhancing the urban forest. The Regional Municipal Planning Strategy provides park classifications, including recreation service provision. The Halifax Urban Forest Master Plan (Halifax Regional Municipality 2022) has a neighbourhood approach for canopy targets. Halifax Common is in Halifax's Downtown neighbourhood with an existing canopy of 11%. The downtown parks have an existing canopy of 14%, and they have an opportunity to be increased to 40%. A relevant challenge in this 46 neighbourhood is that parks and cemeteries have a fair amount of green space with low canopy cover; they have much less impervious areas than the rest of the neighbourhood. An opportunity for consideration is that tree canopy on parks and school grounds can be increased from 14% to 40%. Following extensive public engagement in 2018 and 2019, the Halifax Common Master Plan was approved in principle by the Regional Council in 2022. The Master Plan has been endorsed in its current form with the expectation that the City will continue public consultation to validate what was heard, determine how elements of the plan get prioritized, and gather any other general feedback that residents would like to share. The Halifax Urban Forest Master Plan is a guiding document for the Halifax Common Master Plan, but to be read along with other land use plans and stakeholder institutional master plans (e.g., Dalhousie University Master Plan). Urban forests are again included in the Common Master Plan under the theme of passive recreation. Although not outlined in the document, through speaking with staff it was identified that the canopy target for the Common is 20%. High Park Policy Review The land deed of High Park has set the tone for majority development in the park as the commitment of the City of Toronto to John and Jemima Howard to maintain the park in a natural state. The City of Toronto Official Plan (2022) clearly defines land designations for natural areas, parks, and open spaces with the level of development possible. The first development criterion in Parks and Open Space Areas directs the City to “protect, enhance or restore trees, vegetation and other natural heritage features and maintain or improve connectivity between natural heritage features” (p.4-11). The connection to the park and trees in the official plan is direct and clear. 47 The Strategic Urban Forest Management Plan (2012-2022) indicates that the existing urban forest canopy within all parkland is 52%, with a possible increase of 3%. As illustrated in the urban forest coverage map, High Park is in an area of high urban forest canopy stretching to the west of the park. Further east, there is a gap in urban forest canopy coverage in that area of the city. The Parkland Strategy (2019) outlines the challenges and pressure on existing parks, as well as the guiding principles to expand, improve, connect, and include. It also recognizes the significance of ecological and natural spaces for passive uses. The Ravine Strategy and Oak Savannah Management Plan are some other policy documents that influence the park. The City of Toronto is currently developing a Transportation Management plan that may consider potential road closures. Design Legacy in Case Study Parks Assiniboine Park Design Legacy Assiniboine Park was the first land purchased, commissioned with the goal to transform into public park, and designed by a landscape architect in Canada (Jacobs, 1983). The Park was designed in 1905 by Fredrick Todd, the first resident Landscape Architect in Canada. Todd trained and worked with Frederick Law Olmsted. Todd imagined a classic Olmsted Park for Assiniboine: huge lawns for picnics, informal sports, varied recreational activities, large specimen trees (elms, cottonwood poplars, spruce), shrub masses, ornamental trees and shrubs (crabapple, honeysuckle, lilacs), winding pathways, and grand avenues lined with trees on both sides (Williams, 2014). 48 In a historical review of Assiniboine Park, Spectre (p.54, 2019) notes that the Winnipeg Public Parks Board’s terms of reference for the park design were vague as it asked, “to make the suburban park of the Assiniboine River a broad landscape.” Subsequently, Todd’s preliminary design proposed the removal of vast numbers of trees and shrubs; the second revised plan also did not keep any of the existing features. Spectre says that the Park Board sent back the drawings and asked that many of the trees and open spaces existing in the park be utilized in the design. Beacon Hill Park Design Legacy Beacon Hill Park was designed by the Scottish landscape designer John Blair in 1889. According to an article in Landscapes/Paysage Magazine (Dale, 1999), several local citizens purchased 2000 trees and shrubs from a nursery in Pennsylvania, and “today they form the basic canopy structure of the park” (p. 30). This tree planting was an addition to the remaining Gary Oak meadow that once covered the area that is now the park. Subsequent Park managers maintained and continued Blair’s vision over time, although they were under pressure to accommodate additional recreation in the park. The Halifax Common Design Legacy Since 1763, Halifax Common has been the heart of civic life in Halifax. Historic British town commons were unfenced areas of grass on the edge of the community set aside for all to use, typically for grazing livestock but also serving as a town square or village green. Halifax's Common followed this model; it was established outside the defended core of the old settlement as communal pastureland and, over time, took on additional civic functions (William, 2014). 49 Throughout the years, Halifax Common has been influenced by various public park movements, including but not limited to the public gardens and pleasure gardens (1850s), the children's playground movement (1890s), sport (1920s), and recreation movement (1960s) (Karlis, 2016). The current park has inherited this evolution of design as well as ad hoc solutions (Staff interview, August 9, 2022). High Park Design Legacy High Park, now the site of a rare black oak savanna, significant environmental and natural areas, and highly utilized recreation programs, was established through the effort of John and Jemima Howard in 1873 (William, 2014). John Howard was an English surveyor and architect; he acquired this land in 1836 to build a rural home. John and Jemima deeded 120 acres to the City of Toronto for a park, at a time when Toronto was starting to face rapid growth and needed parklands (William, 2014). Howard conserved the existing forest in most of the park (William, 2014), and the topography of the park’s developable flat areas informed the remainder of the design. According to staff interviews, all recreation amenities and horticulture components were installed in the 1960s; since then, the operation efforts have been to improve and keep the park in a state of good repair (Staff interview, August 5, 2022). Governance Structure in Case Study Parks Assiniboine Park Governance Review The City of Winnipeg (2022) has a mayor and 15 councillors. Each councillor is responsible for a city ward (winnipeg.ca). Assiniboine Park operates within a unique model under the leadership of the Assiniboine Park Conservancy, a not-for-profit founded in 2008. The Conservancy Board 50 has 16 members, including the Chair and Vice-Chair who are the deciders for the park. The Assiniboine Park Conservancy (2022) is responsible for establishing the future vision for the park while protecting its character and ensuring its long-term financial viability. The City of Winnipeg owns the park property and assets, and the Conservancy has a 50-year lease with the City. Planning and design of the park, its amenities and its facilities fall under the operations of the Conservancy. Any tree activities such as removals are managed under Winnipeg’s Parks By-law and need the approval of the City of Winnipeg's Chief Administrator Officer (Staff interview, July 18, and August 5, 2022). Beacon Hill Park Governance Review Victoria has a Mayor and 8 Councillors, each assigned as a liaison for a specific neighbourhood. (victoria.ca). Beacon Hill Park is held in trust by the City under an 1882 Crown grant by the Province of British Columbia. The City of Victoria is obligated to conform to the terms of the trust for park management (victoria.ca). The Parks and Open Spaces division is responsible for maintaining, planning, and developing all park facilities such as ornamental gardens, natural ecosystems, sports and entertainment venues and playgrounds. There are three departments within Parks and Open Spaces: Parks Operations, Urban Forest Services, and Park Design and Construction (Staff email, October 19, 2022). Duties related to Beacon Hill Park are distributed amongst mentioned departments. The Halifax Common Governance Review The Regional Council is the main decision-making body for the Halifax Regional Municipality (2022). The members are the Mayor and the 16 Councillors, each representing one of 16 Halifax districts. The Parks and Recreation division encompasses parks, trails, facilities, fields, youth 51 programs, recreation programming, culture and heritage, and beaches, including park planning and capital development. The Urban Forestry department is part of the Transportation and Public Works division. On the organization's website, one must select Transportation, Streets and Sidewalks, to find Urban Forestry services. The most recent Business and Budget Plan (2022) illustrates the organizational structure at a high level. It shows that Transportation and Public Works lead the implementation of the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP). The Business and Budget Plan (p. J4, 2022) notes that the Transportation and Public Works team “aims to protect and grow the municipal urban tree canopy through a robust tree planting program, cyclic pruning program, administration of the tree protection By-law T-600, updates to municipal design standards to maximize the benefits of trees in municipal spaces, and public education and forest stewardship.” Although the UFMP contextualizes parks within the Halifax urban forest, I found the efforts and commitment of the Transportation teamunclear from the information provided on the website. High Park Governance Review City of Toronto (2022) Council has a Mayor and 25 Councillors. There are 25 wards, and each Councillor represents one ward. The General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation reports to the Community and Social Services Deputy Manager. High Park is overseen by many departments and has many provincial designations for its various ecosystems. In the last 40 years, the protected significant wetland and savannah have focused on the ecological integrity of High Park. Additionally, volunteer opportunities are welcomed at the City of Toronto for parks across the city (including High Park) through the Natural Environment and Community Partnership Division of Forestry (City of Toronto, 2022). In review of governance structure of all four case studies, I find that there is an inconsistency of structure and teams leading park planning and design, and management of park and the urban 52 forest. Interview outcomes highlighted some challenges with this separation of duties, mainly due to communication disconnects and sometimes a lack of clarity on the accountable team. Park Advocacy for Case Study Parks Assiniboine Park Advocacy The Friends of the Assiniboine Park Conservatory, and Partners in the Park, and Zoological Society of Manitoba joined efforts and became the Assiniboine Park Conservancy. All donations, philanthropy, and volunteerism efforts are coordinated through the Assiniboine Park Conservancy (2022). Beacon Hill Park Advocacy Through decades, various organizations have advocated for Beacon Hill Park, including Beacon Hill Park Round Table, Beacon Hill Park Association, and the still-present Friends of Beacon Hill Park Society. The goal of the Friends of Beacon Hill Park is "to Promote & Protect the Natural & Cultural History of Beacon Hill Park" (Friends of Beacon Hill Park, 2022). The Friends group declined to participate in this study, partly due to recent tensions with the City. The Halifax Common Park Advocacy Friends of the Halifax Common is a non-profit community group founded in 2006 by long-standing Halifax residents involved in the community. Their website indicates that they are supportive of three objectives of the 1994 Common Master Plan, which are: 1) the amount of public open space in the Halifax Common will not be decreased; 2) the amount of land owned by the City of Halifax will not be decreased; and 3) the City will seek to increase the amount of land 53 under City ownership through recapture of lands. Friends of Halifax do not seem to be in support of the most recently developed Halifax Commons Masterplan (Halifax Common, 2022). High Park Advocacy High Park Nature Stewards have been working with the City of Toronto since 1996 to protect and restore the unique natural heritage of High Park. The Nature Stewards website indicates that they are a volunteer group that “advises the City of Toronto on the protection and restoration of the natural environment of High Park” (High Park, 2022). They provide a park watch program, information, and educational walking tours. During the interviews with the park advocacy group and City staff, there was a sense of collaboration and respect. There are many other volunteer groups that provide various services in the park (highparknaturecentre.com). The park advocacy groups for the case study parks have each taken their own advocacy paths. There is a broad spectrum where each group sits in terms of collaboration with the municipality. There are different levels of engagement. Some have taken a stewardship role for the park and are involved with day-to-day operations, and some have a complete lack of trust in the municipal organization’s management of the park and have proceeded with taking the municipalities to the court for various park management decisions. Case Study Parks in Local News Assiniboine Park in Local News A residential school totem pole was raised in Assiniboine Park in October 2022. Earlier, a group of Indigenous youth worked with horticulture staff at the park to develop a garden to encourage exploration and discussions of Indigenous culture. The Indigenous People’s Garden is part of the 54 Discovery Gardens at Assiniboine Park (CBC News 2019, 2022). This shows efforts toward reconciliation and working with local indigenous peoples in changes to the landscape. Tree removals have resulted from Dutch elm disease, and from the development of the Leaf, a centre for conservation and education (CBC News 2017). Despite tree compensation planting of 400 trees planned to replace 150 trees removed, there is disappointment by some of the local community. A local ecological group is advocating for the neighbouring Assiniboine Forest to receive a National Urban Park status for preservation and protection (CBC News 2022). There is local recognition of the importance of urban forests and an interest in their preservation. Beacon Hill Park in Local News Since the pandemic, overnight camping by the unhoused population of Victoria has been a contentious topic in Beacon Hill Park. According to a Times Colonist article (Wilson, 2022), the province has appealed a court ruling that the terms of the trust do not allow overnight sheltering in Beacon Hill Park. Friends of Beacon Hill Park Society sued the City of Victoria over the decision to allow 24/7 sheltering. As a result of the activism of a local pickleball group and lack of any other space far enough from residential prosperities, the City of Victoria designated utilized parking space in Beacon Hill Park as a temporary pilot site for pickleball. Repurposing the parking lot also included the closure of car traffic on certain park roads. The traffic closure has impacted a local accessibility group that has reported a human rights complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal of British Columbia (CTV News 2022). These articles illustrate the complexity of park management in Beacon Hill Park. The Halifax Common in Local News Both the Halifax Common Master Plan and the outdoor pool project for the park received push-back from the community (Saltwire 2021; CBC News 2022). Some groups that resisted the plan 55 were the Friends of the Halifax Common, a non-profit riding school, and Halifax minor baseball (CBC News 2019; 2021). Although these two groups were against the work, they were not aligned in values and principles nor in what they believed is right for the park. Land use disputes are often multi-party disputes (Peltoneen and Sairinen, 2010). High Park in Local News High Park is in the news for circulation and transportation issues in and around the park, particularly cars, cyclists, pedestrians, and police enforcement. The cherry trees and their blossom season is another topic for High Park, particularly around its popularity and park visitors’ impact on traffic. The other topic in the news is the oak savannah’s prescribed burn reported out by the City of Toronto staff for public information. A general overview of the current-state analysis is illustrated in Table 3.3, below. The analysis column includes all those components that were reviewed from the availability of legislation to park advocacy and stewardship. Table 3.3 Summary of current-state review – availability of components Current State Review Components Assiniboine Park Beacon Hill Park Halifax Common High Park Legislation Support - - Y Y Availability of Policy - Y - Y Alignment of Policies Y - - Y Park Urban Forest Target Y - Y Y 56 Current State Review Components Assiniboine Park Beacon Hill Park Halifax Common High Park Park Management/Master Plan - Y Y Y Operation Partnership Y - - Y Organizational Structure Alignment Y - - Y Park Advocacy & Stewardship Y Y* Y* Y Y= yes available * Advocacy not aligned with the municipality 3.3.3 Key Informant Interviews The key informant interviews are divided into two sections based on the view and the angle they took when responding to questions: A view from inside and a view from outside A View from Inside - City Staff, Operating Partners, and Advocates I interviewed five individuals in this category for three of the parks. The municipal staff of one park sent regrets for the interview due to limited capacity. Assiniboine Park has urban forestry responsibilities shared between municipal staff and an operating partner, formerly various friend groups. High Park has a strong community advocate group with a 20-year legacy and had two municipal staff participate in the interview due to various contributions to the park. The roles of individual staff were in planning, design, development, and park operations. General Perspective on Design Development For the most part, no significant park development had occurred in the parks in the lifetime of the staff interviewed. All four parks are well established. Land title and associated restrictions have played a significant role in the current state of High Park. Assiniboine Park continues to 57 maintain the legacy of its original design. The development of other amenities and features was ad hoc and based on pilot projects or resident requests. The design development of the park was most evident to the individuals who were directly involved with the design of the parks. There was a divergent view on the level of involvement between urban foresters and the park planning process. One key informant indicated that the urban forester is not typically involved in the park's design. There was an apparent lack of consistency in involvement during the design process across each park’s organization. Policy and Directions There was a range of availability of policy and direction across each municipality. High Park and Beacon Hill Park, for example, are supported provincially, as provincial natural heritage value is recognized through various scientific and conservation designations and policies. Assiniboine Park and the Halifax Commons did not have the same level of support. The availability of urban forest policy (strategy or management plan) and park master plans were also inconsistent across the four parks. All the participants were aware of policy and directions, and, if they were not directly responsible for implementing, they were informed as part of the responsible team. Balance of Social, Cultural, Recreational, and Ecological Aspects The interview participants in general felt that large parks are dynamic spaces particularly in highly populated cities. There is changing priorities and a constant pressure on the parks to meet all needs and, therefore; achieving a balance between all social, cultural, recreational, and ecological aspects and can be difficult, and, furthermore; they felt that the ecological components are often the most impacted. 58 Interviews with staff and operating partners showed that the four parks are on a diverse range of ecological aspects; from minimal ecological aspects in a park (Halifax Commons) to significant policy-protected ecological areas (High Park). Parks that provide a balance of all four aspects mentioned earlier rely on the number of amenities and diversity of programs they provide. Some activities play multiple roles and some spaces have multiple functions (e.g. trail corridors providing recreation and urban forest canopy). Contribution to Urban Nature All parks are considered significant, citywide, and destination parks, and participants believed all contribute to nature in the city. There were discussions about the definition nature by various participants, for example, some thought that Halifax Commons is contributing to nature in the city by not being a paved surface. High Park, Beacon Hill Park, and Assiniboine Park have the advantage of geographically situated near natural features (i.e., lake, ocean, and river) that help create natural areas. Trees in the Park Most of the mature trees in the parks were planted many years before the lifetime of participating staff. Some staff have made much effort to understand the ecology of the parks, but there is more work to be done to inform and educate all staff (e.g., seasonal staff). Some new additions of trees have occurred recently in some parks and, of those with an urban forest policy; staff believe that policy has helped protection existing urban canopy and encourage tree planting. Trees and Urban Forestry Targets 59 Urban forest policy is available for City of Toronto, City of Victoria, and Halifax Regional Municipality, and City of Winnipeg’s urban forestry strategy is underway. Three of the parks have clear park-specific targets: respectively 20%, 40%, and 60% (the latter still being considered). City staff and operating partners shared their perspectives on opportunities and challenges that urban forest targets may have in parks. Opportunities were mostly focused on stewardship, (e.g., engaging communities and education) and various ideas to improve park designs. Challenges focused on external social pressures and factors that influence and limit the land. Table 3.4, below, provides a high-level summary of the comments. Table 3.4 A view from inside - city staff, operating partners, and advocates Opportunities and constraints of meeting urban forest targets in parks Opportunities Large parks provide opportunities for education, stewardship, and engagement such as tree planting campaigns. Large parks accommodate the area for planting groups of trees to reduce maintenance pressure. Some parks provide unique ecosystems, and the urban forest needs to be in balance with those systems (e.g., tallgrass prairie, black oak savannah, and Garry oak savannah). Park Masterplans are an opportunity to create new spaces and identify tree-planting opportunities. Challenges Parks support high use and large volumes of people for recreation, and politically connected and historically privileged sport groups. Large parks can be impacted by terrestrial and canopy invasive species (e.g., emerald ash borer and gypsy moth) The interests, skills, and capacity of operation staff can shift the direction in which the park is heading. 60 Park land and soil can be impacted by construction practices, and limited by discovered archaeological and contaminated areas Conflict in various uses of park space due to divergent values Advice for Policymakers, Planners, and Designers City staff and operating partners made recommendations and provided advice based on their own experiences and challenges. There were three common themes: governance, engagement, and design (Table 3.5). Governance included policy development and investing in internal relationships and collaboration. Almost all of the engagement comments are related to learning, educating and informing. The design advice was based on knowledge, data, and appropriate applications on site. Table 3.5 Advice from city staff, operating partners, and park advocates Theme Advice Governance Develop tree protection policy, by-law for park trees, and commemorative trees policy, to ensure that only trees that are beneficial to the park ecosystem are planted. Include a tree maintenance budget for up to 2 years during planning Increase internal communication and connection Decision-makers need to provide support to policymakers Engagement Learn from local Indigenous knowledge-holders about the land Prioritize education and outreach in large parks Shift mindset in the community for a better appreciation of trees Ensure any identified ecological significance in the site is communicated to the public 61 Develop an engagement plan to communicate to address historical uses and any possible long-term use entitlement Design Ensure urban foresters and park operations staff are involved in the planning and design process and do not limit the engagement to tree protection and preservation Consider cluster planting, mulching, and matching the plant to soil, and quality and tree protection in playgrounds and dog parks Establish a tree inventory and plantable spaces plan available for across the municipality, so that parks are not the first place to go when approached by tree planting initiatives A View from Outside - Local Landscape Architects, Park Planners, Urban Foresters, and Academia This section summarizes thoughts and perceptions from key informants outside the municipal system for each of the studied parks. Local professionals, academics, landscape architects, park planners, and urban foresters (except the municipal staff or operating partner) were first asked if they were familiar with the four parks studied. This was ask to have an understanding of how informed the group is regarding these parks based on their professional experience and whether these parks have made an impression on any matter despite the park not being located in their city of residence. Participants described their familiarity with each park in three ways: 1) know the park well; 2) know of the park or have been there; 3) and do not know the park. Most of the time familiarity of participants with park was based on place of residence or work experience. Sometimes the individuals had been to the city where the park is located. However, for reasons they could not describe, the park did not leave a strong impression. In general, each participant was only familiar with one or two parks, with a few exceptions who knew all the parks. 62 Variables included personal choices made for travelling, for taking on work projects, and the location of some of these parks being physically too far due to the vastness of Canadian geography. The participants were at least intimately familiar with one park and knew of a second park. I then asked each key informant to provide their general thoughts about each park, so I can better understand what their relationship is with each park, and if they have any opinions or biases. After, this general question, I asked each key informant to select a park that they are most comfortable speaking to and answer the remainder of the questions. General First Thoughts Most of the key informants described all four of the case studies as keystone destination parks that significantly influence their communities. In addition, one key informant who was very familiar with each park felt that the parks were overworked, tired, and needed a vision. Assiniboine Park was described as a legacy park with excellent features; although it is highly developed, the care for the conservation of it by the community and through urban planning is evident. Beacon Hill Park was considered a feature of experiencing Victoria. There are a lot of community connections, including First Nations gatherings and family events. Beacon Hill Park was described as both balanced and natural but heavily influenced. The Halifax Commons has historically been a space for sports and social connections; although it significantly contributes socially to the community and beyond, the ecological contribution is very low. High Park was considered natural, a place for gathering and a place for the black oak savannah; the park was described as unique, beloved, over-loved, and a great resource and asset. Recreation Provision The participants believed that all these parks meet the current recreation demand and showed some adaptability to piloting new projects, particularly those parks with a combination of both 63 active and passive recreation that seemed comprehensive (e.g., High Park). Diversity of recreation activity was another valuable component that was mentioned. Contribution to Urban Nature There were divergent perspectives on the contribution of these parks to nature in the city. About half thought that these parks make that contribution very well, and some thought that the parks need to do more. Halifax Common stood out in the comments as a park that is, historically, too focused on addressing the sport and recreational demands and being behind in contributing to nature; those individuals that commented on its natural values believed that there is still value in this park as a green space. Park Planning in Canadian Municipalities The key informants provided various examples of trends in park planning in Canadian municipalities that can influence parks like the four analysed for this study. Table 3.6 includes a list of those examples, categorized in recreation, engagement, and governance. Table 3.6 Trends in park planning in Canadian municipalities Recreation Engagement Governance A desire for a broader range of recreational activities A need for recreation classifications for various sized parks A shift from structured activity to non-structured activities A new awareness of Indigenous knowledge in the landscape An increased need for facilities in parks as users spend longer hours (e.g., washrooms and drinking fountains) Enhanced awareness of public parks' health benefits Increased need for physical accessibility, related new practices, and legislation Increased inclusivity, welcoming all, and equity in park provision 64 A new high-use impact on the parks due to the pandemic and its consequences Rise of new recreational activities (e.g., pickleball) demanding space More awareness for the need of parkland and some interest in unsought lands There were opportunities and challenges that key informants (local landscape architects, park planners, urban foresters, and academia) identified in general park planning practices. Table 3.7 shows these identified opportunities and constraints in three categories: governance, engagement, and technical considerations. Table 3.7 Opportunities and constraints in park planning in Canada Opportunities Governance Developing a process with local Indigenous Peoples for their involvement Breaking down barriers, sharing the responsibility, and co-management of parks Providing sufficient direction and avoiding site-level over-prescription Engagement Bringing the community with divergent values together through culture and events Nation-wide awareness in the value of parks and their health benefits Using various techniques to inform park users and nurturing park stewards Increase access to nature by increasing informality in the design 65 Technical Large areas of pavement remain in parks for parking and roads Reactive siting of new activities to address demand (e.g., pickleball) Many underutilized lands can be converted to parkland (e.g., linear spaces, utility corridors, parking lots) Planning with the appropriate size and materials, and programming for organized recreation (e.g., artificial sports fields can provide longer playtime) Gaps in the provincial legislation in support of municipal parkland policy Challenges Governance Lack of management of private use of public parks by municipalities Limited capital and operating funds and insufficient investment in parks Limited parkland available and very expensive to acquire in cities Limited resources lengthen the implementation process Challenges with local municipal engagement practices and lack of trust in government Divergent and fragmented social values create challenges in park