Content uploaded by Tooba Shakeel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tooba Shakeel on Jul 31, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (2011) 321–329
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
Community groups and urban forestry activity: Drivers of uneven canopy cover?
Tenley M. Conway∗, Tooba Shakeel, Joanna Atallah
Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Rd, N., Mississauga, ON L5L 1C6, Canada
article info
Article history:
Received 15 September 2010
Received in revised form 15 February 2011
Accepted 21 February 2011
Available online 25 March 2011
Keywords:
Urban forest
Business improvement areas
Resident associations
Environmental inequality
abstract
Urban forests provide a range of environmental, social, economic and health benefits, but because the
distribution of canopy cover is uneven across many metropolitan areas, there is unequal access to the ben-
efits. While recent work has documented the socioeconomic factors correlated with uneven distributions
– including neighborhood wealth, presence of renters, and different ethnocultural groups – less attention
has been paid to the ways local actors foster such inequalities. This paper explores the urban forestry
activities of two types of community groups (business improvement areas and resident associations) in
the Greater Toronto Area (Ontario, Canada), to begin to fill the gap in our understanding of the influence
local actors have on urban forest patterns. Specifically, we explored (1) the types of urban forestry-related
activities these groups conduct and (2) the relationship between a group’s level of involvement in urban
forestry and neighborhood socioeconomic conditions, basic group characteristics, and its municipality’s
urban forestry program. The results indicate business improvement areas’ activity levels are primarily
related to the municipal setting. On the other hand, the extent of resident associations’ activities are
correlated with median household income, percent of owner-occupied dwellings and type of housing,
suggesting that resident associations may be supporting the uneven distribution of the urban forest. The
paper ends with a discussion of the motivators and limiters associated with the community groups’ urban
forestry activities.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Urban forests provide a wide array of economic, social, phys-
ical, psychological, and environmental benefits (e.g. Landry and
Chakraborty, 2009; Payton et al., 2008; Smardon, 1988). As com-
munities become more aware of these benefits, there has been
increased interest in planting and protecting urban trees. How-
ever, the extent and health of urban forests is dependent on a
complex array of biophysical conditions, government policy, built
form, and socioeconomic factors. Recent work has highlighted the
role of these drivers (Grove et al., 2006; Heynen and Lindsay, 2003;
Iverson and Cook, 2000; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Talarchek,
1990), as well as documented the uneven forest cover – and there-
fore uneven benefits – that result from many of these influences
within cities (Heynen et al., 2006; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009;
Pedlowski et al., 2002). In particular, poorer communities and those
with higher percentages of minorities and renters often have dis-
proportionally less tree canopy (Landry and Chakraborty, 2009).
Little attention, however, has been given to the role local actors
potentially play in fostering such urban forest inequalities, yet
∗Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 905 828 3928; fax: +1 905 828 5273.
E-mail addresses: tenley.conway@utoronto.ca (T.M. Conway),
tooba.shakeel@utoronto.ca (T. Shakeel), joanna.atallah@utoronto.ca (J. Atallah).
many community groups and residents are actively involved in the
planting and management of urban trees. The influence of local
actors on urban forest conditions has been generally acknowl-
edged (FitzGiggon and Summers, 2002; Grove et al., 2006; Wall
et al., 2006), and differences in individuals’ level of involvement
in voluntary urban forestry programs have begun to be explored
(Perkins et al., 2004; Wall et al., 2006). While community groups
likely have the motivation, commitment to property/community
and resources to be interested in the long-term benefits of plant-
ing and maintaining urban trees (Perkins et al., 2004), it is unclear
what types of activities these groups engage in and whether their
actions contribute to the uneven distribution of the urban forest.
Within the framework of building a more equitable city, includ-
ing access to beneficial environmental amenities like urban trees,
a better understanding of the role specific actors’ play in shaping
current inequalities is needed.
This paper examines two types of community groups, busi-
ness improvement areas and resident associations, to understand
the role they play in shaping the urban forest. The study area is
the Greater Toronto Area (Ontario, Canada), which has a long his-
tory of community groups, as well as many municipalities, actively
engaging in urban forestry programs. More specifically, we explore
three questions: (1) what types of urban forestry-related activi-
ties do these groups conduct? (2) is there a relationship between
a group’s level of involvement in urban forestry and neighborhood
0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.037
322 T.M. Conway et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (2011) 321–329
socioeconomic conditions or basic characteristics of the commu-
nity group itself? and (3) do highly involved community groups
tend to be located in municipalities with well developed urban
forestry programs? The latter two questions help to understand
if business improvement areas and resident associations help cre-
ate the uneven distribution of the urban forest and its associated
benefits, or if they are filling gaps that may minimize such inequal-
ities. To address the three questions, RA and BIA representatives
were interviewed, and their responses analyzed using statistical
and qualitative methods. The paper ends with a broader discus-
sion of the primary motivators and limiters associated with the
community groups’ level of involvement in urban forestry.