planning Some urban parks are contested landscapes and spaces that escape social norms 66 Engagement Vocal, established, influential user groups (yet unrepresentative) dominating engagement Conversion of contaminated and utility lands to parkland limiting and time consuming Difficult to find a balance between providing recreation and preserving nature Urban Forestry in Parks in Canadian Municipalities The key informants (Local Landscape Architects, Park Planners, Urban Foresters, and Academics) were asked about the opportunities and constraints they have experienced in meeting urban forestry targets in Canadian municipal parks and shared learnings for the future. Table 3.8 provides a summary of some of those learnings. Table 3.8 Opportunities and constraints in incorporating urban forest targets in parks Opportunities Governance Departments such as environment and climate change can link teams, provide funding, and support urban forest initiatives Engagement Review engagement approaches around tree planting and identify engagement need Welcome Indigenous knowledge of the landscape and invest in nature Technical Accommodate more recreation circuits and trails in the design Allow slow creep of naturalization to enable biodiversity growth Change the approach to planning so that trees are planted first, and amenities are built around them 67 Ecological restoration knowledge and capacity are growing in staff Embrace recreation activities that use less space for higher activity Find the balance between the appropriate amount of solar access and canopy for each site Limit access to ecological areas in parks Opportunity to inform and educate the public on the value of trees Prioritize tree planting in streets and paved parking before planting in parks Rely on cultural and recreational services that trees provide (e.g., trees in playgrounds and trails) Site-specific canopy target is possible and requires creativity in design Strategically use less land, and use the land for recreation efficiently Challenges Governance Limited funding and resources Organizational structures and division of responsibility can create complex working dynamics (e.g., urban forestry department not being under the same budget and leadership as park planning and design) Engagement Divergent perspectives on engagement challenges: 1) engagement practices for tree planting can be too limiting; 2) meaningful engagement is rare, and decisions are made too quickly Urban parks are contested spaces, and many user groups may feel power over the space Technical Construction standards and practices do not consider trees and soil well 68 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) practices and concerns about safety can impact the design Divergent perspectives on tree planting in parks: 1) too much focus on planting trees in parks can limit park development; 2) trees should prevail in parks Finding plantable spaces to respond to tree-planting requests are challenging Demand for use degrades trails and spreads exotic species High expectations of having mown turf in parks The pandemic and access to the outdoors enabled the use of formerly novel spaces Recommended tree species do not always help canopy targets (e.g., columnar oak tree) Underground and aboveground infrastructure limited tree planting Tables 3.7 and 3.8 demonstrate that general park planning opportunities and constraints have a broad spectrum, but when asked about opportunities and constraints in park planning practices contribution to urban forest targets, the majority of the replies referred to technical considerations. Balance of Social, Cultural, Recreational, and Ecological Needs in Parks The key informants were asked how social, cultural, recreational, and ecological needs can be balanced in Canadian municipal parks. Their comments and suggestions are categorized in Table 3.9. Generally, all key informants believed that all four categories are not mutually exclusive and are compatible, and that, typically, it is due to external pressures that one component is compromised in favour of others. There was a recognition that it is important to investigate 69 balance based on the unique features at the site level. High Park, Assiniboine Park, and Prospect Park in Brooklyn were mentioned as examples of balanced parks. One key informant mentioned that balance is reached when everyone involved accepts that “trees are a condition of a park.” There was a common theme that, to provide balance for a park, most of the work is done through policy and engagement and discussions. There were some design recommendations focused on connectivity and passive recreation. Table 3.9 Balance of social, cultural, recreational, and ecological needs in parks Theme Considerations Policy and Governance Enhance park policy and include connectivity through, for example, green network plans Good governance – acknowledging how things have been done and who has control Acquire more parkland to address park pressure Develop a live database that informs use of sports fields Embrace the three municipal tools of education, incentives, and regulation Support municipal staff in their work with appropriately allocated time and resources Engagement Invite host nations to share knowledge of trees and trees-related traditions Learn about the land from Indigenous knowledge-keepers Maintain transparency in communication and meaningful engagement Information, communication, and engagement are three pillars of success in public alignment for the value of balance Distinguish what is a need and what is a want through good conversation 70 Engage all staff at all levels in the organizations Improve engagement practices, so all voices are heard Provide public education on trees in parks Connect community and people through tree programs Design and Development Include education of the public in the design process Provide amenities and spaces that play multiple roles (e.g., stormwater catchments as ecological areas) Provide balance by creating more interconnected spaces and features Build more ecological and recreational trails in parks Convert and optimize other spaces to parks and park-like spaces (e.g., road conversions, dog parks) Heighten the importance of the site planning phase of design development Advice for Policymakers, Planners, and Designers The key informants were asked what advice they have for policymakers, planners, designers, and all those involved with municipal park planning regarding trees in parks and for achieving urban forestry targets. As described in section 3.2.4 Key Informant Interviews, the comments and responses were categorized into themes as outlined in Table 3.10. Most of the comments were for designers and were categorized in the table below under Design and Development. Table 3.10 Advice from all key informants in achieving urban forest targets in parks Theme Advice Governance Collaborate and include everyone in design development, despite it slowing the process 71 Theme Advice Create an urban forest chief officer with veto power on all matters of trees Hire staff with tree knowledge and expertise Prioritize internal engagement as an excellent start to external engagement Prioritize trees in policy and planning related to infrastructure and city planning Strengthen park planner and recreation planner roles with the ability to decline additional recreational asks Parkland Conserve and treasure large parks that have a legacy, as they will not be easily replicated in significant Canadian cities Integrate nature in parks and understand how they are accessed Prioritize roads and hard-to-plant tree spaces in meeting urban forest targets, and do not rely on parks alone Design and Development Consider a development area and a woodland area in each park Consider climate resilience in park design and how the park will fare in 20 years Consider different visualization techniques. New trees are drawn at 75% mature size in plan views and show well-shaded spaces Consider microclimate and site conditions for tree planting Create written and illustrative ways that everyone can understand and provide feedback Ensure there is diversity and mystery, as well as ornamental and contiguous woodland in the design Focus on biological conservation for improving citizen well-being Focus on ecological principles for planting trees in urban 72 Theme Advice settings. Too much focus is on the functional qualities of trees (e.g., windbreak) and CPTED Plant a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees, and a mix of native and non-native trees Plant trees for food, plant for habitat, and plant for formal qualities and place-making Preserve, protect, and improve biodiversity during development in parks and the adjacent areas Rely on other tree plantings in parks – some parks can benefit from cluster seedling planting in addition to calliper tree planting Select tree species that provide a large canopy in the parking spaces (e.g., not fastigiate) Study site soil, improve soil standards, invest in care and amendment of it before planting, and consider quality and compaction during construction Understand the land well early in the design process Planning and Engagement Improve communication skills for better engagement and to deal with divergent values Integrate the following in planning: 1) give nature legal rights, 2) practice reciprocity (when you use something, give back something), 3) try different things to see what will work Use events in parks as an opportunity to educate the public on the ecological benefits of urban forests and parks 2.4 Discussion A review of the current state of the four case studies and interviews of various professionals, staff, and advocacy groups showed that these parks in large urban centres of Canada are dealing with a great deal of pressure while trying to find their place within changing times. Since these 73 parks were first established, there has been an evident change in, for example, demography, park function and design philosophy, social challenges, and climate concerns. Below are various themes and trends that are evident in the review of this section, along with relevant recommendations. 3.4.1 Parkland and Urban Forestry Targets Large parks are difficult to establish Evident in the discussions with most of the interview participants was the uniqueness and value of the four selected parks based on their size alone. Most felt that replicating new parks such as Assiniboine, Beacon Hill, Halifax Common, and High Park are likely not possible again in any city, particularly those highly impacted by densification and urban development. Nevertheless, several cities around the world have succeeded in establishing large new parks on former industrial lands (Waugh, 2011; Kirkwood, 2001), or by creative design solutions intersecting biological and technological performance (Crawford and Stephan, 2015). Park legacy requires foresight Preservation and protection of parks through time was not a coincidence. The parks remained intact based on the foresight of those establishing them and each governance system's commitment to the land's deed. In the case of High Park, John and Jemima Howard were quite clear on their expectations for High Park: for the protection of its natural environment and that, it should always be open to all access. Bell et al. (2005, p.149) say that park landscapes take a long time to develop and establish, and they require “vision and perseverance on the part of designers and managers.” Some may focus the design on everyday use of spaces, but a shift to social, political, and history of the places (Gehl and Matan, 2009) can better establish and protect the land. 74 Park use needs clarification Parks should be outdoor spaces for every public member to access, but the question remains for what purposes and how. In all parks, there is an indication of challenges arising from the entitlement of some groups that have used a space for a long time and there is a sense of entitlement. In some cases, the city staff identify those groups as a challenge to improving the urban forest or turning the parks into more climate-adaptable environments. Literature has shown that planners, or anyone facing divergent interests and values, can benefit from facilitation training (Forester, 2006; Peltoneen and Sairinen, 2010). Peltoneen and Sairinen (2010) surveyed 110 Finnish planners, 60% of whom indicated that responding to conflict is a normal part of their work. Developing an engagement and communication plan to address divergent values and identifying park uses are necessary. Parks can be Contentious Spaces As shown in review of documents and local news papers, and highlighted through key informant interviews, parks can become contentious public spaces (e.g. High Park roads and Beacon Hill Park overnight shelters). Sometimes this is due to divergent values of park users, and sometimes misalignment between advocacy groups and the municipal government. Throughout history, many parks worldwide have been the grounds for much political tension; in the book, Large Parks (Czerniak and Hargreaves, 2007), Beardsley (Chapter 6) describes the conflict in large parks and calls them contested landscapes. In Canada, some cities, more than others, are struggling with a housing crisis, increased by the requirements to be outdoors during the Covid-19 pandemic; some large parks have become popular sites for overnight camping for the unhoused. The Canadian Bar Association (2022) explains that courts have struck a balance and provided some considerations for the park by-laws, such as less restrictive options (e.g., 75 requiring tents to be taken down in the morning). The by-laws create a framework that municipalities can operate within to reduce the pressure on parks from overuse and address some of the pushback from opposing groups. 3.4.2 Park Policy and Urban Forestry Targets Policy is important To benefit the public, a framework of actions can help municipalities with their mandate to maintain socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable policies. When done right, the policy can maintain social cohesion (Ottitsch and Krott, 2005) within the community and improve political communication with the residents over the years and succeeding governments. The policy can be used to support municipal managers in their daily decision-making. Throughout the review of the case studies and the interviews, it was clear that appropriate and comprehensive policies were influential. For example, Almas and Conway (2016) found that municipalities with urban forestry management plans have successfully communicated high-level native planting goals to staff and subsequently implemented them. The policy direction can also be provided at various levels of government, from provincial policies (e.g., Provincially Significant Wetland), official municipal plans, municipal charters, ecological or asset-related strategies and management plans. When it comes to urban forest goals, Conway and Urbani (2007) say that planning policies are the first step, and they can advance urban forest goals. Ordóñez and Duinker (2013) identified the urban forest management plans as the documents defining urban forest management and appropriate for evaluating urban forest trends in Canada. In some Canadian municipalities, urban forest policies are outdated and due for an update, and in some other Canadian municipalities, they are a work in progress. Some municipalities are 76 catching up with the political commitment, and some identified the need for a plan to improve or maintain their urban forest canopy on public and private lands. The limited policy direction for parks could be based on the thinking that parks are doing well ‘as they are’, that they are fulfilling community (especially recreational) needs, and that the rest of the city’s urban forest needs more investment. Create interconnected policies A common challenge in reviewing various municipal policies of the four case studies is a need for more connection between various policies. Although the policies' values, principles, and goals may be the same, within specific directions, policies do not always reflect each other or align. The vague or incomprehensive policy can create confusion, reduce momentum, and create distraction among staff and the community. Cheng et al. (2021) provide a series of recommendations for municipalities to successfully establish climate change and urban forest policy. Develop an overarching strategy for parks To avoid diversion and conflict within various policies, the City’s Official Plan—the vision for the city—is the parent policy for bringing all other policies and plans together. For parks, an umbrella strategy is needed. It is important to note that most municipalities develop parks and recreation strategies, assuming that parks and recreation are codependents. This is inaccurate as parks are infrastructure assets, and recreation is a service provided by municipalities. The City of Winnipeg has thoughtfully and simultaneously created a Parks Strategy and a Recreation Strategy. These two strategies are separate, but they are relevant to each other as one is asset-based and the other service-based. Recreation is not the only mandate 77 In Canada, municipal mandates for involvement in recreation usually have two main foci: to encourage the development of recreation programs and facilities and to act as the catalyst for recreation in the community (Karlis, 2016). Most municipalities strategize and create targets for recreation facilities and assets, but there seems to be an assumed need for more recreation venues to provide service. Some studies have shown that both quantity and quality of an adequate supply of outdoor recreational opportunities still need to be determined (Van Herzele and Wiedemann, 2003); Peckham et al. (2013) found that people generally prefer different recreational activities at different stages of their life. In Vancouver, asset targets were set for the quality of ball diamonds, but an increase in track and field at 1.5 per 100,000 residents of Vancouver was also called for (VanPlay, 2019). Haaland and Konijnendijk van den Bosch (2015) showed that one of the challenges in planning for urban greenspace is the prioritization of green spaces' cultural ecosystem services. Ottitsch and Krott (2005) note that urban forestry was developed from the experience of competition of potential users of green areas for recreational purposes. Marriot et al. (2021), in Community Leisure and Recreation Planning, classify parks as sites “supporting non-competitive leisure and recreation and related uses” (p.102). In the review of the current state of the case study projects and interviews of participants, competing interests in various user groups are evident. Parks are being stretched too thin, as are the staff or professionals involved in planning, designing, developing, and managing them. There is a loss of focus on centring parks as valuable assets in discussions, planning, and strategizing. Parks can include diverse range of benefits Most interview participants spoke of a trend change in what the parks can do for people or what the public wants from the parks. Most discussed that a change in recreation demands less 78 structure and more flexibility. One Parks and Recreation planner mentioned an increasing trend towards activities in which you can participate when, where, for how long, and with whom you want. This relaxed approach to activity can only be accommodated with adaptive and organic spaces. A park design that includes biodiversity could promote opportunities for interaction (Palliwoda et al., 2017) and education. Additionally, the various values held by people in Canadian societies result in different needs and wants. Regarding urban forests, research has shown that aesthetics is the most commonly elicited consideration (Ordóñez et al., 2016). Parks offer a space of respite and relaxation for many, a venue for arts and culture, and a place for sports and recreation for many others. Therefore, a Recreation Strategy should contribute to spaces in a park as much as an Urban Forest Strategy and an Arts and Culture Strategy. Balance is reached at site level Most service-based strategies are city-wide strategies. They are value based and provide high-level directions. Once a specific parcel of land is being discussed, applying and implementing those high-level city-wide values and aspirations can take time to implement. This is when comprehensive plans become influential site-specific policies to bring policies together (e.g., Recreation Strategy, Urban Forest Strategy, Arts and Culture Strategy), provide equal weight to them, and guide all those involved on a shared path. There may be an occasion when one site must address a more significant need in the area or district of the city regarding one service, and it is through a comprehensive plan that this can be achieved. Park Comprehensive Plans can be bold and influential. The recently published Boston Commons Master Plan identified four common strategies to deploy commons-wide: 1) Tree Planting, 2) Seating, 3) Access and Wayfinding, and 4) Event Infrastructure. In Great City Parks, Tate (2015) describes Brooklyn’s Prospect Park’s original concept with three elements: forest, meadow, and lake. However, over 79 time the addition of structures and amenities threatened the original concept, and lots of efforts have been made to replenish the loss. He also adds that a good park design demands dedication. 3.4.3 Engagement in Park Planning and Design and Urban Forestry Targets Public engagement is a critical component of the current policy-making practices, park planning and design, and some believe it can lead to better decision-making and the advancement of urban forestry. The topic of engagement presented divergent opinions among the interview participants. For some, municipalities clearly recognized needed improvements for internal engagement with staff and external engagement with the public. For some, engagement was an obstacle to implementing urban forest goals. Ordóñez et al. (2020) highlight that municipal urban forest managers found the view of the public and the culture of risk aversion to be challenging for the implementation of urban forest strategies. Public participation is project dependent Amongst the interview participants and in the literature, there is a generalization of the word ‘engagement.’ Similarly, some participants believe that “municipalities use engagement as a buzzword and engage in checking off a box.” There has been a trend in municipalities to improve engagement efforts. Efforts include addressing the resource need (e.g., New Westminster, B.C., hired a Manager of Engagement in 2020), creating one online platform for all the projects in progress that require engagement (e.g., Vancouver’s ShapeYourCity.ca), and developing engagement frameworks (e.g., City of Victoria Engagement Framework). Despite efforts, engagement continues to be a challenge for staff and does not receive full support from the public. The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) describes engagement as 80 a spectrum of different levels: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate, and Empower. Each level has a different level of commitment to the public members, and it involves more time and resources from engagement participants and staff. From informing to empowering, all efforts for everyone increase and the level of engagement in decision-making changes. What all levels of engagement have in common is a need for effective communication. Communication is a needed skill A few of the participants discussed effective communication as a critical skill for municipal staff and those providing technical information to the members of the public. One participant’s response to advice for planners and landscape architects was: “Learn better communication skills so you can deal with the divergent values in planning.” In the context of park planning and urban forestry, there are areas of improvement in communication graphically. Changing some drawing conventions could help improve communications for tree planting opportunities and constraints. For example, landscape architects draw proposed tree plantings at 75% growth of a mature tree for all trees in the landscape independent of growth conditions, such as soil quality and microclimate. This can communicate a higher tree canopy than reality might offer. Other information could help show the diversity of tree size, number or area of pocket shade areas created, and anticipated timeline for maturity. Experiential information will be the most effective communication method to allow the engagement participants to provide relevant feedback. Openness, communication, and public participation have shown to be influential in reducing complaints and conflicts in a planning process (Peltoneen and Sairinen, 2010). 81 Different engagement tools used for different work Input from the public directly related to the question at hand can be the most informative local knowledge and expertise provided to planners, designers, policymakers, and deciders. In The Routledge Handbook of Urban Forestry, Sheppard et al. (2017) state that engaging and interactive methods are more effective in engagement as they allow for experiential learning and relate to people's emotions and values. This is very effective in creating policies, as community values can be foundational pieces for policies. Since the focus is more directly related to individuals during the design process at a site level, preferences shift towards self-interest and less towards values. DeScioli et al. (2014) studied people's moral judgement of an allocation rule and found that people not only preferred the rule that was most beneficial to them but also found it to be fairer. This type of reaction was common in news articles related to the Halifax Common and Beacon Hill Park; it seemed the articles did not focus on the group that benefited from a space allocation. By focusing on self-interest, people tend to accept the process or the outcome of engagement only if the outcome is directly beneficial to them. Siplia and Tyrvainen (2005) found that participation in a one-year planning process did not change people's landscape preferences related to urban forest management, and their forest ecology knowledge did not increase. The study participants noted that they felt more awareness and understood others' interests and views better. Deciders, planners, designers, and anyone involved in the engagement process must be able to speak knowledgeably to the background of the work. Site level decisions need to be defensible Decisions need to be defensible and sustainable. IAP2 describes a sustainable decision as equally environmentally compatible, economically viable, technically feasible, and publicly acceptable. Financial information about a project is only sometimes shared during public engagement. Not 82 sharing financial information or the cost of items can create unrealistic expectations. Technically feasible and environmentally compatible elements often go together in park planning and design, and both need transparency, information sharing, and effective communication. Having publicly acceptable design decisions can help build trust in municipal government and provide a sense of ownership and stewardship of the land. The study participants noted that they felt more aware and understood others' interests and views better. In their study of Canadian national parks, Yapp and Barrow (1979) discuss ecological consideration included in park master plans that is goal-oriented, considers limiting factors, and fluctuates over time. Similarly, urban parks can also benefit from a model where an urban forest canopy is included in the park master plans for direction, implementation, and continuous establishment. A village of stewards and advocates Caring for the land is extensive and complex work; municipalities often lack sufficient resources to undertake this. When grassroot initiatives begin, there is often the question of “friend or foe?” This is particularly clear when reviewing the four case study parks. There are advocacy groups that have taken on a stewardship role and there are ones whose positions are unclear. Their interest seems to be focused on park preservation, but there is also an undertone of self-interest. In the ideal model of parks and urban forests, everyone plays a role, with the common goal of the interests of the park and the land with an understanding of the changing times and protection of the valuable assets. Nassauer (2011) defines stewardship as a type of care that ultimately belongs to others rather than only to oneself; the stewardship that takes place in High Park resembles this definition. The Indigenous way of caring for the land 83 A review of participants' comments showed that almost all were interested in learning about Indigenous ways of stewarding the land. Also, if accepted by local indigenous people, they were interested in engaging knowledge keepers in park planning and design practices. As the local governments, the municipalities need to enable, support, and protect such connections. Each of the four parks of the case study is in a place that, since time immemorial, was inhabited by Indigenous people who navigated those lands. There is a shift in the Canadian context in revisiting the colonial landscapes and allowing the native landscapes to return. Beacon Hill Park's Garry Oak Savannah and High Park's Black Oak Savannah have been a work in progress in returning to healthy and native ecosystems. These efforts need plans for more involvement and co-management with Indigenous Peoples. Many challenges with current government structures need to be addressed to enable better relationships internally and externally. The shift can have various impacts on the urban forest targets, based on the individuality and characteristics of the local land. 2.4.4 Governance and Government Structure Impacting Urban Forestry Targets Internal municipal government coordination Analysis of the interviews revealed some internal challenges for municipal governments in meeting urban forest targets in parks. Most of the time, when park staff or planning and design staff were contacted for an interview and learned that the topic of the research was to be urban forestry, they recommended that the urban forestry or natural heritage staff be contacted instead. There was one occasion when urban forestry staff did not participate and recommended that the project manager for the park master plan participate in the interview. This was likely due to good intentions and ensuring that the researcher had access to the most knowledgeable staff, but it 84 raises the question as to whether park planning and design staff see themselves as playing a role in urban forestry and, associated with urban forestry, arboriculture. This connects well with another finding, and that is where urban forestry structurally sits within the organization. In most organizational structures in Canadian cities, urban forestry is aligned closely with parks operation, park planning, and design. In the Regional Municipality of Halifax, urban forestry reports to Transportation, as urban forestry is associated with the improvement of streets. Staff were not asked and did not speak to challenges or opportunities that may arise in the organization, but the outside view of other key informants identified this as a big structural challenge. Some of the challenges can be as simple as each department being run by different individuals who have different values and perspectives and operate with separate funding. There are many opportunities with having urban forestry in close connection with parks and parks planning and design. Parks could be making many operating decisions daily without a close connection with the urban forestry team. Relationship building, internally and externally, is a part of making good decisions daily. Being connected to those who build relationships and manage them is important for communicating decisions. Urban forest decisions in parks can be better managed and communicated if urban forest staff, parks operation staff, park planning, and design staff are working together and working closely. Wirtz et al. (2021) found that in studies of governance, one of the challenges that government representatives identified was gaining support from other including other departments, the community at large, and non-governmental organizations. Urban forest strategy projects are often led by planning and policy teams, with the urban forest team as the client. Internal collaboration can help support the creation of policy, taking responsibility for the work, and being committed to developing and implementing it. When the 85 connections between teams are weak, there needs to be a constant effort by those who develop the strategy to get buy-in despite it being an internal process. Park planners and landscape architects are trained and have the skills to bring all affected parties together. As one landscape architect stated: “We all say we collaborate, but we need do better and more,” and as one urban forest staff stated: “Landscape architects need to involve us more than just tree protection and preservation.” During the park planning and design process, urban foresters need to be decision-makers on the tree planting plans, with considerations for the roles that park assets play in the establishment and management of the urban forest. Discussions with the urban foresters need to occur at the very beginning during the site planning stages, as investigations about utilities, soil, and site conditions are taking place, and they need to continue in this role until decisions about trees are being made. Conway and Vander Vecht (2015) identified that there are many components of landscape architects’ knowledge and decision-making that are unclear, such as tree species selection. Uncertainty can be addressed by improved collaboration with urban foresters. Of course, this also needs consideration from leadership, to ensure urban forest staff’s time on planning and design does not compromise their daily operation duties. 2.4.5 Park Planning & Design and Urban Forestry Targets The interview results included design and development highlights that directly related to finding synergies or gaps in park planning, and design on the one hand and urban forestry targets on the other. Trees not a design afterthought 86 When asked how to achieve a balance of urban forest, recreation, ecological, and arts and culture needs in parks, some interviewees focused on more meaningful engagement, and some focused on a thoughtful site planning process. Site planning is one of the first steps in the design development process work of a park, and with appropriate site inventory and site analysis, the site planning process can be an informed process. In Introduction to Landscape Design, Motloch (2001) describes the site-based design process as a process to analyze developable areas of the site, and once the potential of the site is determined, the program can be altered, or alternatives can be determined. The challenge in daily practice is that this program is either already committed via recreational or political interests. Motloch (2001) notes that environmentally responsible designers read and respond to site conditions, and once they determine on-site plant material and their characteristics, they determine which plants are to be saved and then design for “program, human, and plant needs” (p. 90). This division and order of design also can create a human-centred model of design. Motloch (2001) also adds that when determining what plants to save, one should be “giving preference to middle-aged plants rather than old and dying specimens” (p. 90). This mindset can potentially impact on-site urban forest canopy. There needs to be more emphasis at the onset on the preservation of trees and everything that can support trees, such as soil, microclimate, or complementary vegetation. Shift in construction practices There need to be some small shifts in various stages of design and construction practices as identified by various participants. Development and the construction industry have been identified as one of the major obstacles to the political positioning of urban forest planning and management (Ottitsch and Krott, 2005). One interview participant suggested that landscape 87 architects should improve soil standards, invest in care and amendment of it before planting, and consider quality and compaction during construction. Often a challenge in new parkland development is that park spaces do not have good soil conditions, as urban soils are often of poor quality to start with. The soil is not protected or treated well until the time for park development has arrived. A full soil assessment is required during design, with a commitment to investment and proof of preservation and amendment by the contractor. This is particularly important for the tree-planting areas of the park. There needs to be a clear indication of high-quality soil and the ability for water percolation. When reviewing existing trees on a site, it is important to consider the value of existing trees, and their preservation and protection. Preservation plans need to include trees and areas that cannot be demolished, removed, cleared, grubbed, and graded, and this needs to be communicated clearly to contractors. When planning for the site infrastructure, siting buildings and the development of amenities, consider the best planting spaces and prioritize them before siting infrastructure. Invest in organic material over inorganic material. One interview participant flagged that the planning process could plan for trees first, and then have amenities built around them. In Time-Saver Standards for Landscape Architecture (Harris and Dines, 1998) site improvements are ordered as such: 1) earthwork, 2) infrastructure installation, 3) installation of subgrades and hard surfaces, 4) site furnishing, 5) plantings; large trees are planted when subgrades are installed and set, so that heavy machinery carrying heavy tree root balls are supported. This order of work on-site has influenced planting plan drawings to be placed towards the end of the drawing set (before details), and planting items are last in the specification and schedule of items. These construction practices have existed for a while and changing this 88 approach may take a long time. What can help to make that change is clear direction through design; urban forests can receive the same caution and care that contaminated lands and archeological areas receive during construction. There are ways that contractors can be accountable, either contractually or financially. Ensuring that soil and tree components of the contract create follow-through by contractors. Shift in design practices In planning and design, a clear and firm urban forest mindset is needed. Urban forest considerations can be better integrated throughout the lifecycle of a park with the creativity that landscape architects can bring to the design process. One way to address better integration of tree planting into the design process is to consider tree plantings as groupings in parks. In Design of Urban Forests, Bell et al. (2005) suggest six urban forest types: 1) single trees; 2) groups of trees: 3) large areas of woodland; 4) rows, 5) clumps of woodland; and 6) specimen choice for park trees. This can help with delineated areas during the design process and protection of the areas during earthwork and grading. Grouped trees can be better protected and maintained once established in parks, as they can provide areas of naturalization and not require mowed grass. Another consideration for treed areas is fencing to limit access to those treed areas. While access to public parks and their pathways are free of limits, access to trees can be limited for protection purposes. This is not an unusual practice for ecologically sensitive areas, and it can happen in public parks as well. This is a common practice in high-urban and high-traffic parks in European cities and should become a practice in Canadian parks as well. One interview participant felt that there is too much focus on the functional design features of trees in the urban setting (e.g., trees as a windbreak or providing shade). There needs to be a shift of focus toward the ecological 89 features and canopy benefits. The main selection criteria for tree species are: climatic adaptation, growth, plant characteristics, resistance against pests and diseases, and functionality (Saebo et al. 2005). Another interview participant suggested focusing on larger canopy tree species rather than some often used, such as fastigiate trees (e.g., columnar English oak) in parks. There was feedback about more tree planting around playgrounds, in and around un-programmed lawn spaces, and in dog parks, with appropriate tree protection for the long-term survival of the trees. Gustavsson et al. (2005) note that most parks have areas that are forested or areas of treeless open space, often with an abrupt change that lacks a transition to define space. An interview participant suggested transition spaces to be good areas for a subtle and incremental change in spaces for tree planting. Large open lawns, road corridors, and wide pathways continue to be permanent features in large urban parks, as inherited from English landscapes, and some parks continue to preserve these features as a cultural heritage value. Some of the large urban parks (e.g., High Park and Beacon Hill Park) are showing incremental changes in these spaces by naturalizing and taking on transportation studies. The challenge in these conversions will be the groups of citizens who are not happy with these changes and want these spaces to remain the same. What can support designers, park planners, and landscape architects in making change is the framework and guidance provided by a policy. Urban forest framework in parks Konijnendijk van den Bosch (2022) introduced the 3-30-300 rule, a convenient way of describing and communicating the urban forest components that residents should have access to in a healthy city. The 3-30-300 rule is described as 3 trees visible from every home, 30 percent tree canopy in every neighbourhood, and 300 metres from nearest park or green space. This sort 90 of guidance can help frame discussions and help municipal staff and politicians to better assess what should be achieved. There has been evident traction of the 3-30-300 rule in Canadian municipalities (e.g., District of Saanich, Harrison Hot Springs) and in political discussions (e.g., City of North Vancouver and Toronto). This type of framework has, to my knowledge, not been explored specifically within municipal parks in Canada. As early as 1985, Schroeder and Green (1985) asked if there was an optimal density of trees that would increase the scenic quality of the park. They conducted a photo-based evaluation with members of the public and a group of park professionals; they found a contrast between the preferences of these two groups and cautioned park staff not to just apply personal preferences in the design and management of parks. Finally, Schroeder and Green (1985) recommend 150-160 mature trees per hectare when there is an open background and 100-125 trees per hectare when there is a dense background. Their recommendation is based on the aesthetic preferences of park users in the northeastern USA. The preferred number of trees by park users differs in various geographical areas. However, choices could have been different if, in addition to aesthetics, users were asked to consider the benefits of trees. Following Schroeder and Green (1985), assuming a mature tree after ten years has a 14-metre diameter canopy, an average of 155 trees per hectare results in approximately 22% tree canopy. For the first few years, the urban forest canopy in the park would remain under 10%. One hundred fifty-five trees planted in a new park is a significant number of trees, and most recently built parks do not invest in trees to this extent. For example, in Vincent Massey Park and Glanbrook Park, Hamilton, Ontario, there are 20 trees in 0.8 hectares and 31 trees in 0.76 ha, respectively. In Coquitlam, BC, a recent park development in Sheffield Park (0.81 ha) resulted in 49 trees being planted. 91 Various municipalities in Canada (as discussed in Chapter 2) have set park-specific urban forest targets; examples are: Edmonton (20%), Ottawa (30%), Oakville (33%), Halifax (40%), New Westminster (45%), Toronto (55%), and Winnipeg (aiming for 60%). Currently, the four case-study parks in this study are set at different canopy sizes: Assiniboine Park (47%), Beacon Hill Park (50%), Halifax Common (7%), and High Park (80%, including trees and shrubs). Generally, there is a trend of 30% - 40% forest canopy in established parks or targets set by some Canadian municipalities. Steenberg et al. (2013) used a threshold of 40% canopy cover as an indicator for parks and play areas that are adequately shaded. With the perspective on open space within wooded areas, Bell et al. (2005) recommend a range of open spaces need to be considered that do not exceed 30% of the area and otherwise the sense of enclosure will be lost. As discussed in this study, regarding balancing recreation, arts and culture, and nature in municipal parks, there is a need for equal spatial consideration for each of these three park components. 3.5 Limitations and Future Studies Limitations There were some limitations to the study. The first limitation is the site observations; due to the complexity of travelling across Canada, and because of distance and cost of flights, site visits and observations were less frequent and over more than one season. This made it challenging to experience each park throughout the year and observe a ‘fully active park’ (e.g., during the busy summer months). Another area for improvement of the study is consistency of information from across the studied municipalities. Lack of consistency makes it difficult to provide a complete summary. City staff could comment on the park primarily based on the timeline of their own experience and approved policies. Due to staff turnover, they only sometimes had the complete detail or background concerning decisions that were made. One municipality’s staff participated 92 in the study by sharing information and responses to the questions via email; they were not able to participate in an interview. Future Research Future research could include repeating the study for parks within the same provinces. Site selection could be arranged so that the same review is done for recently built parks in Canadian municipalities. Also, focusing on each of these parks and reviewing all park developments and improvements, additions, and removal of park elements and urban forest (pending available information) would show an interesting park evolution. Generally, municipal policies need to consider parkland and the trees on it, as the green foundation of a park. Land and the trees should be the first studied, the first invested in, and the first in any other consideration. All other uses, including recreational and cultural assets, should come second. Should there be opportunities for recreational and cultural elements to be intertwined through design into the urban forest in the park, that is most ideal. 3.6 Conclusion The primary goal of this study was to explore the interaction between municipal park planning and design and urban forestry targets in Canada. The study's objective was to analyze current and emerging park planning and design trends in Canadian municipalities and to understand if and how urban forest canopy targets are integrated into them. This chapter included a review of four large urban parks in Canada to identify trends and commonalities in incorporating urban forest targets. Parks with strong policy, protection and preservation plans have high urban forest canopy, and despite the pressure put on the park due to high demands, the existing urban forest canopy is generally maintained. Once aligned with the local municipality in values and direction, park stewardship and advocacy are most effective for the park and associated urban canopy. 93 The general trend in recreation planning in Canada is moving towards adaptable and multi-function spaces, which provides an opportunity for better integration of urban forest objectives. With some shifts in standard practice, park planners and landscape architects can further consider urban forest canopy in park design, and one tool can be a canopy target. 94 Chapter 3: Survey of Municipal Staff and Other Professionals 4.1 Introduction In Canada, the designer of the first publicly commissioned park, Assiniboine Park in Winnipeg, drew inspiration from Frederick Law Olmsted's work (Williams, 2014). Designer Fredrick Todd then continued working on various urban projects in Canada as a landscape architect in the early 1900s (Jacobs, 1983). Today, landscape architects in Canada, as in other countries around the world, continue to be the leading professionals designing and building municipal parks, and the English landscape style is still influential (Tate, 2015) in how municipal parks are designed, with an emphasis on recreation and aesthetics. Municipal urban parks can provide opportunities for tree planting and urban forest expansion. Bell et al. (2005) write that the designer's job is to control and manipulate the park space, and the large scale of parks is an opportunity where benefits can be achieved. In the literature, there are various perspectives on the role that landscape architects play in park design where the integration of trees is concerned. Conway and Vander Vecht (2015) identified many components of landscape architects' knowledge and decision-making that are unclear, such as criteria for tree species selection. Bjerke et al. (2006) believe that moderately dense vegetated spaces and relatively open spaces are preferred for recreation, but most municipal park planners and landscape architects are focused on active recreation and sports amenities and on the land and space required for them. Most municipalities try to create metrics and targets for park amenities and assets to guide park design and development. However, some studies, both qualitative and quantitative, have shown that an adequate supply of outdoor recreational opportunities remains challenging (Van Herzele and Wiedemann, 2003) and that, often, there is a misalignment between designer intent and actual recreational amenity use (Lindberg and 95 Schipperijn, 2015). Moreover, as mentioned, urban parks now typically need to fulfil a wide range of roles, no longer limited to (specific) recreational uses. Very little investigation has been done in Canada on the alignment (or lack thereof) of urban forestry objectives and municipal park design (Conway and Vander Vecht, 2015; Roman et al. 2018). This study starts from the assumption that urban park design and urban forestry program objectives are often not well aligned, leaving room for improved synergies. One way to provide clear direction and inform the design process is to establish an urban forest policy specific to parks. Municipalities are mandated to maintain socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable policies to benefit the residents of an entire city. Specifically for urban forestry, Conway and Urbani (2007) highlight that planning policies are the first step in development, and they can be used to advance urban forest goals. When done right, the policy can maintain social cohesion within the community and improve political communication with the residents and, over time, through changing governments. Policy can be used to support municipal managers in their daily decision-making and help align urban park design with the objectives of urban forestry programs. Lam and Conway (2018) consider policy to be an opportunity for each municipality to have innovative approaches that are unique to their urban forest. This study surveyed landscape architects and municipal staff who are involved in urban green space planning and management in Canadian cities in order to: 1) understand how urban forestry perspectives and objectives are considered in the design and management of municipal parks; 2) identify challenges, opportunities, and synergies in policy and the design of municipal parks in the context of urban forestry programs and their objectives; and 3) recognize any differences and similarities among professionals involved in municipal park development. As noted in Chapter 3, the following were the leading questions of this work: What are the potential trade-offs and 96 synergies between canopy targets and the other objectives and targets of parks? How can urban park planning, and design be transformed to better incorporate urban forestry objectives and targets? 3.2 Methods and Analysis 4.2.1 Survey design and dissemination Chapter 4 includes a descriptive social survey (Deming and Swaffield, 2011) that was completed with design professionals and municipal staff in every Canadian province as the target audience. This method of research can be effective when the researcher is interested in information that can be found by asking people what they have seen or experienced (Deming and Swaffield, 2011). During the fall of 2021, an online survey was conducted with professionals involved in park planning, design, and development across multiple Canadian cities. These professionals included landscape architects, designers, park planners in private practice (also called consultants), and municipal staff within park planning, design, and development. Surveys are an effective method of research when the goal is to obtain information based on respondents' experiences (Deming and Swaffield, 2011). This particular survey focused on considerations of urban forestry perspectives and objectives during municipal park planning, design, and development. It included questions about factors influencing decisions for tree planting, opinions on the state of the urban forest in parks, challenges with tree planting in parks, and considerations around policies supporting the urban forest in parks. The survey included 15 questions (Appendix B) informed by a literature review of urban forestry programs and municipal park design. First three questions asked which province or territory the respondents were completing the survey based on, what their role is in creation of parks, and when they first consider trees. Multi-selection questions inquired about factors that influenced the participants’ decisions making about tree 97 planting. One question directly asked whether they are aware whether their local municipality has an urban forest policy. The remainder of questions considered their opinion and experience in framing the questions. All questions allowed multiple-choice, except for one question, which allowed the respondents to answer in their own words. The choices outlined in the questions were based on literature review and finding in Chapter 2. Moreover, most multiple-choice questions had 'other' as an option to allow the opportunity for the respondents to provide additional information not known to the researchers. The survey was delivered using Qualtrics software and disseminated across Canada via email to professional associations and social media platforms. The aim was to reach as many relevant respondents as possible while realizing that this sampling approach could represent an inherent bias. Approval from the Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) was received to conduct this study (H21-03316). 4.2.2 Survey analysis Text from the open-ended 'Other' options in the multiple-choice questions, as well as the final open-ended question, were coded using ad hoc meaning generation and thematic organization (Kvale, 1996; Braun & Clarke, 2006). All coding was initially completed by Leila Todd and confirmed by collaborator Jessica Quinton. Jessica Quinton then used Chi-square (χ2) and Fisher's exact tests to determine whether answers differed between landscape architects and municipal staff, and whether responses differed when respondents were considering old versus new parks. Fisher's exact tests were used instead of Chi-square tests when >20% of expected counts were <5 and/or when any single expected count was <1 (Campbell, 2007). All statistical tests were conducted in R v4.1.2 using the stats() package. 98 3.3 Results 4.3.1 Respondent location and job position There were 123 responses received, but the response rate for each question ranged from 96 to 101 responses, i.e., respondents typically only replied to some of the questions. As some of the questions were left incomplete, the total number of responses for each question is different. Most respondents worked primarily in the provinces of British Columbia (37%) and Ontario (33%), which aligns with a Canadian Society of Landscape Architects report that experienced similar participation from Ontario and British Columbia and larger cities across other provinces in general (CSLA, 2019). Fewer respondents worked primarily in the provinces of Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Yukon territory. Most respondents were municipal staff (54%) and landscape architect consultants (40%), with far fewer planning consultants (1%) and others (6%), with the latter group including regional staff, and playground design, irrigation, and leisure consultants. 4.3.2 Motivations influencing tree planting in park planning, design, and development When asked when they first considered trees, most respondents (43%) indicated that they did so during all stages of park development (planning, design, budgeting, and construction; Figure 4.1). It could be that those survey respondents either missed reading the word "first" or responded to the question depending on the various projects they experienced. A few respondents selected 'Other' (10%) and specified contexts such as urban forest policy. 99 Figure 4.1 The stages of the park development process during which trees are first considered (N=96) The survey asked about the top two motivators and objectives of tree planting during the park design process. Policy (e.g., urban forest, climate, stormwater policies) was the top motivator/objective for tree planting during the design process (Figure 4.2). Some (15%) respondents selected ‘other’ and described their motivations and objectives for tree planting as ‘best practice’ and enhancing ‘user experience.’ Other contributing factors to including trees in park design are general design considerations, aesthetics, shade, biodiversity, and climate change. 05101520253035404550All of the Above Park Planning Park Design Budget Process Other (pleasespecify)ParkConstructionNumber of RespondentsLandscape Architect Consultant Municipal Staff Other 100 Figure 4.2 Motivators and objectives of tree planting during the municipal park design process (N=96) The top three tree-related factors (Figure 4.3) that influenced the respondents’ daily park planning and design work were providing shade trees (15%), native tree selection (14%), and biodiversity (13%). The respondents also selected urban forest canopy (9%), and mature size of trees (9%) was another factor. All options were considered, with the slightest consideration given to solar access (1%) and food production (less than 1%). There was no significant difference in answers between municipal staff and landscape architect consultants (χ2 = 11.1, p = 0.27). 01020304050607080Policy Park designstandardsResidentrequests/userexperienceOther NoneNumber of respondents Landscape Architect Consultant Municipal 101 Figure 4.3 Tree-related factors that influence the respondents’ daily park planning and design practices (N=96) 4.3.3 Canopy contributions by old and new parks Almost half of the respondents (49%) believed that recently-built parks in their municipality (i.e., parks built within the last ten years) contribute to the urban forest canopy by increasing forest size and biodiversity. Still, the contribution could be better (Figure 4.4). Another 32% believed that the contribution of the urban forest canopy by recently-built parks is ‘good’ and 15% believed there is not much contribution. Some (30%) thought the contribution was fair but could 0510152025303540Native plantingProviding ShadeBiodiversityForest canopyMature sizeSoil conditionsClimate adaptabilityPlanting Design Elements (MassPlanting Design Principles…Available species at the nurseryStormwater managementOther (please specify)Solar accessNumber of Responses Tree-related factors Municipallandscape architect consultant 102 be better, and 22% believed it was excellent. Three respondents commented that the good state of the urban canopy in parks resulted from the original forest being preserved and incorporated into the design. One respondent indicated that every park project is different, and some ‘park projects require recreation infrastructure that limits opportunities.’ When asked about the contribution from new parks, the answers were similar among landscape architect consultants and municipal staff (Figure 4.4), but the responses differed significantly when asked about old parks (Fisher's test; p <0.001; Figure 4.4). Municipal staff more frequently rated the contribution as 'Excellent,' whereas landscape architect consultants rated it as 'Good.' The two groups did not differ significantly in their opinions on how new (Fisher's test; p = 0.24) and well-established (Fisher's test; p = 0.07) parks contribute to the urban forest. However, when comparing the contribution of new versus well-established parks, significantly more respondents rated established parks as having an 'Excellent' contribution (Fisher's test; p < 0.001; Figure 4.4) compared to new parks. About 40% of respondents believed that the contribution of well-established parks in their municipality (i.e., parks that are more than ten years old) to the urban forest canopy by increasing their size and biodiversity is good. 103 Figure 4.4 Contributions of new parks and established parks to the municipality’s urban forest canopy (N=96) More municipal staff rated the contribution as ‘excellent,’ whereas landscape architect consultants rated it as ‘good.’ The two groups did not differ significantly in their opinions on how new (Fisher's test; p = 0.24), well-established (Fisher's test; p = 0.07) parks contribute to the urban forest. However, when comparing the contribution of new versus well-established parks, significantly more respondents rated established parks as having an ‘excellent’ contribution (Fisher's test; p < 0.001; Figure 5) compared to new parks. An explanation for this difference emerged from the answer to the next question. There was also a significant difference in how respondents described new versus established parks contributing to the urban forest (Fisher's test; p = 0.04), with established parks contributing much more to canopy size than new parks. Also, new parks contribute more native species than established ones (Figure 4.5). 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%New parks Old parks% RespondentsContribution to urban forest canopyNot sureNot much contributionA fair bit, but it could be betterGoodExcellent 104 Figure 4.5 How new parks and established parks contribute to the urban forest canopy (N=96) 3.3.4 Challenges to planting trees in municipal parks All respondents indicated that tree-planting efforts in municipal parks had faced challenges, with most being recurring challenges (70%) and the rest being site-specific (30%). When asked what challenges tree-planting efforts have faced within municipal parks, the three top challenges reported were operation and maintenance practices (24%), overhead and underground infrastructure (13%), and lack of funding (12%). Other challenges identified were programmable spaces and amenity needs (8%) and lack of adequate soil quality (8%). The challenges did not differ between municipal staff and landscape architect consultants (χ2 = 11.9, p = 0.16). 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%New parks Old parks% RespondentsContribution to urban forest canopyNot availableOtherAll of the abveClimate-resilient speciesNative sppBiodiversityCanopy sizeSome 105 3.3.5 Tree planting and canopy policies and design recommendations Most respondents indicated that their municipalities had policies that included tree-planting design recommendations (45%), while fewer had no such recommendations (28%) and others were unsure (27%). Those respondents who indicated ‘yes’ were asked to specify the policy. Fifteen respondents indicated urban forest or public tree policy; seven referred to municipal technical guidelines, two indicated a recommended tree species list and one mentioned zoning. Respondents were asked about their experience using an urban canopy policy during the park planning, design, or construction. Many had no existing canopy policy to work with (40%); others stated that it guided the design process (27%) or that they found the approach helped manage the expectation (20%), while fewer described it as vague and limiting (13%). The responses were similar amongst landscape architect consultants and municipal staff (χ2 = 5.72 p = 0.13). In the last question, the respondents were asked to provide one important factor to consider in the parks' tree canopy policy. The respondents provided a range of recommendations, the most common being biodiversity, soil condition and its requirements, climate adaptable species, and various design recommendations for tree canopy policy for parks. 3.4 Discussion When exploring trade-offs and synergies between canopy targets and the other objectives and targets of parks, this research identified challenges associated with planning and design of parks and a clear lack of investment and policy support. With a focus on design considerations and taking advantage of different roles landscape architect consultant and municipal park planners 106 and designers play, urban park planning, and design can be transformed to better incorporate urban forestry objectives and targets. 