2. Literature review
2.1. Drivers of urban forest cover
The configuration and composition of urban forests is a result
of complex interactions between biophysical and social factors.
While biophysical conditions are particularly important in under-
standing differences in urban forest composition and structure
between cities around the globe, when examining urban tree pat-
terns within a city or metropolitan area, McDonnell and Pickett
(1990) argue that built, social, and policy factors are more influ-
ential. Several recent studies have highlighted the relationship
between built form, municipal policy and vegetation conditions,
suggesting factors like available planting space, road density, age
and type of housing stock, and policies promoting planting and pro-
tection explain some but not all of the variation in urban forest
cover (Conway and Urbani, 2007; Fung and Sui, 2000; Grove et al.,
2006; Heynen and Lindsay, 2003; Hope et al., 2003; Landry and
Chakraborty, 2009; Smith et al., 2005; Stone, 2004).
In terms of socioeconomic factors, average household income
and other measures of neighborhood wealth are consistently
shown to be positively related to the extent of neighborhood
urban vegetation cover and level of diversity (Emmanuel, 1997;
Heynen and Lindsay, 2003; Iverson and Cook, 2000; Landry and
Chakraborty, 2009; Martin et al., 2004; Morales et al., 1976;
Pedlowski et al., 2002; Talarchek, 1990). Additional socioeco-
nomic factors often found to be correlated with measures of
urban vegetation at the neighborhood-scale include level of educa-
tion (Heynen and Lindsay, 2003; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009;
Talarchek, 1990), ethnic and racial composition (Heynen et al.,
2006; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Troy et al., 2007), percent
of owner-occupied dwellings (Heynen et al., 2006), and overall
occupancy rates (Emmanuel, 1997; Heynen et al., 2006). These cor-
relations suggest that the benefits of urban forests are unevenly
distributed among different socioeconomic groups within cities,
supporting the inequality hypothesis that has been documented
for a variety of environmental amenities and hazards within the
environmental justice literature (e.g. Grineski et al., 2007; Landry
and Chakraborty, 2009). Specifically, neighbourhoods with lower
average incomes and a higher proportion of minorities and renters
have less tree cover, thus receive fewer benefits from the urban for-
est (Heynen et al., 2006; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Pedlowski
et al., 2002).
The specific mechanisms driving socioeconomic-based neigh-
borhood inequalities are unclear. Several authors have suggested
that because people desire trees (Heynen and Lindsay, 2003),
which is evident through higher values for residential property
with trees (Anderson and Cordell, 1998; Donovan and Butry, 2010;
Payton et al., 2008), a positive feedback loop exists between canopy
cover and property values (Heynen, 2006). Thus, wealthier neigh-
bourhoods have more trees, while declining neighbourhoods tend
to lose canopy cover. Heynen (2006) documented this cycle in
Indianapolis, where canopy cover declined alongside household
incomes, while Emmanuel (1997) found that a decrease in urban
‘greenness’ was correlated with various measures of urban decay
in Detroit. In addition, wealthier neighbourhoods may have greater
political influence, which can lead to increased tree planting along
public rights of ways in such neighbourhoods (Heynen, 2006;
Landry and Chakraborty, 2009). However, others have shown that a
desire for greater tree cover is not uniform among wealthy house-
holds (Grove et al., 2006), but that clear preference differences do
exist between cultural groups (Fraser and Kenney, 2000) and by
‘lifestyle group’ (Grove et al., 2006).
The underlying mechanism associated with differences between
owner-occupied dwellings and those occupied by renters is likely
that trees require immediate investments (i.e. costs for material,
time to plant, etc.) while benefits are produced over a long-time
span, and many voluntary reforestation programs do not acknowl-
edge this. For example, Perkins et al. (2004) examined participants
in a Milwaukee program that encouraged reforestation on private
property through an adopt-a-tree program. They determined that
the majority of participants were resident-owners because home-
owners were interested in the long-term benefits of planting a tree,
while absentee property owners and relatively transient renters
were less interested in making the necessary investment.
Another mechanism creating uneven distributions is likely the
direct actions of local actors, like community groups. Community
groups have been generally identified as playing a role in shaping
urban forest patterns (Perkins et al., 2004), but with a few excep-
tions (Merse et al., 2009) little attention has been paid to these
actors. This paper begins to fill that gap by looking at two types
of community groups (business improvement areas and resident
associations) who stand to benefit from the urban forest and are
likely contributing to documented inequalities.