4.4.1 Urban Forest Challenges in Municipal Parks Municipal tree planting efforts tend to focus on parks and streets, given the nature of public land ownership; however, park tree planting may provide more opportunities in some cases. As noted earlier, most park tree planting conditions are ideal based on ample growing space for roots and low-to-no salt concerns for soil and groundwater, compared to heavily salted roadways in winter and narrow boulevard space (Lu et al., 2010) in much of Canada’s urban centers. However, there are a variety of challenges that prevent maximizing the potential of parks for increasing urban forest canopy. Of all respondents, 70% indicated that tree planting in parks generally faces recurring challenges, and 30% chose site-specific challenges. No landscape architect, design professional, municipal staff, or park planner experienced a challenge-free path when planting trees in parks in order to contribute to meeting the objectives and targets of urban forestry programs. Despite some available urban forest policies and design guidelines, meeting urban forestry objectives remained as challenge that were often site-specific. The most-selected challenges identified by the survey respondents were: • operation and maintenance practices; • overhead and underground infrastructure; • lack of funding; • programmable spaces and amenity needs; and • lack of adequate soil quality. 107 When asked for one important factor that should be considered in urban forest canopy policy for parks, the most common responses were related to the protection, care, maintenance, and monitoring of trees in parks after development. Continuity of the policy from implementation to the maintenance of the park trees is deemed necessary to ensure that the policy effectively protects, maintains, and enhances the canopy and includes sufficient resources and available staff to enforce the policy. There are also considerations regarding the adaptability of traditional maintenance practices to accommodate innovative designs for tree planting. An example of conventional maintenance practices in parks is significant grass-cutting done by large machinery that requires ample distance for turning. As a result, this machinery use limits cluster tree plantings or groupings. Ample space for the tree root system and total canopy growth is expected in tree plantings. This is less of a challenge in parks than streets, where the tree root system competes with the compacted subgrades of the sidewalks and roads, and the canopy conflicts with hydro lines and street lighting systems. Park trees are not typically impacted vertically by overhead infrastructure (Appleton, 2006). In practice, there can be underground planting restrictions. Some examples include utilities, capped former landfills, and archaeological areas. Often there is a perception of the inability to plant trees in contaminated sites. However, Todd et al. (2016) showed that, with appropriate species selection, it is possible to provide tree canopy on contaminated sites. Lack of funding was considered the second most common challenge regarding tree planting in parks. It is no surprise that this was also reported as one crucial factor that should be considered in urban forest canopy policy for parks. Anecdotally, during municipal capital planning and estimating project cost, trees are sometimes considered at a different level than more costly items such as 108 amenities and hardscapes. As one survey respondent noted, "recreation facilities and amenities get prioritized first," Often, during project budget reductions, the proposed number of trees to be planted can be reduced without anyone noticing. There is also a need for more funding for ongoing maintenance, monitoring, and protection of planted trees. This lack of funding is identified as a critical challenge in quantifying and measuring the benefits, which are regarded as public goods (Ostoic and Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2015). During the planning and design phases, some factors limit the extent to which parks can contribute to the urban forest canopy. For example, public demand for recreational amenities (e.g., sports fields, water parks, and playgrounds) in park space is high. Such active recreation spaces are designed to standard sizes and can take up a large area in the park (Hopper, 2007). When asked about one important factor that should be considered in urban forest canopy policy for parks, the second common theme reported by survey participants was 'soil condition requirements.' The lawns in parks can be heavily maintained, and the soil conditions are only sometimes optimal for trees. Some municipalities need help with land dedicated to them by developers as, often, adequate topsoil for healthy tree establishment is not provided. Appropriate soil volume, condition, and type were some of the suggestions provided by the respondents. 4.4.2 Lack of investment and direction Almost half of the survey participants indicated that they consider trees throughout the park planning, design, and construction process; only a few consider the budget process as the first time where they consider the trees. This could indicate a need for more involvement or awareness within the financial planning component of park infrastructure development. Lack of funding was the second-most scored challenge for tree planting in parks, indicating that the survey respondents are aware of lack of funding. Lack of funding can be rooted in competing 109 priorities or elected officials having to forgo trees in favour of other budget items. A lack of funding is often a challenge for landscape architects and park planners. Trees are deprioritized due to limited funds. Investments in trees and green infrastructure must be considered at the onset of the financial discussions to prevent challenges during implementation for park planners and landscape architects. Also, urban forest policy that has detailed park-specific requirements can prevent challenges regarding financial considerations. When asked about motivations for tree planting in parks, only a few indicated ‘political direction,’ which aligns with the literature in the context of having clear directions and mandates (Conway and Urbani, 2007); the remaining motivations were a variety of design considerations and only a few reported ecological considerations. This indicates that landscape architects' design training is a factor in supporting urban forest targets. However, other factors must be met because park design has the greatest impact on the urban forest. ‘Political direction’ was selected by fewer than 4% of participants (five of 125 municipal staff participants). This is indicative of a lack of political will and support for staff. Political direction is foundational in creating policy and can facilitate policy implementation. A clear political and strategic direction can help identify priorities and ensure no compromises are made when dealing with external factors (e.g., development)—about 40% of respondents needed to be aware of any municipal urban forest targets. Furthermore, the survey asked specifically about policy that provides tree planting design recommendations for public parks, and more than half indicated ‘no’ or ‘not sure.’ Most of the documents specified by those that chose ‘yes’ were general urban forest policy or municipal technical design guidelines. One respondent indicated, ‘Parks are outside the funding and guidance stream. Urban forestry decisions vary by staff in parks.’ 110 When asked about the availability of policy that guides park planning, design, and development, and to describe their experience, almost half (47%) of respondents indicated that policy guided their process and helped them manage expectations. Forty-three percent found the policy vague and limiting or did not have access to a policy. There needs to be more certainty, demonstrating that many professionals need the direction, support, and tools to prioritize tree planting interests. Urban forest canopy in parks may still need to receive the attention of designers and professionals. In local government, policy and planning documents (e.g., a formalized urban forest strategy) can be excellent tools for implementation (van der Jagt and Lawrence, 2019), education and providing a framework during park development, public consultations, and developer and builder negotiations. The support of a firm policy and its implementation during design and everyday operation can guide the way that public parklands provide the grounds for urban forestry in Canadian municipalities. 4.4.3 Design considerations The design of Canadian municipal parks is rooted in the public landscapes of Great Britain (Williams, 2014). Large lawns, roads, and pathways through the parks and recreational areas take up significant spaces in the parks (Hopper, 2007). Some of these elements continue to inform the design of most urban parks in Canada. Survey responses on the contribution of parks to the urban forest (old versus new) showed that close to 60% of respondents believe that the contribution from well-established parks is ‘excellent or good,’ and under 40% think the same way about recently built parks. Respondents also consider native tree planting occurring more through establishment of new parks and associated tree planting. A common focus in municipal urban forest policy in Canada is the planting of native species (Ordóñez and Duinker, 2013); Almas and Conway (2016) recommend planting fewer common native species and focusing 111 more on the provision of biodiversity. This study showed that survey respondents attribute tree canopy size to the more established parks. Gustavsson et al. (2005) noted that most urban parks are either forested or mostly treeless open space, often with an abrupt change without a transition from one space to the other. Transitions, in design, can be one of the most opportune spaces for tree planting and creating meaningful places. When asked about challenges for tree planting in parks, close to 6% of respondents chose “traditional landscape design practices.” This was certainly not considered one of the top challenges, perhaps because the survey respondents felt that design practices did not cause any challenges for tree planting in parks or that they prioritized other challenges provided in the survey questions. However, planting too many trees could change the character and design of the park, which can be an issue, such as in historical municipal parks, and which can result in pushback from professionals, the public, and interest groups. Gobster (2001, p. 35) described stakeholder engagement for the parkland along the Chicago lakefront as below: It became clear during the course of the effort that the landscape features some individuals sought to restore what had attained an iconic status, symbolizing for their meanings and values deeper than what might be discerned by those not intimately knowledgeable of the site and its social context, and the preservation and enhancement of these features needed to be a central part of any final plan for the site (Gobster 2001, p. 35). When asked for one important factor to be considered in urban forest canopy targets for parks, design considerations were the third most common response. Municipal, technical or park development design guidelines can provide consistent and clear direction regarding tree planting in parks while still providing flexibility for design creativity. 112 Some design recommendations provided by the survey respondents that are worth mentioning are: ● Widen spaces between programmed fields to allow for tree planting. ● Plant trees with sufficient space between them to allow for growth and interconnection. ● Specify tree canopy targets for various typologies of parks based on size and service provision. ● Require tree planting in every area in the park not used for recreation. ● Require a quota, % canopy target, or minimum planting requirements (e.g., a respondent suggested “number of trees/ha”). ● Identify vertical structure, understory biodiversity, and age class retention requirements. ● Create buffers around small parks to avoid development impacts on the edge of the parks. ● Set a standard for the size of the parkland to support urban forests. ● Supervise tree installation and monitor watering practices. ● Find a balance between recreational needs and urban forest. Schroeder and Green (1983) as early as 1980s investigated the attractiveness of a park for park users by focusing on the trees. They found 150-160 mature trees per hectare were generally preferred with an open background. More recent research such as park features and adolescents preferences (Edwards et al., 2015), perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green spaces (Qui et al., 2013), the influence of attitude and perception of tree benefits (Jennings et al., 2016) investigates tree density and character preferences. It is important to consider the on-going societal and cultural shift in the preferences in park design. The role of parks has been 113 dynamic - from a natural refuge to a sports complex as a venue to address community needs, to a tool for cities to become more sustainable (Pincetl and Gearin, 2005). Based on the challenges identified and design recommendations provided by various professionals, landscape architects, and municipal staff involved in park planning, Canadian cities need to be more connected across urban forest programs and their implementation in the municipal park system. 4.4.4 Sector similarities and differences A comparative analysis of survey responses from landscape architect consultants and municipal staff showed almost a complete alignment on most perspectives, with only a few significant differences. There was a common trend of motivation for tree planting in parks for policy and design considerations, which illustrates the importance of the connection between these two elements. For landscape architects and design professionals, native planting was the most selected factor for tree planting; for municipal staff, it was the provision of shade. Although both groups may be focused on resilience planning, native planting could be based on a perception of ecological benefits, while planting trees to provide shade has a more user-experience focus. Both groups selected biodiversity as the second-most-important value. Most within both groups believed that recently built parks contribute a fair bit to the city's urban forest, but it could be better. Both groups responded that established parks' contribution to the urban forest is 'Good,' but significantly more municipal staff viewed established parks as having an 'Excellent' contribution. This difference could be due to municipal staff being more aware of the park inventory and more engaged with established parks. Most landscape architect consultants are more likely to be involved with designing new parks. 114 Most municipal staff and landscape architects and designers believe tree planting challenges are recurring, but twice as many municipal staff indicated that challenges are site-specific. One reason for this difference could be that municipal staff may be more informed about the complex challenges of each site based on the knowledge of the municipal staff they work with. When asked about one factor that a program or policy should consider for urban forest canopy in municipal parks, there were many commonalities between the two respondent groups. A minor difference was that all those who suggested minimum tree-planting requirements and standards were the municipal staff. The landscape architects and designer group leaned more toward tree species selection, such as native species and climate-adaptable species. This difference could be that municipal staff may feel a sense of security by creating a consistent set of requirements that can be applied in all cases to achieve the overarching policy. Landscape architects and designers may be looking for more creativity in design and may want to avoid being bound to specific requirements but may find available species lists appropriate to the local municipality to be helpful during the design process. 4.5 Limitations and Future Studies Study Limitations A limitation of the study was that participation in completing the survey was voluntary, and it can be challenging to encourage busy professionals to complete surveys. Moreover, convenience sampling was used rather than selecting a representative sample of the different respondent groups. The survey was designed to be completed quickly and not require extensive writing, which may have confused some when reading the questions and responding to them. Another limitation was circulating and distributing the survey evenly across provinces; however, professional associations were offered a summary of the results as an incentive. 115 Future Studies Future studies could include an in-depth analysis of public park design in Canada and an understanding of any changes in the trends since the beginning of municipal park design in this country. Moreover, an evaluation of the designs of established parks and an understanding of the parameters considered for contributions to the urban forest canopy will be beneficial to further align urban forestry programs and municipal park design. Other future research could include a case study of parks where canopy has expanded and investigating the user response to this change (e.g., on park use and user appreciation). 4.6 Conclusion Despite the challenges and barriers, municipal parks offer an essential opportunity for urban tree planting and implementing urban forest programs and strategies. These parks traditionally prioritized cultural ecosystem services, such as providing spaces for recreation. However, they also play a significant role in enhancing the resiliency of a city in the face of climate change. They can act as clean and cool air pockets, storm water management relief areas, and fauna refuges. Many of these benefits are directly linked to the urban tree canopy. Therefore, ample tree planting in parks is a worthwhile public investment and should be a priority for local governments and communities, but parks play many roles in communities and opportunities for adding canopy can be limiting. For municipalities with existing urban forestry objectives, it would be helpful to include design guidelines and tools specifically to support and guide the municipal park design and development process by meeting urban forestry objectives and targets. The policy also needs to consider post-development practices related to monitoring and maintenance of trees. Landscape architects and park planners, along with their vision and commitment, would have a guiding framework and practical guidelines to support them in the 116 park design and development process, offering more opportunities for program alignment and synergies. 117 Chapter 5: Coquitlam Parks Case Study 5.1 Introduction The role of public green spaces has shifted through time, from natural refuges to contemporary sport complexes, and now towards tools for cities to become more sustainable (Pincetl and Gearin, 2005). People’s needs for public green space can be one or a combination of the following: comfort, relaxation, passive and active engagement with the environment, and discovery (Carr et al., 1992). Different public preferences may be small steps towards reinvention of public park space (Pincetl and Gearin, 2005) and addressing the current needs of the communities. Shanahan et al. (2015) found that park visitation closely reflected availability of tree cover in parks. A study of older adult park users (Veitch et al., 2022) rated shady trees and trees within the top ten park features desired for visitation, physical activity, and social interaction. There is less recorded through observatory studies on how people use parks in relations to the trees in the park through (Golicnik and Thompson, 2010). There is a gap in literature on Canadian parks and park user and human interactions with urban forests (Millward and Sabir, 2001; Matsuoka and Kaplan, 2008; Ordóñez et al., 2016). To achieve the overarching goal of in-depth exploration of the interaction between municipal park planning and design, and urban forestry policy (and urban forest canopy targets in particular) in Canada, Chapter 5 applies a different lens to understand roles and different contributions through in-depth local case studies. This is done with the aim to assess how urban forest governance influences canopy targets, with a specific focus on the role of actors such as municipal governments, members of the public, and other key stakeholders. The general objectives of this study were to assess the contributions of local preferences to the design of 118 parks, to examine the value of the urban forest for park users and their quality of experience, and to understand how daily use of parks relates to spatial configuration and design of treed spaces. Ultimately, the question was: What are the roles and contributions of different municipal and community factors in meeting urban forestry canopy targets in urban parks? This question was answered through examination of three selected parks in Coquitlam, British Columbia. 5.2 Methods A multi-step and mixed-method approach was developed to collect and analyse quantitative and qualitative information. Three parks in one Canadian municipality were chosen as their similar characteristics facilitated comparison and to: 1) Characterize the trees in terms of species, canopy cover, and size diversity; 2) Evaluate park function and design attributes; and 3) Estimate how many more trees could theoretically be planted within the park based on available space (Quinton et al., 2020). In this way, an in-depth analysis of how urban forest canopy targets can be partially met in municipal parks is made possible. The methodology included policy and reports review, site observations and documentation, park user surveys, walking interviews, and review of Google comments, and governance interviews. 119 Figure 5.1 Overview of Chapter 5 methodology 5.2.1 City Context and Site Selection This part of the study was undertaken in Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada. Coquitlam, which is part of the Metro Vancouver city region, is one of the fastest-growing municipalities in British Columbia, with a population of 148,625 people (Census, 2021) in an area of 122.2 km². Like many other growing municipalities in Canada, Coquitlam offers a mix of established and recently developed neighbourhoods and parks systems. Demographic information shows that approximately 50% of residents’ mother tongues are neither English nor French (Census, 2021). The Kwikwetlem First Nation, kʷikʷəƛ̓əm people, have lived in the traditional territory known as the Coquitlam Watershed and the surrounding areas since before remembered time. The municipality has over 80 parks and natural areas, all of which were reviewed and evaluated for this study. First, the evaluation of all Coquitlam’s parks included an assessment of recreational amenities. I, then, needed to determine whether the trees are planted or remnants of a forest or natural area. I compared aerial photography (1963, 2003, 2021) of pre-development to existing conditions. Finally, I categorized the parks into three tiers of recreation amenities (e.g. playground, spray 120 park, multi-purpose court, skatepark, tennis courts, etc.), from least to most programs: low (1-2 programs), medium (3-4), and high (5+). The parks' geographical location in the city and the size of the parks were secondary components of the discussions. Coquitlam has well-established neighbourhoods built from 1960 to the 1980s, with the areas considered recent development being built from 2000 onward. To provide diversity and contrast in the type of parks, I prevented clustering all three parks in the same area. All selected parks were under 10ha to ensure observations of an entire site from one or two viewing points are possible for accurate observations. Based on the above considerations, the following three parks were selected. By using i-Tree Canopy (2022) and an approach similar to that of Quinton et al. (2020), the approximate forest canopy of the park was calculated. Table 5.1 is a summary of relevant information about the three parks selected. Table 5.1 Summary information of the 3 parks selected Park Address Area (ha) Year Built Location Park Programs Canopy (%) Galloway 3404 Galloway Avenue 0.71 2012 Northeast Medium 17 Mackin 1046 Brunette Avenue 7.05 1979 Southwest High 32 Riley 1315 Riley Street 1.45 2019 Northeast Low 2 5.2.2 Policy Review A policy and reports review were undertaken to understand City’s direction on park planning and urban forestry (Conway and Urbani, 2007) and gather information on the background of the selected parks and their planning and development process. This review was a foundational step towards answering the research question and to better understand various roles that are played in meeting urban forest canopy targets. A summary of the review is provided in the results sections 121 (5.3.1). The review provided city-wide information, as well as park specific knowledge. A review of historical aerial photography was also included to understand the conditions of the land prior to park development. 5.2.3 Site Observations To understand the use of each park, an observation of park users (Golicnik and Thompson, 2010) was undertaken. Site observations were conducted in March, June, July, and September of 2022. The core of the observations was completed during June and July. The observation process included repeating the exact walking route each time and taking a 10-minute visual scan of each park at different times of the day. In Mackin Park, where it was impossible to complete a visual scan of the entire park, the park was divided into sub-areas. The observation at each park took about 1 hour in total, and whenever possible, all three parks were observed on the same day to make better comparison possible, in the order of Riley Park, Galloway Park, and Mackin Park. All users observed, their location and the type of activity were noted. The recording included the relationship between the activity and the approximate distance to the closest tree in the park. The highly used spaces in the park were identified. Information about age, ethnicity, gender, and any other attribute to describe the individual was not recorded as that was not the type of information this research project sought. Site photography using a digital camera and drone supplemented the observation to add to the documentation. The analysis of this data included identifying the most useable spaces by the parks’ users, change of pattern of use, if any, and identifying potential areas for tree planting. Approval from the Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) was received to conduct this study including 5.2.3 to 5.2.5 (H22-01155). 122 5.2.4 Governance Interviews The interviews with key governance actors aimed to understand any rationale around park design decisions or any insight or background about the selected parks. Also, this part of the study aimed to understand the overall municipal direction on urban forestry targets, the values of the municipal leaders, their roles, and contributions to the park planning process and decisions. This study was intentional about including elected officials in the panel of those interviewed. Elected officials, as representatives of the public, are the deciders in the municipal government and they are not always included in studies of urban forest governance in Canada (Conway and Urbani, 2007; Conway and Vander Vacht, 2015; Almas and Conway, 2016; Ordóñez et al., 2020). The City of Coquitlam's Council includes 1 Mayor and 8 Councillors. Those Councillors (4) who have been the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee and Sustainability and Environmental Advisory Committee were contacted for an interview. Two Councillors, one from each of the Committees of Council participated in the interviews. City staff in the lead of Park Planning and Design and Urban Forestry departments responded to the inquiry and agreed to participate in the interview. Online interviews were completed with two elected officials and two members of leadership at the City of Coquitlam. The interviews were structured and the questions were shared with the participants in advance. The analysis of interviews was completed by finding commonalities or contrasts within the responses. Their responses provided much value to an understanding of roles and contributions made by key players in governance. I took notes and the text from the open-ended questions, were coded using ad hoc meaning generation and thematic organization (Kvale, 1996; Braun & Clarke, 2006). 123 Questions for both groups included an understanding of their level of involvement with park planning and design and urban forest decisions and operations; their local knowledge of the three parks, challenges and opportunities they identify with urban forests in parks; and finally they were asked if they have any advice for policymakers, planners, and designers. The questions that were asked are outlined in Appendix C. 5.2.5 Park User Input Park users can play direct and indirect roles in the design of a park. Municipalities directly receive, through public engagement, feedback on the desires of the residents about the future of the park. Learnings on the wishes and needs of parks users in one park can influence design and policy for any future park in that city or ones that designers are involved with. To best understand urban forest preferences of park users, three methods were used and the analysis included a synthesis of various methods. Walking Interviews A one-to-one interview took the form of 'walking interviews' as the interviewer took the participants around the park. A walking interview in the park highlights the participant's personal relationship with the park space (Neal et al., 2015). The posters distributed at all three parks included an invite for walking interviews, but the researchers were not contacted by any individuals willing to participate. Therefore, individuals participated in the walking interviews out of interest and previous connection with the researcher. Before the interviews, the researcher did not know whether the participants knew the selected parks. In total, six individuals participated in the walking interviews, each involved in fields of practice other than park planning and design. Participants’ backgrounds were in architecture, public health, law, and academia more generally. Only 2 of 6 were residents of Coquitlam and they visited the park with 124 the researcher. For anonymity, the participants' names, last names, and contact information are replaced with numbers 1 to 6. This approach to the interview provided the opportunity for participants to respond while they were experiencing the park. For ease of notetaking, the participants were asked for their consent for the interview to be recorded for transcription. For each interview, the researcher drove the participant to the park to eliminate any inconsistencies in the arrival experience. The researcher followed the same direction and path of walking through the park with each participant. Each participant’s responses were coded using ad hoc meaning generation and thematic organization (Kvale, 1996; Braun & Clarke, 2006). Online Survey A descriptive social survey (Deming and Swaffield, 2011) was distributed amongst adult park users at three parks in the City of Coquitlam to understand the preferences of park users about urban forest in parks. The survey was not meant to be fully representative, but rather to give a good idea of park user opinions and preferences. Peckham et al. (2013) found that not enough studies have been done in Canada to explore the value of urban forests for people. I aimed for a minimum of 20 completed surveys in each park, understanding that this is highly dependent on park users' availability and willingness to participate. There were no rewards or incentives provided to participate in the survey. Following an interception survey method (Ordóñez et al., 2016), park users were allowed to take a card with a QR code to scan and complete an online or paper survey. An approval of Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) was received to engage with adults only. Every adult (regardless of age and gender) available at the park was approached by the researchers, and all except one adult at Riley Park were open to at least taking a card. No children or youth were approached as in this work the focus was on the preferences of adult park users. In total, out of 125 all three parks, only two park users chose to complete a paper survey and mail it with pre-paid envelopes provided by the researcher. However, only one park user mailed the result and had not consented to participate in the study; therefore, the researcher eliminated their responses. The online survey was active on Qualtrics (UBC Survey Platform) for the entire month of July. There were posters promoting this park study, including a QR code and the link to the survey was posted in 6-7 locations in each park for the same duration. The researcher replaced any damaged or removed posters during the survey activation. Google Review (Note: Fellow doctoral student and collaborator Kaitlyn Pike completed this work) Google Maps allows anyone to share their opinion of a business or attraction. Public parks are considered one of those attractions that Google Maps receives public opinion on. Recent studies have found online user reviews are a helpful way to collect existing data that can provide insight into broader public experiences of a specific place (Huang et al., 2022; Koh et al., 2021; Zabelskyte et al., 2022). To utilize this tool as another method to understand park user experiences, Google Maps user review data was collected to understand park user attitudes toward each of the three case study parks. Google Maps user reviews were exported for each of the three case parks using Outscraper (https://outscraper.com/) – an online platform that "scrapes" public data (e.g., from Google, Amazon, TripAdvisor, YellowPages, etc.) and converts it into a spreadsheet. This conversion turns each review into a single row of data, with each column providing data specific to that review. For each of the parks, we were thus able to gather information related to individual and collective park rating (out of five), date and time of review, name of the author, and any photos or additional text shared. All user reviews created for Mackin Park were collected from August 126 30, 2013 to July 31, 2022 (when in-person data collection ended). The average rating of each park was calculated, as well as, the comments were organized into four categories: experiential, recreation, ecological, and cultural. Comments could not fall into more than one category. 5.2.6 Plantable space analysis For assessing the availability of plantable spaces (for trees) in the three parks, i-Tree Canopy and Google Maps aerial imagery were used, generating random-point (Quinton et al., 2020). Guided by the i-Tree Canopy, I classified each point as either “tree” or “non-tree,” including (grass, other plantings, and hardscape), and this was used to determine both % canopy cover and standard error. A range of 20-45 points were classified within each park until the standard error was equal to 2%. A conceptual analysis of the number of trees that could be planted within each park was completed. The potential planting areas were defined based on: 1. literature review (Bell et al., 2005) and (Arnold, 1992); 2. summary of park user surveys, user interviews, and Google reviews; and 3. an expert-based model, including site reconnaissance. Once the areas were identified, based on the average distance between trees and canopy size of the trees already planted in the new parks, the number of proposed trees was counted. 5.3 Results The following provides a summary of the multi-method approach's results for collecting information and data. 127 5.3.1 Policy Review The City of Coquitlam has a City Official Plan (City of Coquitlam, 2022) and four Area Plans: Northeast Area Plan, Northwest Area Plan, Southwest Area Plan, and City Centre Area Plan. Each area plan includes neighbourhood plans that inform parkland planning. Smiling Creek Neighbourhood Plan (2006) provides direction for both Galloway Park and Riley Park neighbourhood, which includes 12 policy items under Parks and Open Space Concept. In summary, they ask to secure parkland, prioritize active park space, and ask for linkage between parks and green spaces. Prioritizing active park space could impact canopy targets in parks if the park's design lacks creativity. The neighbourhood plan provides park design parameters related to safety, access points, circulation, trail setbacks from riparian areas, access to sensitive steep ravines, and public art. One policy direction regarding trees is "where possible, protect significant trees and vegetation through the design of parks and other public open space" (p. 26). Efforts to find planning and design information on Galloway Park were unsuccessful. Recently-built Riley Park immediately received upgrades to the irrigation and drainage systems, in addition to installing new plantings. Per the staff report to Council Riley Park and Sheffield Park – Preliminary Design Considerations (City of Coquitlam, 2017), preliminary design considerations included embankment play, a play structure, and the plaza with picnic tables. The staff report also includes an arborist report informed detailed design. Due to a site hydrology change, it was necessary to clear-cut all trees before development. Staff further added, "A tree replanting strategy will be developed to ensure the long-term sustainable re-vegetation of the park by providing a variety of native and ornamental trees, shrubs and groundcovers that will provide seasonal interest, scents, textures and ecological benefit while balancing the proposed programming" (p. 3). An aerial imagery review of all three parks over three timelines showed 128 that in the case of both Galloway Park and Riley Park, existing forest was removed to build the community including the park (Figure 5.2). According to the staff report, a local landscape architect was retained to support the detailed design of the park. a. Galloway Park (1963) b. Galloway Park (2003) c. Galloway Park (2021) d. Mackin Park (1963) e. Mackin Park (2003) f. Mackin Park (2021) 129 g. Riley Park (1963) h. Riley Park (2003) i. Riley Park (2021) Figure 5.2 Illustrating aerial imagery review for the three parks in Coquitlam that were studied The Millardville Neighbourhood Plan (MNP) (2013) anticipated an increase of 6,000 new residents, with an identified need for additional park space. The Plan recommended developing a property acquisition plan for Millardville to secure additional parkland. The two parks recognized in the Plan, Mackin and Rochester, remain the only parks in this area nearly ten years later. Some of the relevant guiding principles of the MNP include: 1) building vibrant public spaces and providing park and outdoor recreation experiences; 2) enhancing landscapes by recognizing the importance of landscaping, trees, and environmental areas as key elements of the neighbourhood. For the environmentally significant areas, MNP recommends maximizing the use of native plant species in landscape plans for new development and the streetscape, improving the visual identity of the neighbourhood by tree planting as part of the redevelopment. The archive record shows that the District of Coquitlam employed (City of Coquitlam, 1978) Justice & Webb Landscape Architects Ltd., for the development of the park. Clive Justice was an industry-known local landscape architect who worked on botanical gardens at the University of British Columbia, VanDusen Botanical Gardens, and the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA) remembers trees as one of Clive's many passions. As his son recalls, his bumper sticker read: "Trees are the Answer." Mackin Park currently hosts a 32% tree canopy, and the trees are significant identifiers in the park. The City's Environmental Sustainability Plan (2022) calls for equitable and sufficient park access, including a maximum of10-minute walking radius for every resident. 130 Two relevant actions are: 1) developing a citywide Urban Forest Management Plan that considers tree retention, stewardship, forest and ecosystem health, public safety, and climate change impact; and 2) measuring tree canopy cover percentages in developed neighbourhoods. Council endorsed the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (2017), which establishes the community's aspirations in delivering parks, recreation, and culture services. A noteworthy action item is the "protection and enhancement of the urban forest, including regular maintenance activities related to all publicly-owned City trees" (p. 13). The Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (PRCMP) provides three categories of park typologies: Neighbourhood Park, Enhanced Neighbourhood Park, and Community Park. In each category, there are recommendations for amenity options, but regarding trees, the only recommendation is to provide a diversity of tree species. The drawings provided for each park classification in the plan view are well-intentioned to visually communicate parks with ample tree planting integrated amongst all amenities. Without an urban forest policy and park-specific recommendations, the PRCMP is likely the guiding document in park planning and design. Other relevant work by the City of Coquitlam is the ongoing Sports Field Strategy, which will be the guiding document informing investment decisions such as field sports such as soccer, football, baseball, softball, and crickets. It is too soon to know whether Sport Field Strategy will consider maximizing use of existing fields or expansion of available field amenities. There is various information available to the development community, such as Tree Management Information and Replacement Tree Recommendations. During the review of the City of Coquitlam's documents (in 2022), no park-specific recommendations to meet urban forest targets were found. Tree Canopy Cover Assessment and 131 Strategy and Citywide Urban Forest Management Plan are scheduled for 2020 - 2024. Currently, no urban forest canopy is available for the city, unlike some other municipalities in Canada. Table 5.2 summarizes available relevant policies and relevant directions. An initiative worth mentioning is the Tree Spree program, which includes public education, tree-planting sessions, and tree giveaways to residents and businesses. The Department of Parks, Recreation, Culture and Facilities (PRCF) oversee the planning, design and construction, and management of Coquitlam parks. The Park Planning and Design division of PRCF develops policy, plans, and designs parks and open spaces. The Strategic and Capital Projects division of PRCF leads the delivery of all park asset upgrades and improvements. The Urban Forestry and Park Services division of PRCF leads operation and management of parks and natural systems. Table 5.2 Summary of available city planning policies and relevant directions Policy City-Wide or Local Impact Park and Urban Forest Related Direction Environmental Sustainability Plan (2022) City-wide Provide equitable and sufficient park access, including maximum of 10-minute walking radius for every resident Develop a citywide Urban Forest Management Plan that considers tree retention, stewardship, forest and ecosystem health, public safety, and climate change impact Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (2017) City-wide Protect and enhance the urban forest, including regular maintenance activities related to all publicly owned City trees Smiling Creek Neighbourhood Plan (2006) Local (Galloway and Riley Park) Planning principles are: 1) to protect environmental health, 2) to integrate parks and the natural environment, and 3) to establish integrated neighbourhood parks and recreation systems. 132 Policy City-Wide or Local Impact Park and Urban Forest Related Direction Millardville Neighbourhood Plan (2013) Local (Mackin Park) Guiding principles include: 1) building vibrant public spaces and providing park and outdoor recreation experiences; 2) enhancing landscapes by recognizing the importance of landscaping, trees, and environmental areas as key elements of the neighbourhood. 5.3.2 Site Observations This section provides a high-level summary of the site observations including photography and drone imagery. Detailed documentation and site notes are outlined in Appendix C.1. Galloway Park Galloway Park showed a relatively consistent level of use during the different times of observation, except during the heatwave when the spray park (Figure 5.3b) activity amplified. The number of park users was higher during this time, based on the count of individuals and large gatherings (e.g., birthday parties Figure 5.3a) at the park. Also, street parking surrounding the park was at capacity. During this time, there was also an apparent increase in the length of time people stayed at the park. There were often 2-3 children at the playground, but sometimes none. The multi-purpose court was often activated by youth. The treed promenade's central axis was used frequently for walking. The area around the pathway is the central hub for picnicking, whether people are using the picnic tables or not. The ample open space and the benches in the northern part of the park were rarely used, likely due to lack of shade (Figure 5.3c). Figure 5.3 shows various photos captured during site observations. 133 a. gatherings under trees b. active spray park c. picnic umbrella in north part Figure 5.3 Galloway park site observations (Photo Credit: Leila Todd) Mackin Park Mackin Park is very well-utilized and always active and busy with park users. There was a relatively consistent level of use in the northern part of the park, even well into the evening. It was observed that there were almost always tennis players at the courts and skaters using the skate park. Picnicking and sitting at the benches (Figure 5.4c), under the ample treed active plaza space (Figure 5.4b), were common during warmer temperatures. The playground and spray park were used moderately by 6-8 children often. The southern part of the park was busy and lively during the sports games (Figure 5.4a), with players and spectators, and completely silent and vacant the rest of the time. The shaded loop trail around the park was very well used, and there was a constant flow of walkers around the park's periphery. There was evidence of overnight use of the park, including camping tents. 134 a. sport fields south side b. gathering area in central plaza c. benches under tree Figure 5.4 Mackin park site observations (Photo Credit: Leila Todd) Riley Park The core use of Riley Park is centred at the children's playground. Park uses in Riley Park significantly dropped during hot weather and afternoons. The playground’s material is rubberized surfacing and steel, and with minimal tree planting for shade, this south-facing playground's surfaces are hot to the touch. The playground is loved and busy during milder weather or early morning, filled with as many as 20 children. Also, the north part of the park with the viewing amenities was busy (Figure 5.5b). There were small group gatherings during the summer (Figure 5.5a) and some people sitting around the park under the trees facing the view. The seating was mainly around the busy area of the playground. Some walkers (Figure 5.5c) and dog walkers used the southern portion of the park as a component of a longer route. Their walking was not limited to just the park. The large lawn spaces were never used during the observations. 135 a. gathering facing playground b. hammock swing c. asphalt pathway no shade Figure 5.5 Riley park site observations (Photo Credit: Leila Todd) Drone images were taken of all three park studies to better illustrate the tree canopy, lawn spaces, and park amenities. Research has shown the importance of digital tools such as drones in assisting with urban forest and green space management decisions (Nitoslawski et al., 2019). Site level observations provide a value at the ground level, but particularly in Mackin Park, where the tree canopy is above eye-level; the images captured by drone helped to better understand and visualize the canopy cover in the park. a. Galloway park facing north east (uphill) b. Galloway Park facing south east (downhill) 136 a. Mackin park facing west b. Mackin park facing south a. Riley park facing south (downhill) b. Riley park facing east (uphill) Figure 5.6 Drone imagery of all three parks (Credit: Leila Todd with support by Ali Nayeri) 5.3.3. Governance Interviews Table 5.3 summarizes the responses received from city councillors and department leadership. Table 5.3 Summary and comparison of responses for two different groups Topic City Councillors Department Leadership Involvement in Park Planning and Urban Forestry High-level decisions Financial approvals Policy approvals Planning and design Capital budget Management and operating budget Urban Forest Challenges in Parks Safety risk of large trees Public pushback to removal of hazard trees Topography and steep slopes and inability to maintain original forest Climate change and impacts Limited park-appropriate tree species available in nurseries Balancing competing needs 137 Topic City Councillors Department Leadership Urban Forest Opportunities in Parks High public interest in parks and urban forest Public awareness in importance of urban forest Parks ability to provide biodiversity Advice in implementing urban forestry goals in parks Allow urban forestry staff to do their job and focus on safety Plant more trees to create a more resilient future Consider prioritizing tree planting in first phases of park development Create community awareness regarding trees Ensure there is tree protection policy in place Find a balance for providing park amenities and trees Consider alternative ways of recreation (e.g., trails surrounded by trees) Incorporating trees right at the start and not as an afterthought Invest in tree planting in parks more as provide better conditions than street tree planting Try out new planting techniques Focus on the diversity of species Engage volunteers for tree planting Consider climate change mitigation in design practices Councillors Both councillors indicated that their involvement is high-level and includes setting priorities for work plans, approvals of budget, establishing policy, and some involvement during the design process. They mentioned that community needs and site context determine the scope of a park. Also, both believed that Coquitlam Council avoids getting involved in operations and day-to-day activities and leaves that to the experts. When asked to describe the three case study parks, the elected officials focused on the age of the parks, the classification and type of parks, and the amenities they include. One Councillor said 138 that having park classifications help them to know what could be available at the park for residents. Regarding challenges in parks for urban forests, one Councillor focused on the risks associated with some of the larger trees in established parks, and the difficulty of removing trees for safety and public pushback. The other Councillor identified challenges associated with steep topography in some areas of the city, and the difficulty of keeping the original forest and developing it as parkland. Both Councillors found a high interest in parks, which helps promote building new parks and incorporating trees in those landscapes. In response to incorporating urban forestry targets into parks management, they both mentioned the need to find a balance and be mindful of the site and context of the land. The lack of an existing urban forest strategy and management plan did not provide an opportunity to discuss park-specific canopy targets. When asked to provide advice for incorporating urban forestry targets to policymakers, planners, designers, and all those involved in municipal parks, they said: ● Allow urban forestry staff to do their job and focus on safety ● Plant more trees to create a more resilient future ● Consider prioritizing tree planting in the first phases of park development ● Create community awareness regarding trees ● Ensure there is tree protection policy in place ● Find a balance for providing park amenities and trees ● Consider alternative ways of recreation (e.g., trails surrounded by tree canopy) Municipal Staff 139 Two municipal staff in leadership positions for park planning and design and urban forestry management participated in the interviews. Both staff believed that various staff collaborated in and reviewed park concept plans and detailed designs for Riley Park and Galloway Park. Many considerations were given to the “mountain context, wind firmness, hardiness, and the variations in temperature that the parks are experiencing.” Other factors were “functionality such as adjacency to the playground, slopes, and view corridors.” The original development of Mackin Park predates the staff who were interviewed. Both shared that they are aware of upgrades completed in the park for various components but unsure whether any new trees were planted. Climate change impacts were identified as a challenge. Staff recognized a shift in some practices, such as irrigation and former concerns about exposure to the sun. Another challenge mentioned was the limited species availability for park spaces in the nurseries. The staff shared that balancing park programming and competing needs is a challenge for parks. They mentioned Mackin Park as a park with many competing interests. Some of the parks have high traffic, and sometimes tree impact can be too much. On the other hand, “urban foresters focus on arboriculture and forest management and may forget that parks are for people.” Some of the opportunities they brought up were public awareness, interest in trees and urban forests, and Council support for developing an Urban Forestry Management Plan. An opportunity they mentioned for parks is the ability to create biodiversity. Some advice received for policymakers, planners, designers, and all those involved in municipal parks was: ● Incorporating trees right at the start and not as an afterthought ● Invest in parks as they are easy to access, unlike streets ● Try out new techniques for planting 140 ● Focus on the diversity of species ● Engage volunteers for tree planting ● Consider climate change mitigation in design practices Noted during discussions is the division of services and the roles of various departments in park policy development to management. The division of labour is standard in organizations, but it requires a tremendous amount of collaboration and communication to have a continuous and smooth process. 5.3.4 Park User Walking Interviews Table 5.4 provides a high-level summary of the walking interviews at each of the three case study parks. Table 5.4 Key summary of walking interviews Themes Galloway Park Mackin Park Riley Park Park’s Desirability No strong desire to return to the park except for spray park Strong desire to return to the park No strong desire to return to the park except for playground AmenitiesFeedback Appropriate amenities for a neighbourhood park Mix of amenities Compact and full of activity Spaces well-separated Limited amenities, but playground and hammock and viewing area was liked Urban Forest in the Park Visible lack of diversity of trees Considered more tree planting for north of the park Pleased with mature and established trees Considered more tree planting in the south of the park Young trees and no shade provided Nice view was noticed, but recognized the importance of climate change Park Design Feedback Redesign the green space to the north of the park Redesign the southern portion of the park Addition of amenities Redesign the sloped green spaces 141 Galloway Park The Park's Desirability – None of the six participants had been to any of the three parks before. In the end, when asked whether they would return to Galloway Park, almost all did not express an interest in returning. One participant indicated that they would return to the spray park with their family. Amenities Feedback – Most participants' first reaction to walking in the park seemed positive and pleasant. The comments included that there was a nice mix of green space and activities, and lots of space for a long while, like the view. One participant felt that the park was more of a "community gathering ground," and one found the north part of the park made them feel "exposed" and unwelcoming, and that the park "lacked trees" at the start of the walk in the northern part. When asked to show their favourite place in the park, the majority pointed to the central treed pathway. Some noted that they appreciated the entryway, the spray park, and sitting at the top and looking at the view. The amenities seemed satisfactory and appropriate for a neighbourhood park to all the participants. Spray Park and the small community library stood out to two participants. Urban Forest in the Park – Regarding the trees, almost all interviewees indicated that the trees looked similar and had no variety. One person commented on tree health, one on the shade provided, one on the integration of the tree with the play area, one on the type of tree and seasonal appeal, and finally, one on the maturity of the trees. There was nothing that they liked or disliked about the trees. When asked if they would like more trees planted, four participants indicated and pointed to the north part of the park where the open green space is, and two participants did not think more trees needed to be added. However, the variety and diversity of 142 trees need to improve. The response to the favourite type of trees in parks varied from a mix of trees to conifer trees and trees that resemble nature here, to the trees in this park, and 'ones I can sit under.' Also, trees have unique features and are more dynamic (e.g., 'trembling aspen'). Park Design Feedback – When asked what the park designers could do to make this park more ideal for the participants, half of the participants expressed the desire to redesign the green open space to the north of the park to provide more trees or amenities. Mackin Park The Park's Desirability - Only one of the participants had been to the park before, to watch friends play sports. One participant indicated that they frequently drive by the park, and the rest had no previous experience with the park. At the end of the interview, when asked whether they would return to Mackin Park, almost all the participants were moderately motivated to return to the park of their own accord. The participants felt they would return to the park for various reasons, such as participating in or watching a sport or recreation activity, and possibly as a place to picnic with food purchased from local shops and restaurants. Amenities Feedback - The first impression of participants in the walking interviews were that Mackin Park is compact, full of activity for various ages, and recreational amenities were nicely mixed with trees and other plantings. When asked which park spaces were their favourite, they indicated the trees, the rose garden, and the walking trail. Participants found that the amenities provide many options for various recreational preferences and ages, but all spaces are well-separated and well-maintained. Urban Forest in Park - When asked about the trees in the park, all the participants said how pleased they were with the maturity of the trees in Mackin Park. They liked to see the diversity of the well-established trees. One respondent believed that 'coniferous trees in smaller parks are 143 overwhelming' and that she liked to see them in Mackin Park. Another participant thought the Mackin Park trees 'did not seem out of place.' Almost all the participants disliked the southern part of the park, where there are a limited number of trees. Most of them found the riparian area unresolved and needed clarification on whether it was a naturalized area or an area that was being maintained. One participant mentioned that they thought the park had enough trees, and the rest recommended the addition of trees between the highway and the park and throughout the park, particularly around the sports fields. Participants' preferences for trees are native trees, diversity of trees, and flowering trees (e.g., blossoming cherry trees). Park Design Feedback - The walking interview participants' advice to designers for the park was to focus on the southern portion of the park and make it more meaningful. They also suggested planting more trees around the sports fields, re-consideration of the sports field alignment, and utilizing the plaza space more by adding other amenities (e.g., 'chess table'). Riley Park The Park's Desirability – None of the participants had been to the park before and did not have former experience with the park. At the end of the interview, when asked whether they would return to Riley Park, half said they would not return, and the other half said they would only come back for the playground. Amenities – The first impression of the walking interview participants was that the park looks new, well-landscaped, and maintained. The area with the shrubs and perennials looks nice, and two participants mentioned the birds and butterflies they saw during the walk. When asked about a favourite space, the participants mentioned the hammock area, the view from the top, and the walking path. When asked about the amenities in the park, every participant responded with the playground in mind, and they felt that the amenities were somewhat limited. 144 Urban Forest in Park – The general impression of the participants about the trees in the park was that the trees are young and they do not provide the shade needed where they are planted. When asked whether the participants liked or disliked anything about the trees, most of them focused on the trees' age and the lack of shade. Two participants preferred to have seen more diversity in the planting, and one participant was pleased to see some conifer species in the park. When asked if they wanted to see trees in the park, two participants mentioned that there are sufficient trees and that as the trees mature they will be more evident. Two participants focused on their preference for a variety of trees. One individual mentioned that they would prefer naturalized planting and less geometry. One participant mentioned that when considering climate change, trees' service outweighs the value of views in a park. One of the participants mentioned that they prefer conifer trees in parks that mimic the native landscape, and four mentioned a preference for deciduous trees in the park (e.g., 'honey locust'). Two did not express any preference for a type of tree. Park Design Feedback – The participants were asked what the designers could do to make this an ideal park for them; two of the participants asked for washroom facilities, places for water (drinking and decorative), and a natural walking trail. One participant suggested planting in all the sloped green space areas, 'as it cannot be used for anything else.' In summary, all participants had to be encouraged to discuss trees in the park as all of them focused on park amenities in the park. When the participants were asked if they thought there were enough trees in the park, about half of them said that each park could have more trees planted, including Mackin Park, which hosts the mature trees in the northern area. Tree diversity was certainly desired by most, but there seemed to be some hesitation for some regarding conifer trees. Table 5.5 provides a summary of key highlights organized in three categories of tree 145 awareness in parks, preferences, and what needed improvement based on the participants preferences. Figure 5.7 Walking interview respondent opinions on number of trees in the park Table 5.5 Summary of key highlights and tree preference of walking interviews Summary Theme Walking-Interview Comments Tree Awareness in Parks When discussing a park, comments about trees need probing as the focus is mostly on amenities Trees are primarily discussed in the context of providing shade Tree Preferences Amenities integrated with trees are loved Treed allées that provide a cooling walkway and exercise path Diversity of species, colours, form, and texture of trees in parks Divergent preferences for conifer trees in public parks Large mature trees provide awe for first-time park visitors Needs Improvement Extensive sloped lawn areas that lack trees are undesirable for the summer Naturalized areas in parks need information and education Empty large lawn spaces seem unfinished and require redesign 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0Yes, there are lots of treesNo, this park needs more treesNot surePercent of Survey RespondentsEnough Trees?Riley Mackin Galloway 146 Summary Theme Walking-Interview Comments Sport fields arrangements should welcome tree planting in non-playable areas 5.3.5 Park User Survey A total of 76 surveys were completed, divided between 17 for Galloway Park, 38 for Mackin Park, and 21 for Riley Park. The survey questions started by asking about one word that came to mind about the park; these are categorized into four categories: cultural, ecological, recreational, and experiential (Figure 5.8). ‘Cultural’ included any word related to arts, festivals, and events. Any mention of nature, trees, ecosystems, and streams was considered ecological. Recreation refers to sports, activities, and related amenities. Experiential included all those comments related to an individual's experience at a park, such as the aesthetic of the park, feelings that users have when at the park, or old and new memories of the park. With this categorization, most of the descriptive words were experiential. A similar question asked the participants about the trees in the park, and participants responded with various words, mostly commenting about the aesthetic and age of the trees (Figure 5.9). 