2.2. Community groups: BIAs and RAs
Business improvement areas (BIAs) are non-profit organizations
comprised of business and property owners (or managers) who
work to improve their commercial district (Schaller and Modan,
2005). Their main goal is to bring consumers and businesses to the
BIA through work on development, maintenance, and promotion
of the business community. There is a long history of BIAs in the
study area, with the first BIA in North America formed there in
1970. In the Greater Toronto Area, each BIA is governed by a vol-
unteer board of directors and most employ a small number of staff.
They are funded by levies collected annually from members, and
often also receive municipal funds (Mitchell, 2003; TABIA, 2007),
with all businesses in the designated area automatically members
who must contribute to the BIA (TABIA, 2007; Ward, 2007).
At their start, most BIAs focused on physical improvements like
signage and decorations, reporting needed street maintenance, and
ensuring provision of garbage bins. Increasingly, BIAs supplement
municipal services by organizing street repairs and garbage collec-
tion, providing extra security, installing benches and bike racks, and
tending to street plants. They also often organize community events
for various occasions and some even run social service programs
for a variety of causes. However, BIAs most commonly commit
to business-oriented projects, working to promote the local com-
munity in order to bring vibrancy and increase visibility for local
businesses (Briffault, 1999; Schaller and Modan, 2005).
There has been ongoing debate over the role of BIAs in the
urban planning literature. They have been credited for revitalizing
and reinvesting in downtowns and commercial districts (Stokes,
2007), fostering public–private partnerships (Ward, 2007), increas-
ing neighborhood level decision-making, and positively influencing
municipal policies (Briffault, 1999; Hoyt and Gopal-Agge, 2007).
However, some scholars argue that the BIA model increases the
T.M. Conway et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (2011) 321–329 323
Fig. 1. The Greater Toronto Area business improvement areas and resident associ-
ations in sample.
power community elites have (Hoyt and Gopal-Agge, 2007); con-
tribute or provide a justification for reduced municipal services,
leaving poorer neighbourhoods with limited or no services; exclude
residents from decision making; and may cater to a specific ethnic-
ity or group of people, leaving the rest of the community without a
voice (Schaller and Modan, 2005).
The second group we examined, resident associations (RAs),
are voluntary organizations that include residents within defined
neighbourhoods. They primarily provide a venue for expressing
concerns and taking actions that benefit the community (Beito et al.,
2002; CAL, 2003). The first known example of this type of organi-
zation comes from London, England, during the mid 1700s, where
local property owners funded a neighborhood park (Beito et al.,
2002). While many early RAs followed this path, focusing on bring-
ing nature closer to urban communities, they have evolved into
organizations that contribute to decentralized government that
primarily focus on maintaining or increasing local property value
(Beito et al., 2002). The RAs included in this study are typically
not involved in managing common facilities or providing essential
services, making them more comparable to taxpayer or ratepayer
associations than formal homeowners’ associations that may have
mandatory contributions and professional managers (Beito et al.,
2002; CAL, 2003). The RAs in the study do engaged in a variety of
projects that benefit residents and advocate on behalf of the neigh-
bourhoods through their elected councillor or specific municipal
department.
Similar to BIAs, there is debate over the benefits of RAs. On the
one hand, they often serve as a vehicle for communicating neigh-
borhood concerns and needs (Nelson, 2005). On the other, RAs are
typically are found in wealthier neighbourhoods (Nelson, 2005),
potentially contributing to uneven access to services and environ-
mental infrastructure across cities.
3. Methods
3.1. Study area and data
The study area is the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), located in
southern Ontario, Canada. It is home to over 4.5 million people
across 5902 km2(Fig. 1). The native vegetation in the study area
is composed of the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence mixed forest type
and Carolinian species (Wickware and Rubec, 1989), but the major-
ity of the region was cleared for agriculture by the end of the
19th Century. The original Toronto city settlement and several
other small towns were located on the sandy plain along Lake
Ontario. The second half of the 20th Century saw urban devel-
opment expand outwards from Toronto, converting agricultural
fields to the North and engulfing previously separate communi-
ties.
Today the region includes several commercial centers, as well
as commercial strip development along highways and major roads.
Residential land uses range from large apartment towers to neigh-
bourhoods of various densities dominated by single family homes.
The GTA is organized into 25 lower-tier municipalities – the level of
government for most urban forestry programs – and five regional
(upper-tier) municipalities, with the City of Toronto functioning as
both a lower-tier and regional municipality. Recent work has found
that urban vegetation abundance is positively correlated with
both household income and house value in the GTA (Conway and
Hackworth, 2007), suggesting that the typical pattern described by
the environmental inequality hypothesis exists.