147 Figure 5.8 Categorization of descriptive words about the parks and percent survey respondents Figure 5.9 Categorization of one descriptive word and percent survey respondents 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0ExperientialRecreationEcologicalCulturalPercent of Survey RespondentsOne Word About the Park Riley Mackin Galloway0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0AestheticAgeQuantitiyServiceSpecieDiversityFearMaintenancePercent of Survey RespondentsOne Word About the Trees in the Park Riley Mackin Galloway 148 Figure 5.10 Level of importance of trees in parks to users according to survey results Figure 5.11 Importance of trees in comparison to other park components as derived from the walking interviews 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0Very ImportantSomewhat ImportantNot ImportantPercent of Survey RespondentsImportance of Trees in Parks to UsersRiley Mackin Galloway0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0AmenitiesCirculationOpen green spaceOtherServicesSocial SpacesTrees, shrubsViews and VistasPercent of Survey RespondentsImportance of Park Components to Park UsersRiley Mackin Galloway 149 Most respondents at each park indicated that trees are very important to them (Figure 5.10), but when asked to rank various park components, amenities (e.g., playground, sports courts and fields, and water park) scored highest; this was followed by open green spaces and extensive lawn, and trees, shrubs, and flowers. It was interesting to see that social spaces (e.g., gathering space, seating areas and benches) scored highest in Galloway Park, and views and vistas (e.g., view of the city and seeing through the park) scored highest in Riley Park (Figure 5.11). This is relevant to the features provided in each of those two parks. Figure 5.12 Survey respondent’s opinion on number of trees in the park as expressed in the survey 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0Yes, there are lots of treesNo, this park needs more treesNot surePercent of Survey RespondentsEnough Trees?Riley Mackin Galloway 150 Figure 5.13 Preference on tree planting spaces in park as expressed by survey respondents When asked if the parks had enough trees, most participants said no, Riley Park needs more trees, and yes, Galloway Park has enough trees (Figure 5.12). Mackin Park result showed disputing opinions on whether there are sufficient trees in the park. Suggested spaces for tree planting in the parks were distributed among all possible locations, with the playground, seating spaces, benches, and lawn areas being the most desirable. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0Along the park boundaryBetween amenity spacesBetween the road and the parkBy the entrance to the parkBy the pathwaysBy the playgroundBy the seating areas and benchesIn the lawn areasOtherPercent of Survey RespondentsTree Planting Space PreferencesRiley Mackin Galloway 151 Figure 5.14 Preferences of different types of trees amongst survey respondents Figure 5.15 Preferences of tree planting layout amongst survey respondents 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0All of the aboveEvergreen/ConifersOtherTrees that bring the birdsTrees that don’t need much wateringTrees that give shadeTrees that give fruitsTrees that lose leaves in the fall/decidous treesTrees with lots of colours in different seasonsPercent of Survey RespondentsTree Type Preferences Riley Mackin Galloway0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0A group or cluster of trees togetherSingle and stand-alone trees with lots of space in betweenAll of the aboveNone of the abovePercent of Survey RespondentsTree Planting Layout Preferences Riley Mackin Galloway 152 Generally, various types of trees were preferred and selected equally, except for fruiting trees (Figure 5.14). The most preferred trees were trees that give shade and those that have different colours in different seasons. About half of the participants preferred planting trees singly and with lots of space in between, and less than 20% at each park liked a cluster of trees (Figure 5.15). Most people preferred a combination of tall and short trees (Figure 5.16). Figure 5.16 Preferences of different types of trees as expressed by survey respondents When asked if there was anything else the participants liked to share for Galloway Park, drainage issues, appreciation of the shade provided by trees, and concern about the proximity of trees to the pavement were mentioned. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0All short treesAll tall treesCombination of short and tall treesNone of the abovePercent of Survey RespondentsTree Height PreferencesRiley Mackin Galloway 153 At Mackin Park, a few people commented about the large cottonwood trees that "produce too much mess in the park." There were also comments that the fields' bleachers could benefit from the shade provided by trees. The only comments for Riley Park regarded the lack of shade, and one participant indicated that the lack of shade "makes the park nearly unusable for much of the summer." Google Data Review Overall, 940 user reviews were collected across all three parks, with an average rating of 4.53 out of 5 and standard deviation of 0.66 for Galloway Park, 4.42 and standard deviation of 0.81 for Mackin Park, and average rating of 4.69 and standard deviation of 0.52 for Riley Park. Mackin Park had the highest number of reviews at 708. Following the format of the analysis completed for Question 1 of the Park User survey (Figure 5.7), comments were organized into four categories: experiential, recreation, ecological, and cultural. Comments could not fall into more than one category. Figure 5.17 Categorization of comments about each park derived from Google data 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0ExperientialRecreationEcologicalCulturalPercent of Survey RespondentsGoogle Review Riley Mackin Galloway 154 In each park, there were one or two features that dominated most of the comments, and it is evident that when park users decide to complete a Google review, those features are what they have in mind when submitting a review. The most common features discussed for Galloway Park were the spray park and the gathering spaces. Macklin Park reviews were dominated mainly by softball field and skatepark users. Riley Park's playground received positive reviews, and most comments were about park users' experiences. Many reviewers commented about washrooms. Comments included: ● being grateful for the accessible porta potty at Galloway Park, ● frustration with the lack of washrooms at Riley Park, ● positive feedback on the washrooms at Mackin Park. The need for washrooms is important in the context of park planning and urban forestry, and it indicates that park users like to access the parks more frequently and stay at parks for a more extended period. They are looking for the same level of human comfort that any other institutional facility (e.g., a library) provides. There were a few comments on trees in Galloway Park and Riley Park. Galloway Park received positive comments about integrating shade trees, benches, and gathering areas. All of the Riley Park's comments were about the lack of shade, and the comment went as far as saying that "it does get burning hot (no trees) during the summer, though." There were nine positive mentions of the trees in Mackin Park, mostly about maturity, shade, and aesthetics. There were two negative mentions of trees, one regarding the lack of trees and the other about trees creating hiding areas for criminal behaviour. 155 5.3.7 Plantable Spaces Using iTree Canopy v7.1, the area of different components was calculated for each park including the tree canopy. Galloway park has an area of stormwater management with associated planting that Table 5.12 outlines as ‘Other Planting.’ Also, Riley Park has large areas of ornamental planting that cover a much larger area than tree-planted areas do currently, since the trees are still small. Table 5.6 Existing surface coverage of various components in the parks Components (%) Galloway Park Mackin Park Riley Park Grass/Turf 50 47 64 Tree Canopy 17 32 2 Other Planting 8 1 10 Hardscape 25 20 24 Proposed tree planting in Galloway Park closely follows the results of the park users' survey and interviews and park observations. The planting focuses on providing shade to the high areas of the park, the exposed pathways, and benches, without impact to the potential winter toboggan use of the big, sloped lawn and blocking views and vistas (Figure 5.18a). This would result in about an additional 23 trees in the park. 156 a. Galloway Park b. Mackin Park c. Riley Park Figure 5.18 Proposed plantable spaces in the three parks studied Mackin Park was separated into two areas, north and south. No plantable spaces were proposed for the northern component, as this section is packed with activities, mature trees, and underground infrastructure. The southern area of the park includes all the significant sports fields. This is where the feedback was received from park user surveys, and interviews pointed out the lack of trees, the adjacent highway visible, and the lack of shade for baseball bleachers. Seven small pockets of tree planting were proposed without any recreation space conversion (Figure 5.18b). The number of proposed trees is 22. Riley Park was recently built, and the trees have yet to have the time to grow, but there are a decent number of trees in the park. There are areas in the park that have no trees, including the sloped lawn, park entrance on the south side, and the playground's southern area (Figure 5.18c). This results in the possible addition of 26 trees in the park. Table 5.7 Plantable area analysis and proposed canopy increase *Assuming a mature tree after ten years has a 14-metre diameter canopy Urban Forest Galloway Park Mackin Park Riley Park 157 Existing Canopy % 17 32 2 # Proposed Trees 23 22 26 Proposed Added Canopy (immediate) 0.3% 0.03% 2% Proposed Added Canopy (10 years later)* 49% 4.8% 27% 5.4 Discussion An exploration of municipal decision-makers' directions and members of the public preferences on urban forest objectives in parks were completed with the intention to understand the role they play in shaping the urban forest in municipal parks. The research also aimed to identify new factors that may be influencing design decisions regarding urban canopy in parks. The focus of this chapter is to respond to the research question: What are the roles and contributions of different municipal and community factors in meeting urban forestry canopy targets in urban parks? Urban Forest Policy and Park Specific Targets Needed – The City of Coquitlam does not have an approved urban forest management policy, and currently no city-wide target for urban forest canopy. However, the urban canopy of the three case studies were reviewed and a potential increase of canopy area was proposed within this study. The urban forest canopy of the three case studies were 17%, 32%, and 2%. The plantable spaces analysis could bring the proposed canopy of case study parks to 0.3%, 0.03%, and 2% immediately after planting, and 49%, 4.8%, and 27% after ten years. This proposed added canopy provides a possible range of 5% to 50% for parks. An alternate approach for the parks’ urban canopy would be to incorporate ranges of urban forest into the park classification systems. Many municipalities (e.g., City of 158 Coquitlam, City of Hamilton, City of Vancouver) have developed park classifications and planned and built new parks based on the park categories (City of Hamilton, 2022; Vancouver Park Board, 2019). Most of these classifications include recreation amenity needs and infrastructure requirements. Often, a ‘natural park’ category is included in the classifications too. Incorporating a required urban forest canopy % for different sizes and types of parks is missing from industry standards for park planning. For most municipalities, the basic park amenities include a playground, paved accessible pathways, a shelter and picnic table, and a few benches; as parks get larger, they serve more people with more amenities. While recreational design often focuses on active recreation, some research suggests that walking and sightseeing can be the most popular recreation activities (Harris et al., 1988; Harris and Dines, 1998; Wolf and Wohlfart, 2014; Veitech et al., 2022). The park classification could include a minimum urban forest standard (in %) for any municipal park plus additional consideration based on other factors, such as the park’s existing ecological attributes and urban forest deficiencies. For example, a big lawn, often designed as an unprogrammed space adaptable for various activities (e.g., throwing a frisbee, kicking a ball, playing badminton, picnicking), can also benefit from tree planting and shade. This is particularly important as, during public engagement, if community members and user groups ask for a specific amenity or unprogrammed spaces for casual activity, they may not consider asking for trees. Tree Planting Not To Be Request Based – A big take-away from the outcome of park user observations, surveys, interviews, and Google reviews was that the experience of an individual in a park is what stands out to them. How a park user felt during their visit to the three case study parks was often remembered more than what they saw at the park. Their experiences were 159 influenced by their comfort (e.g., shade and washrooms) and the component of the park that directly impacts them. For example, the playground at Riley Park was very popular and busy, until it was not during the heatwave. The baseball players and fans enjoyed Mackin Park, because baseball is well-supported through the provision of the number of fields, concessions, and washroom facilities. An interesting observation was that the first impressions of park users of the parks were almost always about the amenities, and nearly never any comment was made about the trees. To engage about the trees with the park users, some probing and questioning needed to happen. Trees were mostly mentioned in the context of providing shade. It is unclear whether park users considered trees as the essence of a park and did not feel the need to discuss trees, or their priorities completely align with amenities. Mackin Park trees were mentioned as they are part of the charm of the park. On the contrary, there seemed to be an understanding among all governance interview participants that Coquitlam residents are passionate about trees, vocal about tree removals (e.g., hazard tree removals) and are, in general, informed about the value of trees. The upcoming City of Coquitlam’s Urban Forest Management Plan could benefit from an engagement strategy with communication and engagement for different audiences. It would be a lost opportunity if the assumption is that there is high interest in the state of the urban forest in the city and only hearing from those that express interest in the project. There can be challenges in implementing such a policy later (for example during a park planning exercise) as others may not show the same level of interest in the urban forest. Maibach et al. (2011) categorize adult Americans and their beliefs about climate change in the following sliding scale categories: alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful, and dismissive. This categorization of beliefs and understanding the audience were found helpful to communicate about the topic of 160 climate change. Each group needs a different level of detail, set of information, and key messages to receive. This strategy in communication can be helpful in communicating urban forest objectives to the community. Shift in Park Design Needed to Adapt to Climate Change – The heatwave of summer of 2022 in Coquitlam influenced the site observations; this was evident in the outcome of the user surveys, and staff identified the extreme heat event as a management challenge and recognized the need to shift park design practices (e.g. tree planting). There were comments regarding walking corridors exposed, or lack of trees around seating areas and benches, and, dominantly, the hot and therefore unusable playground at Riley Park. This warrants discussions on rising climate impacts in parks. Studies of the microclimate in parks has shown that shaded green spaces better mitigate the impacts of climate change than other factors such as wind (Brown et al., 2015) and water which only temporarily reduce night-time temperatures (Gober et al., 2010). Brown et al. (2015) recommend that designers focus on the type of trees that provide shade and consider planting trees that provide shade year-round. The spray park at Galloway Park was much busier during the site observations in comparison to Mackin Park, despite Mackin Park having additional parking and a formal washroom facility. There could be many factors causing this difference. It is very clear that, in Galloway Park, trees and shade were well-incorporated in the layout of the spray park and created more comfort for the kids using the spray park and parents watching their children. This was evidence in the experiential comments made in the user survey and the google review as well. Bowler et al. (2010) conducted a systematic review of studies that reviewed air temperature in parks, trees, green roofs, and ground vegetation, and found that tree species have shown to vary in their ability to reduce air temperature based on size, canopy, and ability of solar 161 penetration. The same study did not find an alignment in microclimate under a single tree versus a cluster of trees within the literature. Bowler et al. (2010) noted a clear difference between microclimate under trees on pavement versus softscape and found that the cooling area of a green space increases with its size. Klemm et al. (2013) found that 47% tree canopy coverage in streets provided an appropriate human thermal comfort. Graham et al. (2016) found that heat-related morbidity was more frequent in areas of the city with the lowest proportion of canopy cover and the highest proportion of hard surface cover; they specifically noted that the “greatest reduction (80%) in heat-related ambulance call frequency appeared as the proportional canopy cover increased from <5% to >5%” (p. 184). Using heat-related human morbidity as the minimum and human thermal comfort as maximum, an optimal park canopy should be within the range of 5%<canopy cover<47%. Investigation on human thermal comfort and urban tree canopy to narrow down this range could support park policy and planning. A shift in park planning and design is needed to adapt to the changing climate and ensure that the parks are thermally comfortable spaces as much as possible. The addition of trees and increasing urban forest canopy in parks can also help with regulating stormwater and increasing biodiversity in urban areas. 5.5 Limitations and Future Studies Study Limitations Some of the challenges of the Coquitlam study included the unprecedented local high temperatures and the heat wave during July, when most of the fieldwork was taking place. The extreme heat could have shifted the focus on the need for shade and access to water activity in all parks. The benefit of looking at parks within one municipality is that it reduces the number of variables for these sites (e.g., climate). The challenge with looking at three parks in one 162 municipality is that there is a possibility of having high similarity in design due to geographical conditions and the potential of relying on the same staff. Another challenge with the methodology was the voluntary component of participation in the park user survey and the interviews. It can be challenging to encourage the public to complete a survey unless compensation is in place. Interviews also depend on the willingness of the interviewees to give their time to the study. Future Studies An interesting future study would be to repeat this research in another Canadian municipality with urban forest and urban canopy target policy to understand if park planning and design practices changed based on the policy. Other research could focus on the use of the parks, during the winter season, and have a better understanding of the use of large lawn spaces. 5.6 Conclusion Climate adaptation is the primary driver of urban forest canopy expansion, as in Coquitlam, but success will depend on having clear policies and park guidelines for parks. As demonstrated by this study of three municipal parks, there also needs to be understanding and support from the residents of a city, and park planners and designers should lead based on their expertise. Many conventional practices (e.g., irrigation and mowing large lawn areas) must be shifted, adjusted, reduced, or eliminated to better align with the factors such as changing climate. Establishing urban forest tools and incorporating these into parks classification and guidelines supports the governance system, emphasizes the importance of urban forests in parks, and can help reach the desired balance in parks. As policymakers, planners, and designers engage with the community on various levels, there cannot be any assumptions made on the level of knowledge of trees and 163 urban forests. Different engagement and communication methods are needed for a transparent and meaningful process and more desirable outcome. 164 Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations 6.1 Introduction The pressure on municipal parkland is evident with the growing population in major Canadian cities. The recreational and cultural demands will continue to compete with the urban forest role of parks. Despite the pressure on these parks due to high demands, the existing urban forest canopy is generally maintained. The general trend in parks and recreation planning in Canada is moving towards adaptable and multi-function spaces, which also provides an opportunity for better integration of urban forest objectives. With some shifts in standard practice, park planners and landscape architects can enhance their consideration of urban forest objectives in park design, with setting specific a canopy target as a tool. For municipalities with existing urban forestry objectives, it would be helpful to include design guidelines and tools specifically to support and guide the municipal park design and development process by meeting urban forestry objectives and targets. The policy also needs to consider post-development practices related to monitoring and maintenance of trees. Landscape architects and park planners, along with their vision and commitment, would have a guiding framework and practical guidelines to support them in the park design and development process, offering more opportunities for program alignment and synergies. Many conventional practices (e.g., irrigation and mowing large lawn areas) must be changed to better align with the factors such as changing climate. Establishing urban forest tools and incorporating these into park classification and guidelines support the governance system, emphasize the importance of urban forests in parks, and help reach the desired balance. 165 This chapter provides answers to the research questions proposed at the onset of the study, based on the findings presented in the previous chapters. At the end of the chapter, there are recommendations provided for consideration by policy makers, park planners, and landscape architects. 6.2 Research Questions 6.2.1 In Canada, how are urban forest canopy targets considered by municipal policy and are they integrated into park planning and design? In the past decade, some Canadian municipalities have shifted attention to urban forest policy (Ordóñez, C. and Duinker, 2013). As seen in Chapter 1, in a few cases, they have included park-specific canopy targets in their policies. However, many cities still need a clear policy direction for their park canopy targets. Identifying where in the city the urban forest canopy cover can be expanded is an important part of this, and municipal parks, as public spaces controlled by local government, offer opportunities. Regarding these municipal parks, there needs to be more direction for meeting urban forest canopy targets. The limited policy direction for parks could be based on a thinking that parks are doing well, that they are fulfilling community needs, especially recreational needs, and that the rest of the urban forest in the city needs more investment. This can be true in some cases but, in many parks, it continues to be challenging to meet urban forest canopy targets. Many of the challenges can be addressed with creative and thoughtful design practices. Still, the lack of overall direction prevents planners and designers from focusing better on the urban forest canopy. Park planning and design practices are predominantly grounded in the English landscape design British style of park design (Tate 2015; Williams 2011). Despite many adaptations throughout the past century in Canada, parks maintain these contrasting stylistic preferences and struggle to 166 accommodate urban forest targets. No clear guidance on canopy targets is available to park planners and landscape architects to inform their park planning and design processes. This is needed because of the competing and conflicting demands on parks and green space management resources. 6.2.2 What are the potential trade-offs and synergies between canopy targets and the other objectives and targets for parks? Trade-Offs Generally, most or many of the trade-offs between canopy targets and the other objectives and targets for Canadian municipal parks were associated with the recreation services. In some cases, urban forestry was not prioritized as most of the space was used to provide recreation amenities, such as with the Halifax Commons. In other park examples in Coquitlam, British Columbia (Riley and Galloway Parks), as shown in Chapter 5, no recreational amenity is provided. The space is left un-programmed, with ample lawn space but little tree canopy. There is a perception that trees can limit activity and play in un-programmed spaces; however, many opportunities are available for tree planting while accommodating space and allowing for other uses. In the context of recently developed parks — Galloway and Riley Parks in Coquitlam, British Columbia — the study showed full compromise of existing forest in favour of building a park. Full forests were cleared as part of the community development. In the case of Riley Park, some trees were preserved, but the arborist report showed that the support for maintaining the trees did not remain due to significant grading change. One example of the challenges associated with balancing urban forestry objectives with recreation was the power and influence of certain park user groups. Public engagement became 167 ineffective when the interest of one user group dominated the design process, and the planners and designers needed to be supported or enabled to maintain the balance of service provision in parks. Lack of policy, direction and political support for the design development process resulted in unbalanced scenarios. Synergies There are many synergies between canopy targets and the other park objectives. When the urban forest is the foundational component of a park, the park and urban forest can be treated as one. Protection and preservation of parkland can inherently benefit the associated urban forest. Higher canopy cover in parks can add to heat mitigation and offer opportunities for shade (Graham et al., 2016). Trees and shrubs can also offer a greater variety of experiences in parks and promote opportunities for biodiversity and nature observation. For park users, the overlap of the urban forest with recreation (e.g., trails) or cultural interests (e.g., blossom festivals) offers some of the most desired synergies between urban forest canopy targets and other park services. One of the best tools for planners and designers is taking advantage of multi-functional spaces. As Canadian municipalities learn and become aware of the significance of landscape for Indigenous Peoples, parks and their associated urban forests can become the venue for improved education and stewardship. Park design and management can benefit from Indigenous influence and local First Nations' involvement in stewardship. 6.2.3. How can urban park planning and design be transformed to incorporate urban forestry objectives, including targets, better? Strong dedicated policy, political backing, support of users, and clear direction are the foundational components of integrating urban forest policy objectives and canopy targets, in 168 particular, in municipal parks. Considering the park as an asset, and that the urban forest is equally crucial to the recreational and cultural services that a park provides, is the second influential component. A policy can specify tree canopy targets for various classifications of parks based on size and service provision. The survey of park professionals highlighted that requiring a tree quota or a minimum trees/ha requirement can help provide direction. Including canopy targets in municipal park planning and design will require careful communication with residents and park users. Park planners and landscape architects can benefit from improved communication skills, particularly with members of the public, during communication and engagement processes. Drawings, maps, and visualizations can for example, communicate the appropriate number of trees and canopy cover. Even more conceptual drawings can help here. Lush green tree drawings that are conventionally drawn at 2/3 mature growth are misleading in the face of the reality of the urban forest incorporation in the design. Urban (2008) identifies this as a challenge in the profession and recommends drawing both the size of the tree canopy at planting and a dashed line for anticipated mature size. Also, at the design stage, transparency with the community about trade-offs is essential. The balance of the three components of recreation, culture, and urban forests needs to be communicated, and potential trade-offs explained. There are various ways that landscape architects can express creativity and problem-solving skills at the site level. Many interventions need to be decided at the site level. Some considerations can take place for all sites. For example, one way to consider prioritizing urban forests is setting aside project budgets and park space for urban forest purposes and considering areas of developable land to preserve and protect existing trees. Delineating and protecting areas and sites for proposed tree 169 planting and increasing tree cluster planting, allowing understory biodiversity, and delineating and protecting the perimeter area with appropriate fencing or natural treatments. Utilizing every space available for tree planting, such as along all park pathways, around playgrounds, next to each park bench, between sports fields, surrounding each unprogrammed space, and on slopes where play is impossible. Here a strategy would be to invest in different types of species with different sizes and growth patterns, particularly in areas harder to plant. For example, if keeping views and vistas are essential in a design, consider planting shorter trees or trees with high canopy with the view at the ground level. Not planting trees to protect views and vistas is a loss of opportunity. There are many opportunities for improvement in construction practices for better incorporating urban forestry canopy targets. Protecting soil and appropriate soil amendments for good tree growth is a foundational effort that needs to be made. Soil structure and quality continue to be a challenge in park development. Tender documents must be strengthened to ensure the soil supports proper tree growth. The urban forest-associated soil area can be preserved and amended if the urban forest areas are delineated and protected throughout construction. Urban foresters and landscape architects must collaborate in tree selection, supervision of tree installation, and monitoring watering practices. 6.2.4. What are the roles and contributions of different municipal and community stakeholders and process components in meeting urban forestry canopy targets in urban parks? Urban forest literature in Canada has yet to examine the role of elected officials in directing municipal funds and policy. Every four years, Canadian municipalities go through elections, and the election's outcome can influence the policy direction for the city in the context of parks and 170 urban forests. Even with a policy in place, councillors can increase the status of an initiative or deprioritize it in terms of investment of staff and resources. Municipal staff can make recommendations to the elected officials but, in general, they receive high-level direction from elected officials particularly in the case of policies. With a park or urban forest champion at the council table, municipal staff may be supported and able to fully invest their efforts in urban forests in parks. Most park users focus on amenities and the experience they had while visiting the park. They consider urban forests necessary when lack of it impacts their experience (e.g., overheating due to lack of shade). Park users mostly concentrate on the amenities a park provides for recreational purposes and anything else that improves their experience during their visit. Community members play a significant role when they take on park stewardship. From advocacy at the political level to daily care for the land and providing educational opportunities for others, engagement with park and urban forest advocacy groups can play some of the most influential roles in meeting urban forest canopy targets in parks. It is important that the engagement process considers plurality of voices and perspectives during policy development and park planning process. 6.3 Recommendations 6.3.1 Make urban forest preservation and protection in public parks a municipal priority A study of larger parks in Canadian cities showed that those parks that were protected and preserved, whether under the deed of the land, provincial legislation, or park protection bylaws, maintain the park's integrity and, in most cases, its urban forest. Advocacy and leadership for the 171 benefit of parks and urban forests should be more than just the efforts of the park and urban forest staff. Specifically, addressing parks in dedicated urban forest policies and strategies and including urban forestry and canopy targets in park master plans provide the needed direction for municipal staff and designers. It can also assist elected officials in considering parks and associated urban forests as secure infrastructure. Not all parks and their forest canopy are preserved and protected through policy, and it is important to include language regarding the preservation and protection of parks and urban forests to strengthen the value of the existing urban forest. Direction in policy needs to be present at each level from top (e.g., city’s official plan) to bottom (e.g., park master plan and contract documents). This protection will still not be guaranteed in perpetuity as it can shift or change with newly-elected officials and political direction. The hope is that with every reiteration and step taken to strengthen the policy, there will be support and commitment from the community. 6.3.2 Ensure organizational structures support direct collaboration between park design, construction, and management on one hand, and urban forestry on the other Parks are infrastructure, and many teams and individuals are involved through their scope of work and financially, with planning and building of parks and their maintenance and management. For the smoothest transition from planning and policy to construction, operation, and maintenance, these teams must be structurally close to each other. This can help with financial efficiency, communicating goals and intentions, and continuity in implementing policy. This proximity in the working structure is also essential for urban forestry teams and park teams. 172 Many municipalities need help with communication and the follow-through process of establishing policies and implementing them. Creating ownership of urban forest policy within an organization is essential for the best policy stewardship. 6.3.3 Consider parks as assets that provide cultural, recreational, and environmental services Parks are independent and whole entities regardless of what constitutes them. As municipal infrastructure and assets, parks are a venue to provide recreational opportunities, but the provision of recreational opportunities should not be their only mandate. Park provision is not equal to recreation provision, and language that the couples asset and service should be avoided (i.e., Parks and Recreation). Also, parks are only one space for urban forest canopy, but urban forests should be planned and designed for parks. A study of Canadian parks showed that three components are essential to park users, park advocates, planners, and designers: a) nature and urban forest, b) sports and recreation, and c) arts and culture. New park sites can be designed so that each component receives an equal share of the parkland. Balance of all these components can be reached with creativity in design; there can be many overlaps, synergies, and collaborations of functions and spaces. Park designs can include a layering of different functions and multi-purpose spaces that contribute to recreation, cultural perspectives, and urban forests. Parks provide a range of ecological services, from acting as clean and cool air pockets to stormwater management relief areas and habitat creation (Dobbs, et al. 2017). 6.3.4 Include urban forestry needs and priorities in municipal park classifications Park classification (i.e., neighbourhood, community, city-wide or destination parks) based on size and the geographical area of service helps set standards and provision of equal and equitable 173 service across the city. Neighbourhood parks, such as Galloway Park and Riley Park in Coquitlam, British Columbia, serve the immediate neighbourhood, and these parks are meant to be walked to, and provide a minimum number of amenities. High Park in Toronto and Beacon Hill Park in Victoria are city-wide or destination parks, which means that they serve the residents of an entire city and park users often travel to them. City-wide parks provide the largest number of amenities and are highly invested in. Park classifications assist municipal staff and politicians to direct appropriate funds toward park assets. Park classification directs planning and design and considerations of different amenities. They help set the framework during the engagement process and set expectations with the members of the public. Municipal park classifications are often limited to recreational amenities (e.g., playground or soccer field) and comfort amenities (e.g., washroom building or drinking fountain). Considering urban forest needs in the park classifications helps guide budgeting, planning, and design. For example, larger parks that act as a destination can accommodate greater canopy, and formally including them in the park components makes a much stronger case for ensuring urban forests in parks take place. The same could be true for more natural parks with higher woodland components. 6.3.5 Allocate a minimum of a third of a park to urban forest cover, where possible Parks should be places of large canopy cover, where possible and appropriate. Urban forest policy should consider allocating a minimum of a third of a park to the urban forest. The 3:30:300 rule recommends a 30% canopy target at the neighbourhood level (Konijnendijk, 2022). Local parks should contribute substantially to that, ideally with a canopy higher than 30%. This research shows that mature and established parks in Canada maintain urban forest 174 canopy at approximately 50%, including large water spaces, open programmable spaces, and various recreational amenities. Parks can work towards a 50% canopy over time, while accommodating under uses underneath the canopy. Using sugar maples as a prototype for a tree's size and growth rate in Canadian parks, 50% canopy in 20 years is the approximate balance of 50 new trees in 1 ha of bare parkland. Canopy coverage at a new park would be over 3%, and after a decade, about 20%. After 20 years, once the park is going through the renewal of some amenities, it would be the appropriate time to revisit the canopy coverage and invest in maintaining a 50% canopy target. 6.3.6 Develop a spectrum of engagement and public influence from park policy to management. Park users tend to notice the absence or presence of trees when they affect them. For example, shade provided by trees is top of mind on a hot summer day. As seen in Chapter 5, park users were mostly focused on the amenities that parks provide, and consider trees inherent components of the park. This leaves the designers with the greatest responsibility of being aware of the urban forest needs and advocating for trees in a park. Engagement during policy and planning focuses on values favouring urban forest and environmental components. Engagement during park design focuses on future amenities, and questions can be as specific as participants preference on park space used for a specific amenity or activity. DeScioli et al. (2014) studied people's moral judgement of an allocation rule and found that people preferred options that were beneficial to them. This creates a more difficult task for planners and designers to allocate spaces for the benefit of all people and balancing park components. 175 To prioritize urban forest establishment in parks, it is important to educate and inform about urban forest needs. Engagement during management can take on a stewardship model. This can be the highest level of influence, from political advocacy to on-grounds care for the land and education and interpretation. Public participation in various phases of a park project need to have a different level of impact to be effective and resource efficient. 6.3.7 Prioritize urban forest objectives in park design and maximize space utilization for tree planting Communicating practical information about the urban forest component of the design is foundational in community understanding. When viewing drawings, the public should clearly understand how treed and lush the landscape will be right after completion, ten years from completion, and 20 years from completion. Drawing trees at 75% of mature size (industry standard) at the conceptual stage needs to be more accurate and illustrate a clear understanding of the landscape. There are many ways that municipal staff and landscape architects can creatively increase the number of tree plantings in park designs. They can set aside a budget and park area for tree planting. They continued with focusing on areas of opportunity for cluster tree planting. All seating areas, playgrounds, and park pathways should be accompanied by tree planting. Park periphery, transition areas, and spaces in between park amenities are some of the other areas that are great candidate spaces for tree planting. 176 6.3.8 Strengthen tree-sensitive construction practices in parks through detailed documentation for soil and trees Construction practices include standardizations to ensure safety, consistency, and efficiency. Standardizations during construction of a park can create limitations for soil quality and trees. For example, high levels of soil compaction on woody plants and their yield is known and construction sites are considered as heavily compacted soil due to use of heavy machinery (Kozlowski, 1999). The outcome of the survey of municipal staff and landscape architects in Canada, showed that additional attention to site soil and trees in parks is needed. Urban soil variations can be as diverse as fully native to highly disturbed soil (Millward et al., 2011). A broad-stroke treatment of a site that is proposed to be a park does not create the best conditions for supporting tree planting. Delineating urban forest areas during design, protecting soil during construction, and amending soil in preparation for tree planting are foundational steps. Once soil quality can support tree planting, the focus can shift to selecting trees that are appropriate for the soil and site conditions. Next step is the health of the trees delivered to the site, proper installation, management, and watering. All of these are essential steps that need to be documented in detail in tender documents, including specification and schedule. Strengthening the construction documentation is the final stage of building a park and it supports and reinforces the efforts in creating effective policy that was made at the beginning of the process. 6.4 Research Significance 177 This study is an exercise in bridging landscape architecture and urban forestry and further build on their bilateral relationship. Collaboration and alliance of landscape architects and urban foresters can strengthen park planning and as result improve the urban forest canopy in the city. This research addresses some gaps in the Canadian literature in park planning and urban forestry; it showcases and analyses selected urban parks, and applied a multi-method approach in responding to three fundamental questions. During the development of this work may professionals, subject matter experts, and park users were interviewed and contributed to the content of the study. 6.5 Future Research Future studies could include an in-depth analysis of public park design in Canada and an understanding of any changes in the trends since the beginning of municipal park design in this country. This focus could be narrowed down to specific regions of the country, due to climate and tree species differences. Studying cases where urban forest (canopy) targets have affected municipal park planning and design would be of interest to identify good practices and potential challenges. These cases could be in Canada but perhaps also in other countries. There would be substantial value in connecting the study internationally for learning and inspiration for policy and design. Furthermore, repeating the Coquitlam study after an urban forest policy is in place or replicating the study for a municipality that has an established policy. Further investigation in bridging landscape architecture and urban forestry and building on their relationship can support and enhance urban forest planning and design. 178 179 Bibliography Almas, A. D. & Conway, T. M. (2016). The role of native species in municipal urban forest planning and practice: a case study of Carolinian Canada. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 17, 54–62. Anuar, A. N. A. & Muhamadan, N. H. (2018). The demand of recreation facilities in neighbourhood parks: Visitors Perspectives. Journal of the Malaysian Institute of Planners, 16(3), 197–207. Appleton, B. L. (2006). Designing and implementing utility line arboreta. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 32(2), 80–85. Arnold, H. F. (1992). Trees in urban design (2nd ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold. ASLA. (2022). Climate action plan. American Society of Landscape Architects. Retrieved November 2022, from https://www.asla.org/climateactionplan.aspx Assiniboine Park Conservancy. (2022, October 18). Assiniboine Park. https://www.assiniboinepark.ca/ 180 Atkins-Baker, M. (2021, June 18). Saanich council embraces 3-30-300 rule to improve access to green space. Victoria News. Saanich council embraces 3-30-300 rule to improve access to green space - Victoria News (vicnews.com) Babbie, E. (1998). The Practice of Social Research (8th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Company. Barnhart, S. K., Perkins, N. H., & Fitzsimons, J. (1998). Behaviour and outdoor setting preferences at psychiatric hospital. Landscape and Urban Planning. 42, 147–156. BC Government. (2022, November 21). Local government public engagement. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/governance-powers/councils-boards/public-engagement Beardsley, J. (2007). Conflict and erosion: The contemporary public life of large parks. In J. Czerniak & G. Hargreaves (Eds.), Large parks (pp. 199–213). Princeton Architectural Press. Bell, S. (1997). Design for outdoor rrecreation. Taylor & Francis. Bell, S., Blom, D., Rautamaki, M. Castel-Branco, C., Simson, A., & Olsen, I. A. (2005). Design of urban forests. In C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Urban forest and trees – a reference book (pp.149–186). Springer. 181 Berman, P. (2021, April 15). Pool revamp proposal for Halifax Common faces resistance from group. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/new-pool-proposal-for-halifax-common-faces-resistance-from-group Berman, P. (2021, December 9). Bengal Lancers pan proposed Halifax Common master plan. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-bengal-lancers-halifax-common-master-plan-1.6278383 Bjerke, T., Østdahl, T., Thrane, C., & Strumse, E. (2006). Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(1), 35–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.006 Blum, J. (2016). Urban forests ecosystem services and management. Apple Academic Press. Bond, M. (2022, October, 31). How Toronto mayoral candidates plan to tackle issues affecting the city. CityNews. Toronto mayoral candidates on key election issues (citynews.ca) Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systemic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97. 147–155. 182 Bratman, G. N., Anderson, C. B., Berman, M. G., Cochran, B., de Vries, S., Flanders, J., & Daily, G.C. (2019). Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances, 5(7). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax0903 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Brown, D. R., Vanos, J., Kenny, N., & Lenzholzer, S. (2015). Designing urban parks that ameliorate the effects of climate change. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 118–131. Bunting, T., & Filion, P. (2006). Canadian cities in transition local through global perspectives (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Canadian Bar Association (2023). Encampment in Municipal Parks . Retrieved November 2022 from Encampments in Municipal Parks. Campbell, F. (2021, April 15). Legislation to facilitate Halifax Common pool passes committee hurdle. Saltwire News. Legislation to facilitate Halifax Common pool passes committee hurdle | SaltWire Campbell, I. (2007). Chi-squared and Fisher-Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations. Statistics in Medicine, 26(19), 3661–3675. 183 Campbell, L. K., Svendsen, E. S., Sonti, N. F., & Johnson, M. L. (2016). A social assessment of urban parkland: Analyzing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning. Environmental Science and Policy, 62, 34-44. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L.G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Needs in Public Space. In M. Carmona, & S. Tiesdall (Eds.), Urban Design Reader (pp.230–240). Architectural Press. CBC News. (2017, June 16). Arborist blasts Assiniboine Park for uprooting century-old trees. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/assiniboine-park-development-trees-uprooted CBC News. (2019, July 18). Halifax Common changes could mean less baseball, softball. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-common-baseball-field-plan-1.5213606 CBC News. (2022, September 24). Wilderness group urges Winnipeg mayoral candidates to push for Assiniboine Forest national urban park status. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/assiniboine-forest-national-urban-park-cpaws Census Canada. (2022, October 18). 2022 dataset. Statistics Canada. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from https://census.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm Census Canada. (n.d.). 2021 dataset. Statistics Canada. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from https://census.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm 184 Cheng, Z., Nitoslawski, S., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C., Sheppard, S., Nesbitt, L., & Girling, C. (2021). Alignment of municipal climate change and urban forestry policies: A Canadian perspective. Environmental Science and Policy, 122, 14–24. City of Barrie. (2013, November 25). Urban forest strategy. Retrieved January 2020, from https://www.barrie.ca/sites/default/files/2022-07/Urban-Forest-Strategy.pdf City of Calgary. (2007, June). Calgary…a city of trees. Parks urban forestry strategic plan. Retrieved January 2020, from https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/csps/parks/documents/management-plans/urban-forestry-strategic-plan.pdf City of Coquitlam. (1978, February 6). Special Council Meeting. Retrieved August 16, 2022, from Archives@coquitlam.ca City of Coquitlam. (2002, March 4). Maillardville neighbourhood plan. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from Maillardville Neighbourhood Plan | Coquitlam, BC City of Coquitlam. (2006, July 31). Smiling Creek neighbourhood plan. Web. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from Smiling Creek Neighbourhood Plan | Coquitlam, BC 185 City of Coquitlam. (2017, January 17). Report to council. Riley Park and Sheffield Park – Preliminary Design Considerations. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from CouncilInCommittee 2017 01 23 - Item 3 (coquitlam.ca) City of Coquitlam. (2017, June 19). Parks, recreation & culture master plan. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from Parks-Recreation-and-Culture-Master-Plan-PDF (coquitlam.ca) City of Coquitlam. (2017, May 23). Report to council. Mackin Park sports field improvements. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from RegularCouncil 2017 05 29 - Item 17 (coquitlam.ca) City of Coquitlam. (2018, June). Tree management information. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from Tree-Management-Information-PDF (coquitlam.ca) City of Coquitlam. (2021, January). Replacement tree recommendations. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from Replacement-Tree-Recommendations (coquitlam.ca) City of Coquitlam. (2022, January). Environmental sustainability plan. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from Environmental Sustainability Plan | Coquitlam, BC City of Coquitlam. (n.d.). Tree spree program. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from Tree Spree | Coquitlam, BC 186 City of Edmonton. (2012, May). Urban forest management plan. Retrieved May 2020, from Urban Forest Management Plan (edmonton.ca) City of Hamilton. (2015, June). Park and open space development guide. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from Parks and Open Space Development Manual (hamilton.ca) City of Kelowna. (2011, August). Sustainable urban forestry strategy. Retrieved January 2020, from _city_of_kelowna_urban_forest_strategy.pdf City of Kingston. (2011, July 19). Kingston’s urban forest management plan. A plan for city-owned trees. Retrieved January 2020, from City of Kingston Urban Forest Management Plan City of Kingston. (2016, April). Kingston’s waterfront master plan. Retrieved November 12, 2022, from https://www.cityofkingston.ca/documents/ City of Lethbridge. (2017, August). Lethbridge River Valley parks master plan. Retrieved November 12, 2022, from https://www.lethbridge.ca/living-here/Projects-Initiatives/Documents/ City of London. (2014, June). City of London urban forest strategy. Enhancing the forest city. Retrieved January 2020, from London_Urban_Forestry_Strategy_Final-compressed.pdf City of London. (2020, November). London urban forest plan. Retrieved January 7, 2023, from londonurbanforestplan_final.pdf 187 City of Montreal - CN-NDG district. (2011). Urban forestry plan for district of Côte-des-Neiges — Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Retrieved January 2020, from ville.montreal.qc.ca City of New Westminster. (2016). Urban forest management strategy. Retrieved January 2020, from Urban_forest_management_strategy_FINALreduced_size.pdf (newwestcity.ca) City of New Westminster. (2020, November 4). Public engagement strategy. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from City of New Westminster launches new online engagement platform | City of New Westminster (newwestcity.ca) City of Ottawa. (2017, April). Urban forest management plan 2018-2037. Retrieved January 2020, from Putting Down Roots for the Future: City of Ottawa Urban Forest Management Plan - 2018-2037 City of Peterborough. (2011, June). Urban forestry strategic plan. Retrieved January 2020, from Urban Forest Strategic Plan (peterborough.ca) City of Regina. (2000, May). The Regina urban forest management strategy. Retrieved January 2020, from MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (treecanada.ca) City of Toronto. (2013). Sustaining and expanding the urban forest: Toronto’s strategic forest management plan. Retrieved February 2022, from SUSTAINING AND EXPANDING THE URBAN FORE...TEGIC FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012-2022 (toronto.ca) 188 City of Toronto. (2019, November). Parkland strategy. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from Parkland Strategy Final Report (toronto.ca) City of Toronto. (2022, March). Official plan. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from Official Plan – City of Toronto City of Vancouver & Vancouver Park Board. (2018). Urban forest strategy: 2018 update. Retrieved January 2020, from Urban Forest Strategy (vancouver.ca) City of Vancouver & Vancouver Park Board. (2018). Urban forest strategy: 2018 update. Retrieved February 2022, from Urban Forest Strategy (vancouver.ca) City of Vancouver. (2022, October 18). Shape your city. Shape Your City | City of Vancouver City of Victoria. (2001, July). Beacon Hill management plan, phase 1, summary report. Retrieved November 2022 from CD-00995.pdf (victoria.ca) City of Victoria. (2003, August 28). Greenway plan. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from Neighbourhood Greenways Programs (victoria.ca) City of Victoria. (2004, September). Beacon Hill Park heritage landscape management plan. Retrieved August 2022, from CD-00721.pdf (victoria.ca) 189 City of Victoria. (2010). Heritage foundation. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from Victoria Heritage Foundation: Links City of Victoria. (2013, February). Urban forest master plan. Retrieved January 2020, from Urban Forest Master Plan.pdf (victoria.ca) City of Victoria. (2017, April). Parks & open spaces masterplan. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from L+A_Victoria_final.indd City of Victoria. (2022, February 24). Court advises Beacon Hill Park Trust prohibits sheltering in the Park. Court Advises Beacon Hill Park Trust Prohibits Sheltering in the Park | Victoria City of Victoria. (2022, July 14). Official community plan. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from OCP_WholeBook.pdf (victoria.ca) City of Victoria. (n.d.). Have your say. Engagement framework. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from Have Your Say (victoria.ca) City of Winnipeg. (2004, July 9). Assiniboine Park framework plan. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from 454. Assiniboine Park Plan RIS 2087 (winnipeg.ca) 190 City of Winnipeg. (2021, December). Winnipeg parks strategy. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from a081d38556daff6c6ad9d887ed0125a7_Winnipeg_Parks_Strategy_December_2021.pdf (ehq-production-canada.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com) City of Winnipeg. (2021, December). Winnipeg recreation strategy. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from Winnipeg Recreation Strategy (ehq-production-canada.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com) City of Winnipeg. (2022, March 24). Complete communities 2.0. Complete Communities - OurWinnipeg - City of Winnipeg City of Winnipeg. (2022, May 26). OurWinnipeg 2045 development plan. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from OurWinnipeg 2045 Development Plan City of Winnipeg. (2022, May). Draft Winnipeg comprehensive urban forest strategy. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from Draft Urban Forest Strategy May 2022 Conway, T.M., & Urbani, L. (2007). Variations in municipal urban forestry policies: A case study of Toronto, Canada. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(3), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.07.003 Conway, T.M., & Vander Vecht, J. (2015). Growing a diverse urban forest: Species selection decisions by practitioners planting and supplying trees. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.007 191 Coopsammy, E. (2019, September 25). Indigenous Garden grows understanding at Assiniboine Park. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/indigenous-garden-assiniboine-park-1.5297424 Crawford, R.H., and Stephan, A. (2015). Living and learning: research for a better built environment: 49th international conference of the architectural science association. 869-878 https://apo.org.au/node/61762 Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publishing Inc. CSLA. (2019, September). Canadian landscape architect compensation & benefits study. https://www.csla-aapc.ca/sites/csla-aapc.ca/files/2019%20CSLA%20Compensation%20Study%20-%20FINAL.pdf CSLA. (2022, July). The CSLA’s response to the National Adaptation Strategy. The CSLA’s Response to the National Adaptation Strategy | CSLA (csla-aapc.ca) CSLA. (2022, November 7) College of Fellows: Clive Justice, 1974. Clive Justice | CSLA (csla-aapc.ca) Dahl B. & Molnar, D.J. (2003). Anatomy of a park: Essentials of recreation area planning and design (3rd ed.). Waveland Press, Inc. 192 Dale, B. (1999). Vistas. Landscape paysages. Web. Accessed October 18, 2022 from https://www.csla-aapc.ca/sites/csla-aapc.ca/ Deming, M.E., & Swaffield, S. (2011, March). Landscape architecture research:Inquiry, strategy, design. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Landscape Architectural Research: Inquiry, Strategy, Design | Wiley DeScioli, P., Massenkoff, M., Shaw, A., Peterson, M. B., & Kurzban, R. (2014, December 22). Equity or Equality? Moral judgements follow the money. Proceedings of Royal Society of B: Biological Sciences, 281(1797). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2112 Dines, N., & Brown, K. (2001). Landscape Architect’s Portable Handbook. McGraw-Hill. District of Saanich. (2010). Urban forest strategy. Retrieved January 2020, from Microsoft Word - 10 10 13 Saanich UFS Final Dobbs, C., Martinez-Harms, M. J. & Kendal, D. (2017, March). Ecosystem service. In F. Ferrini, C. C. Konijendijk van den Bosch, & A. Fini (Eds.) Routledge handbook of urban forestry. (pp.51–64). Routledge. Routledge Handbook of Urban Forestry (routledgehandbooks.com) Edwards, N., Hooper, P., Knuiman, M., Foster, S. & Giles-Corti, B. (2015). Association between park features and adolescent park user for physical activity. International journal of behavioural 193 nutrition and physical activity. 12(21) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12966-015-0178-4 Fennelly, L. J., & Perry, M. A. (2018). CPTED and traditional security countermeasures – 150 things you should know. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315144528 Forester, J. (2006). Making participation work when interests conflict: Moving from facilitating dialogue and moderating debate to mediating negotiations. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72 (4), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976765 Fors, H., Froik Molin, J., Murphy, M. A., & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. C. (2015). User participation in urban green spaces – For the people or the parks? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14(3), 722–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.05.007 Friends of Beacon Hill Park. (2022, October 18) Friends of Beacon Hill Park Victoria (fbhp.ca) Gehl, J. and Matan, A. (2009). Two perspectives on public spaces. Building research & information. 37(1) 106-109 Gibbons, K. H., & Ryan, C. M. (2015). Characterizing comprehensiveness of urban forest management plans in Washington State. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(3), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.06.003 194 Gill, S., Handley, J., Ennos, A., & Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change: The role of green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.115 Gober, P., Brazel, A., Quay, R., Myint, S., Grossman-Clarke, S., Miller, A., & Rossi, S. (2009). Using watered landscapes to manipulate urban heat island effects: How much water will it take to cool Phoenix? Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(1), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360903433113 Gobster, P. H. (2001). Visions of nature: Conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 56(1–2), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00164-5 Golicnik, B., & Thompson, C. W. (2010). Emerging relationships between design and use of urban park spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(1), 38–53. http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_10/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.016 Grabowski, Z., McPhearson, T., Matsier, A.M., Groffman, P., & Pickett, S.T.A. What is green infrastructure? A study of definitions in US city planning. Frontiers in ecology and the environment. 20 (3), 156-160 Graham, A. D, Vanos, J. K., Kenny, N. A., & Brown, R. D. (2016). The relationship between neighbourhood tree canopy cover and heat-related ambulance calls during extreme heat events in 195 Toronto, Canada. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.005 Gustavsson R., Hermy M., Konijnendijk C., & Steidle-Schwahn A. (2005). Management of urban woodlands and parks – Searching for creative and sustainable concepts. In: C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Urban forest and trees (pp. 369–378). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27684-X_14 Haaland, C., & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009 Halifax Public Gardens. (2022, October 18).Friends of the Public Gardens (halifaxpublicgardens.ca) Halifax Regional Municipality (2013, July). Urban forest master plan. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from UrbanForestReport Halifax Regional Municipality. (2008). Charter. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from Halifax Regional Municipality Charter (nslegislature.ca) Halifax Regional Municipality. (2014, October). Regional municipal planning strategy. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from RegionalMunicipalPlanningStrategy.pdf (halifax.ca) 196 Halifax Regional Municipality. (2022). Halifax Common master plan. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from Attachment A _Halifax Common Master Plan REVISED Nov 30_1.pdf Halifax Regional Municipality. (2022). Planning & development budget and business plan 2022/2023. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from Proposed 2022/23 Planning and Development Budget and Business Plan - Feb 18/22 Budget Committee | Halifax.ca Harmer, T. (2022, June 15). Pickleball court upgrades at Beacon Hill Park concern accessibility advocates. CTV News. Beacon Hill Park pickleball court upgrades concern accessibility advocates | CTV News Harris C. W., & Dines, N. T. (1988). Time-saver standards for landscape architecture: Design and construction data. McGraw-Hill. Harris, C. W., Dines, N. T., & Brown, K. D. (1998). Time-saver standards for landscape architecture : design and construction data (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. High Park Nature Centre. (2022, October 18). Nature Centre (highparknaturecentre.com) High Park Nature. (2022, October 18). High park stewards. Upcoming Events › High Park Stewards › – High Park Nature 197 Honey-Rosés, J., Anguelovski, I., Bohigas, J., Chireh, V., Daher, C., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C., Litt, J., Mawani, V. McCall, M., Orellana, A., Oscilowicz, E., Sánchez-Sepúlveda, H. U., Senbel, M., Tan, X., Villagomez, E., Zapata, O., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2020, April 21). The impact of COVID-19 on public space: A review of the emerging questions. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/rf7xa Hopper, L. J. (2007). Landscape architectural graphic standards (Student ed). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Landscape Architectural Graphic Standards, Student Edition | Wiley http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.007 Huang, Y., Zhixin, L., &Yuhan, H. (2022). User Perception of Public Parks: A Pilot Study Integrating Spatial Social Media Data with Park Management in the City of Chicago. Land, 11(2), 211. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land11020211 IAP2 (2016). Planning for effective public participation. Retrieved on October 18, 2022, from Training - Planning Course Description - International Association for Public Participation (iap2.org) IAP2. (2022, October 18). International Association for Public Participation (iap2.org) i-Tree (2023, January 7). i-tree canopy. Retrieved January 7, 2023, from https://canopy.itreetools.org/ 198 Jacobs, P. (1983). Fredrick G. Todd and the creation of Canada’s urban landscape. Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin, 15(4), 27–34. https://aapq.org/sites/aapq.org/files/bibliotheque/PJacobs_ToddAPT.pdf Jennings, T.E., Jean-Phillippe, S.R., Willcox, A., Zobel, J.M., Poudyal, N.C. & Simpson, T. (2016). The influence of attitudes and perception of tree benefits on park management priorities. Landscape and urban planning. 153, 122-1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.021 Karlis, G. (2016). Leisure and Recreation in Canadian Society: an introduction (3rd ed.). Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc. Kirkwood, N. (2001). Manufactured sites. Rethinking the post-industrial landscape. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203361344 Klemm, W., Lenzholzer, S., Heusinkveld, B. G., & van Hove, B. (2013, September 10–12). Towards green design guidelines for thermally comfortable street. [Conference Proceedings]. PLEA 29th Conference on Sustainable Architecture for a Renewable Future, Munich, Germany 199 Koh, Y. F., Ho, H. L., & Park, E. (2022). Towards a “city in nature”: Evaluating the cultural ecosystem services approach using online public participation GIS to support urban green space management. Sustainability, 14(3), 1499. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031499 Konijnendijk, C. C. (2022). Evidence-based guidelines for greener, healthier, more resilient neighbourhoods: Introducing the 3-30-300 rule. Journal of Forestry Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01523- Konijnendijk, C. C., Ricard, R. M., Kenney, A., & Randrup, T. B. (2006). Defining urban forestry - A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4(3–4), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2005.11.003 Konijnendijk, C. Nilsson, K., Randrup, T., & Schipperijn, J. (2005). Urban forest and trees: a reference book. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27684-X Kozlowski, T. (1999). Soil compaction and growth of woody plants. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 14(6), 596–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827589908540825 Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 823–851. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022294028903 200 Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(99)80208-2 Lam, S. T., & Conway, T. M. (2018). Ecosystem services in urban land use planning policies: A case study of Ontario municipalities. Land Use Policy, 77(C), 641651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.020 Lanza, K., & Stone Jr., B. (2016). Climate adaptation in cities: What trees are suitable for urban heat management? Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 74–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.002 Lee, A.C. & Maheswaran, R. (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence. Journal of public health. 33 (2), 212-222 Lindberg, M., & Schipperijn, J. (2015). Active use of urban park facilities – Expectations versus reality. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 909–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.08.007 Loughran, K. (2018). Urban Parks and urban problems: An historical perspective on green space development as a cultural fix. Urban Studies Journal Limited, 57(11), 2321–2338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018763555 201 Loures, L. C., & Crawford, P. (2008). Finding public consensus: The relevance of public participation post-industrial landscape reclamation [Conference Proceedings]. 1st WSEAST International Conference on Landscape Architecture, Algarve, Portugal. Lu, J. W. T., Svendsen, E. S., Campbell, L. K., Greenfeld, J., Braden, J., King, K. L., & Falxa-Raymond, N., (2010). Biological, social, and urban design factors affecting young street tree mortality in New York City. Cities and the Environment, 3(1), 1–15. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/5 Maibach, E. W., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., & Mertz, C. K. (2011). Identifying life-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: an audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PLoS One, 6(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017571 Marriott, K., Tower, J., & McDonald, K. (2021). Community leisure and recreation planning. Routledge. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage. Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(1), 7–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009 McHarg, I. (1969). Design with nature (1st ed.). Natural History Press. 202 McLain, R., Poe, M., Hurley, P. T., Lecompte-Masternbrook, J., & Emery, M. R. (2012). Producing edible landscapes in Seattle's Urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11, 187–194. Mexia, T., Vieira, J., Principe, A., Anjos, A., Silva, P., Lopes, N., Freitas, C., Santos-Reis, M., Correia, O., Branquinho, C., & Pinho, P. (2018). Ecosystem services: Urban parks under a magnifying glass. Environmental Research, 160, 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.023 Miller, R. W., Hauer, R.J, & Werner, P.L. (2015). Urban forestry: Planning and managing urban greenspaces. (3rd ed.). Waveland Press. Millward, A. A., & Sabir, S. (2011). Benefits of a forested urban park: What is the value of Allan Gardens to the city of Toronto, Canada? Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(3), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.013 Millward, A. A., Paudel, K., & Briggs, S.E. (2011). Naturalization as a strategy for improving soil physical characteristics in a forested urban park. Urban Ecosystems, 14(2), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-010-0153-4 Molla, M. B., & Mekonnen, A. B. (2019). Understanding the local values of trees and forests: a strategy to improve urban environment in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia. The International Journal of Urban Forestry, 41(2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2019.1589182 203 Motloch, J. L. (2001). Introduction to landscape design (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mullaney, J., Lucke, T., & Trueman, S. J. (2015). A review of benefits and challenges in growing street trees in paved urban environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.013 Muratet, A., Pellegrini, P., Dufour, A., Arrif, T., & Chiron, F. (2015). Perception and knowledge of plant diversity among urban park users. Landscape and Urban Planning, 137, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.01.003 Neal, S., Bennett, K., Jones, H., Cochrane, A., & Mohan, G. (2015). Multiculture and public parks: Researching super-diversity and attachment in public green space. Population, Space and Place, 21(5), 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1910 Nielsen, A. B, van den Bosch, M., Maruthaveeran, S., & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. C. (2014). Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosystems, 17(1), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0316-1 Nitoslawski, S.A., Galle, N.J, Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. Steenberg, J.W.N. (2019). Smarter ecosystems for smarter cities? A review of trends, technologies, and turning points for smart urban forestry. Sustainable Cities and Society, 51, 101770. 204 Ordóñez, C., & Duinker, P. N. (2013). An analysis of urban forest management plans in Canada: Implication for forest management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 116, 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.007 Ordóñez, C., Duinker, P. N., Sinclair, A. J., Beckley, T., & Diduck, J. (2016). Determining Public Values of Urban Forests Using a Sidewalk Interception Survey in Fredericton, Halifax, and Winnipeg, Canada. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 42(1), 46–57. Ordóñez, C., Threlfall, C. G., Livesleya, S. J., Kendalb, D., Fullerc, R. A., Davernd, M., van der Ree, R., & Hochuli, D. F. (2020). Decision-making of municipal urban forest managers through the lens of governance. Environmental Science and Policy, 104, 136–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.11.008 Ostoic, S.K., & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. C. (2015). Exploring global scientific discourses on urban forestry. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14(1), 129–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.01.001 Ottitsch, A., & Krott, M. (2005). Urban forest policy and planning. In C. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Urban forests and trees – A reference book. (pp.117–148). Springer. 205 Palliwoda, J., Kowarik, I., & von der Lippe, M. (2017). Human-biodiveristy interaction in urban parks: The species level matters. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.003 Pattacini, L. (1998). André Mollet, Royal Gardener in St James's Park, London. Garden History, 26(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1587232 Peckham, S. C., Duinker, P. N., & Ordoñez , C. (2013). Urban forest values in Canada: Views of citizens in Calgary and Halifax. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(2), 154–162. Peltonen, L., & Sairinen, R. (2010). Integrating impact assessment and conflict management in urban planning: Experience from Finland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 328–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.006 Pincetl, S. (2010). Implementing municipal tree planting: Los Angeles million-tree initiative. Environmental Management, 45, 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9412-7 Pincetl, S., & Gearin, E. (2005). The reinvention of public green space. Urban Geography, 26(5), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.26.5.365 Qiu, L., Lindberg, S., & Nielsen, A. B. (2013). Is biodiversity attractive? —On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 136–146. 206 Qiu, L., Lindberg, S., & Nielsen, A.B. (2013). Is biodiversity attractive? On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landscape and urban planning. 119 (136-146). Quinton, J. M., Duinker, P. N., Steenberg, J. W. N., & Charles, J. D. (2020). The living among the dead: Cemeteries as urban forests, now and in the future. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 48, 126564. Renewable Future, Munich, Germany. 306278 (wur.nl) Richter, B. (2022, October 4). City of North Van candidates talk housing, green space, trees. North Shore News. City of North Vancouver election candidates on issues: - North Shore News (nsnews.com) Roberts, J. (2022, October 2). Southern Chiefs' Organization reveals totem pole in honour of residential school children. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/chief-totem-children-residential-1.6603654 Rogers, E. B. (2001). Landscape design – A cultural and architectural history. Harry N. Abrams. Roman, L. A., Conway, T. M., Eisenman, T. S., Koeser, A. K., Barona, C. O., Locke, D. L.,Jenerette, G. D., Ostberg, J., & Vogt, J. (2021). Beyond ‘trees are good’: Disservices, 207 management costs, and tradeoffs in urban forestry. Ambio, 50, 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01396-8 Roman, L. A., Pearsall, H., Eisenman, T. S., Conway, T. M., Fahey, R. T., Landry, S., Vogt, J., van Doorn, N. S., Grove, J. M., Locke, D. H., Bardekjian, A. C., Battles, J. J., Cadenasso, M. L., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. C., Avolio, M., Berland, A., Jenerette, G. D., Mincey, S. K., Pataki, D. E., & Staudhammer, C. (2018). Human and biophysical legacies shape contemporary urban forests: A literature synthesis. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 31, 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.004 Saebo, A., Borzon, Z., Ducatillion, C., Hatzistathis, A., Lagerström, T., Supuka, J., Garcia-Valdecantos, J. L., Rego, F., & Van Slycken. J. (2005). The selection of plant materials for street trees, park trees and urban woodland. In C. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Urban forests and trees – A reference book. (pp.257–280). Springer. Sancton, A., & Young, R. A. (2009). Foundations of governance: Municipal government in Canada’s Provinces. University of Toronto Press. Schroeder, H. W. (1982). Preferred features of urban parks and forests. Journal of Arboriculture, 8(12), 317–322. nc_1982_schroeder_001.pdf (usda.gov) Schroeder, H. W., & Green, T. L. (1985). Public preference for tree density in municipal parks. Journal of Arboriculture, 11(9), 272–277. p0272-0277.pdf 208 Shanahan, D.F., Lin, B.B., Gaston, K.J., Bush, R. & Fuller, R.A. (2015). What is the role of trees and remnant vegetation in attracting people to urban parks? Landscape ecology (30) 153-165 Sheppard, S. R. J., van den Bosch, C. C. K., Croy, O., Macias, A., & Barron, S. (2017). Urban forest governance and community engagement. In F. Ferrini, C. Konijnendijk van den Bosch and A. Fini (Eds.), Routledge handbook of urban forestry (pp.205–221). Routledge. Sinclair, A. J., Diduck, J., & Duinker, P. N. (2014). Elicitation of urban forest values from residents of Winnipeg, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 44(8), 922–930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2014-0016 Sipilä, M. and Tyrväinen, L. (2005). Evaluation of collaborative urban forest planning in Helsinki, Finland. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2005.06.002 Spector, David. (2019). Assiniboine Park – Designing and developing a people’s playground. Great Plains Publications. Statistics Canada. (2019, September 17). What will the population of Canada look like in 2068? What will the population of Canada look like in 2068? (statcan.gc.ca) Steenberg, J. W. N., Duinker, P. N., & Charles, J. D. (2013). The neighbourhood approach to urban forest management: The case of Halifax, Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning, 117, 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.003 209 Taylor, L. & Hochuli, D.F. (2017). Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landscape and urban planning. 158, 25-38 Tate A. (2015). Great city parks (2nd ed.). Routledge. Tate, A. (2001). Great city parks (1st ed.). Spon Press. The Canadian Bar Association (2022, October 18). Encampment in municipal parks. https://www.cba.org/Publications-Resources/Practice-Tools/Tackling-Homelessness/Encampment-in-Municipal-Parks Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00059-2 Todd, L. F., Landman, K., & Kelly, S. (2016). Phytoremediation: An interim landscape architecture strategy to improve accessibility of contaminated vacant lands in Canadian municipalities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 18, 242–256. Town of Oakville. (2008). Urban forest strategic management plan Town of Oakville: 2008 – 2027. Retrieved January 2020, from Urban Forest Strategic Management Plan for the Town of Oakville 2008-2027 Tree Winnipeg. (2022, October 18). Million tree challenge. How To Participate | Trees Winnipeg 210 Tyrväinen L, Pauleit S., Seeland K., & de Vries S. (2005). Benefits and Uses of Forests and Trees. In C. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Urban forests and trees – A reference book (pp.81–114). Springer. Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(86)90005-8 Urban, J. (2008). Up by roots. Healthy soils and trees in the built environment. International Society for Arboriculture. van der Jagt, A. P. N., & Lawrence, A. (2019). Local government and urban forest governance: insights from Scotland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 34(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2018.1532018 Van Herzele, A., & Wiedemann, T. (2003). A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(2), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00192-5 Vancouver Park Board. (2019). VanPlay: Vancouver’s parks and recreation services master plan. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from VanPlay master plan for parks and recreation | City of Vancouver 211 VanPlay: Vancouver’s parks and recreation services master. (2019). Strategic bold moves. Vancouver Park Board. Retrieved October 18, 2022, from Strategic Bold Moves | City of Vancouver Veitch, J., Biggs, N., Deforche, B. & Timperio, A. (2022). What do adults want in parks? A qualitative study using walk-along interviews. BMC public health. 22 (753) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-022-13064-5 Vieira, J., Matos, P., Mexia, T., Silva, P., Lopes, N., Freitas, C., Correia, O., Santos-Reis, M. Branquinho, C., & Pinho, P. (2018). Green spaces are not all the same for the provision of air purification and climate regulation services: The case of urban parks. Environmental Research, 160, 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.006 Walliss, J., & Rahmann, H. (2015, December 2-4). Designing the twenty-first century urban park: Design strategies for a warming climate. In R.H. Crawford and A. Stephan (Eds.), Living and learning: Research for a better built environment, 49th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association. (pp.869–878). The Architectural Science Association; The University of Melbourne. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2015-12/apo-nid61762.pdf Waugh, E. (2011). Recycling spaces: Curating urban evolution. The work of Martha Schwartz Partners. Oro Editions. Williams, R. (2014). Landscape architecture in Canada. McGill-Queen's University Press. 212 Wilson, C. (2022, September 22). Beacon Hill Park camping issue headed back to court in November. Times Colonist. Beacon Hill Park camping issue headed back to court in November - Victoria Times Colonist Wolf, D.I. and Wohlfart, T. (2014). Walking, hiking and running in parks: A multidisciplinary assessment of health and well-being benefits. Landscape and urban planning. 130(89-103). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.06.006 Woudstra, J., & Fieldhouse, K. (2000). The regeneration of public parks (1st ed.). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203857540 Wirtz, Z., Hagerman, S., Hauer, R.J., & Konijnendijk, C.C. (2021) What makes urban forest governance successful? – A study among Canadian experts. Urban forestry & urban greening. 58, 126901 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126901 Yapp, G., & Barrow, G. (1979). Zonation and carrying capacity estimates in Canadian park planning. Biological Conservation, 15(3), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(79)90040-5 Zabelskyte, G., Kabisch, N., & Stasiskiene, Z. (2022). Patterns of urban green space use applying social media data: A systematic literature review. Land, 11(2), 238. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020238 213 Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-behavior research. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. 214 215 Appendices Appendix A – Interview Questions Chapter 3 A.1 View from Inside - City Staff, Operating Partners, and Advocates 1. Please describe your role and responsibilities or level of involvement with the development of ____ park. 2. What do you know about the design development of ___ park that you can share with me? 3. What policies or directions have influenced this park and brought it to its current condition? 4. How do you think this park balances social, cultural, and recreational needs with ecological needs? 5. How do you think this park contributes to nature in the city? (e.g., biodiversity) 6. What can you tell me about trees and urban forests in this park? 7. Is there an urban forest target that the city is trying to achieve? 8. What opportunities do you see for achieving urban forest targets in this park? 9. What challenges do you see in achieving urban forest targets in this park? 10. What advice do you have for policymakers, planners, designers, and all those involved with municipal parks when it comes to trees in parks and for achieving urban forestry targets in municipal parks? A.2 View from Outside - Local Landscape Architects, Park Planners, Urban Foresters, and Academia 1. Are you familiar with Beacon Hill Park (Victoria), Assiniboine Park (Winnipeg), High Park (Toronto), and the Common (Halifax)? 2. What are some thoughts that come to mind when you think about these parks? 3. Recreation services provision of this park? 4. Contribution to nature in the city? 5. What are some current trends, challenges and opportunities for park planning in Canadian municipalities? 6. What are some opportunities and challenges for meeting urban canopy and biodiversity targets in municipal parks that also provide recreational and cultural services? 7. How do you think municipal parks can balance social, cultural, and recreational needs with ecological needs? 8. What advice do you have for policymakers, planners, designers, and all those involved with municipal park planning when it comes to trees in parks and for achieving urban forestry targets in municipal parks. 216 Appendix B – Survey Questions Chapter 4 1) In what province or territory of Canada do you do most of your work (50% or more)? Alberta British Columbia Manitoba New Brunswick Newfoundland and Labrador Northwest Territories Nova Scotia Nunavut Ontario Prince Edward Island Quebec Saskatchewan Yukon 2) Are you most involved in park planning, design, and/or building as: Municipal staff Landscape Architect consultant Planning consultant Other ____________________ 3) At what stage of park development do you first consider trees? Budget Process Park Planning Park Design Park Construction All of the Above Other ___________ 4) What are the top 2 motivators and objectives of tree planting during design process? Political direction Climate policy Stormwater policy Urban forest policy Urban agriculture policy Park Design Standards Resident requests Other _____________ 217 5) What are the top 3 factors about trees that influence your daily park planning and design work? Biodiversity Climate adaptability Native planting Stormwater management Forest canopy Providing Shade Solar access Available species at the nursery Soil conditions Mature size (i.e., height and width above and underground) Planting Design Principles (Repetition, Variety, Balance, Emphasis, Sequence, Scale) Planting Design Elements (Mass, Form, Line, Texture and Colour) Food production (i.e., fruits) Other _________________ 6) Do you know if your municipality has an urban forest canopy target? Yes No Not sure 7) In your opinion, how do your recently-built parks (within the last 0-10 years) contribute to the urban forest canopy through increasing their size and biodiversity, in your municipality? Not much contribution A fair bit, but it could be better Good Excellent Not sure 8) In your opinion, how did the design of the recently built parks help or not help with the contribution? Park design increased biodiversity Park design increased canopy size Park design included climate-resilient tree species Park design included native tree species Some of the above options were available Above options were not available Other _____________ 218 9) In your opinion, how do your well-established parks (more than 10-years old) contribute to the urban forest canopy in your municipality? Not much contribution A fair bit, but it could be better Good Excellent Not sure 10) In your opinion, how did the design of your well-established parks help or not help with the contribution? Park design increased biodiversity Park design increased canopy size Park design included climate-resilient tree species Park design included native tree species Some of the above options were available Above options were not available Other _____________ 11) In your experience, have tree-planting efforts in municipal parks faced challenges? Yes, generally re-occurring challenges Yes, site-specific challenges No challenges were faced 12) In your experience, what challenges have tree-planting efforts faced within municipal parks? (Select top 3 challenges) Operation and maintenance practices Traditional landscape design practices Overhead and/or underground infrastructure Public and resident concerns Political direction Programmable spaces and amenities need Lack of funding Lack of solar access Lack of access to a diverse range of species Lack of water/depressed water table Lack of adequate soil quality Local climate and conditions Other No challenges were faced 219 13) Is there a policy that provides tree planting design recommendations for public parks in your municipality? No Yes Not sure 14) If, during your planning, design, or construction of a park, you have used an urban canopy policy to guide your work, please describe your experience by selecting an option below: The policy guides the design process The policy helped manage expectations The policy was vague and limiting No policy was available 15) In your opinion, what is one important factor that should be considered in forest canopy policy for parks? 220 Appendix C – Survey Questions Chapter 5 C.1 Governance Interview Questions - Councillors 1) At which of the phases of park development and management do you get most involved as a Councillor? ___ Budget Process ___ Park Planning ___ Park Design ___ Park Construction ___ Park Operations and Maintenance ___ Urban Forest Management 2) What can you tell us about the following three parks? ___ Galloway Park ___ Riley Park ___ Mackin Park 3) What challenges do you see for urban forests within municipal parks (Coquitlam or any other city)? 4) What opportunities do you see for urban forests within municipal parks (Coquitlam or any other city)? 5) What advice do you have for policymakers, planners, designers, and all those involved with municipal parks when it comes to trees in parks? Governance Interview Questions - Staff 1)Which of the following are you most involved in your day-to-day work? ___ Budget Process ___ Park Planning ___Park Design ___Park Construction ___Park Operations and Maintenance ___ Urban Forest Management 2) What can you tell us about the following three parks and particularly the tree planting scheme? Galloway Park, Mackin Park, Riley Park 3) What challenges do you see for urban forests within municipal parks (Coquitlam or any other city)? 4) What opportunities do you see for urban forests within municipal parks (Coquitlam or any other city)? 221 5) What advice do you have for policymakers, planners, designers, and all those involved with municipal parks when it comes to trees in parks? C.2 Park User Walking Interview Questions 1) Have you been to this park before? 2) If yes, how often do you come to this park and why? 3) In your first view of the park, what are some thoughts that come to your mind? 4) If you don't live in this neighbourhood, would you move here because of this park? 5) What are some of your favourite places in the park? Can you show me? 6) What do you think about the amenities in this park? 7) What do you think about the trees in this park? 8) What do you like or dislike about the trees? 9) Where would you have liked to see more or fewer trees? 10) Which type of trees are your favourite? C.3 Park User Survey Questions 1) Please let us know which park you are completing this survey about: ___ Galloway Park ___ Mackin Park ___ Riley Park 2) Are you satisfied with all the amenities in this park (Galloway, or Mackin, or Riley Park)? ___ Yes ___ No 3) What do you like about this park (Galloway, or Mackin, or Riley Park)? 4) What do you not like about this park (Galloway, or Mackin, or Riley Park)? 5) Do you think there are enough trees in the park (Galloway, or Mackin, or Riley Park)? ___ Yes, there are lots of trees ___ No, this park needs more trees. 6) Do you think trees are important to be in this park (Galloway, or Mackin, or Riley Park)? _____ Not important _____ Somewhat important _____ Very important 222 7) Are trees important to you in parks in general? ____ Yes, trees are expected elements as minimum elements in a park. ____ No, other elements in a park are more important to me. 8) Please rank the following elements in order of importance to you (in any park): (1, 2, 3….) ____ Open green spaces and big lawn ____ Trees, shrubs, flowers ____ Services (e.g., drinking water, washrooms, parking lot) ____ Social spaces (e.g., gathering space, seating areas, benches) ____ Amenities (e.g., gathering space, seating areas, benches) ____ Views and Vistas (e.g., views of the city, seeing through the park) ____ Circulation (e.g., trails, pathways, walkways) ____ Other (please specify and rank) ____________ 9) Where do you think there should be trees in a park? (Please select the top 3 choices) ____ By the playground ____ In the lawn areas ____ By the pathways ____ By the entrance to the park ____ By the seating areas and park benches ____ Along the park boundary ____ Between amenity spaces ____ Between the road and the park ____ Other (please specify) ______________ 10) What type of trees do you think this park should have? (Please select the top 3 choices) ____ Conifer trees (e.g., pine, cedar, spruce) ____ Deciduous trees (e.g., oak, willow, maple) ____ Trees that bring birds ____ Trees that have fruits ____ Trees with lots of colours in different seasons ____ Trees that give shade ____ Trees that are native ____ Trees that are good for climate change ____ Trees that have unique features ____ All tall trees ____ All short trees ____ Combination of short and tall trees ____ Other (please specify) ___________________ 11) Is there anything else you like to tell us about the trees in this park?
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Forestry
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Konijnendijk, C. C. (Cecil C.)
Nesbitt, Lorien
Planning for public parks to meet urban forest objectives : a Canadian perspective
Text