Information regarding BIAs and RAs involvement in urban
forestry was collected through telephone interviews. Contact infor-
mation for the BIAs within the study area was identified through the
Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas and Ontario
Business Improvement Areas Association’s websites. RAs were
identified through web searches, including contact information
gathered from municipalities and municipal councillors’ websites.
For locations where no RA could be identified through the web-
based searches, municipal councillors’ offices were contacted for
information about any RAs within their ward. In total, 95 BIAs and
249 RAs were identified in the GTA.
Random BIAs and RAs were selected for interviews, with the
samples proportionally stratified by upper-tier municipality to
account for regional variations that may occur. This also ensured
that the BIAs and RAs interviewed included those from urban cen-
ters, older suburbs, and newer communities on the urban fringe.
Between November 2009 and January 2010 selected BIAs and
RAs were contacted, requesting a phone interview covering their
activities related to trees and other vegetation. During the inter-
view, questions were asked about the general characteristics of the
group, including the activities/issues they spend the most time on;
several questions focused on frequency and motivations for tree
planting, maintenance, and tree inventories; while the interview
ended with questions addressing the tree-oriented interactions
between the group and local residents, the municipality, other com-
munity groups, and eNGOs.
For each BIA or RA, the census tract where the group is located
was determined. Census tracts include approximately 2000–8000
people, roughly corresponding to the neighborhood surrounding
each BIA or RA. Census variables were then identified, representing
socioeconomic factors that tend to be correlated with the level of a
household’s involvement in urban forestry activities and/or extent
of tree canopy (Table 1). Population density was included because
it has generally been found to be correlated with urban tree cover
within and between cities (Iverson and Cook, 2000; Nowak et al.,
2001), while mean household income, median value of dwellings,
percent of renters, and percent of adult population with a university
degree have been shown to be significantly correlated with extent
or composition of urban vegetation (Boone et al., 2010; Fung and
Sui, 2000; Hope et al., 2003; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009) and
individuals’ participation rates in urban forestry programs (Perkins
et al., 2004; Wall et al., 2006).
Percent of dwelling units in specific age classes were exam-
ined because age of structure is often related to street tree canopy
(Landry and Chakraborty, 2009), total canopy cover (Heynen and
324 T.M. Conway et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (2011) 321–329
Table 1
Socioeconomic variables and range of values for BIAs and RAs in the study.
Variable BIA range RA range
Population density (km2) 67–2633 23–26,185
Percent of population with university education 16–62 4–57
Median household income (CAD) 16,588–49,790 17,552–59,194
Average value of owned dwelling (CAD) 226,696–868,553 212,507–1,559,701
Percent of owner-occupied dwellings 13–96 10–98
Percent of dwellings constructed before 1946 1–74 0–82
Percent of dwellings constructed between 1946 and 1970 3–57 0–85
Percent of dwellings constructed between 1971 and 1995 5–66 1–93
Percent of dwellings constructed between 1996 and 2006 0–80 0–100
Percent of dwellings that are single, semi detached, or row house (i.e. not an apartment) 1–97 3–99
Percent non-visible minority (excluding aboriginal) 30–95 31–95
Percent South Asian 0–27 0–26
Percent Chinese 0–24 0–51
Percent of population who speak English (or English and another language) at home 57–97 53–98
Percent of population who are immigrants 16–64 8–64
Lindsay, 2003), and plant diversity (Hope et al., 2003). These rela-
tions are not surprising given that a longer time since construction
– a process that often involves removing all existing vegetation –
means the potential for older, larger trees.
Given that several recent studies have highlighted that neigh-
bourhoods with a higher proportion of ethnocultural minorities
tend to have different (usually lower) levels of tree cover (Heynen
et al., 2006; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009; Talarchek, 1990; Troy
et al., 2007), we were interested to see if these ethnocultural pat-
terns were apparent when we look at BIA and RA activities. The
GTA is a multicultural region that includes a significant number
of recent immigrants, and a wide variety of ethnocultural groups.
However, unlike many cities where there are inequalities in tree
cover associated with minority-dominated neighbourhoods, there
is not a dominant minority group in the study area. But, recent work
has indicated that different ethnocultural groups within the GTA
have divergent perspectives on urban trees (Fraser and Kenney,
2000). Thus, we chose to look at the three dominant racial groups
(as defined by Statistics Canada): percent non-visible minorities
(excluding aboriginal), percent South Asian, and percent Chinese.
The high proportion of non-English language households in the
GTA presents a challenge when communicating with residents
about municipal policy involving urban vegetation management
(Wakefield et al., 2007). Thus, the percent of people who identify
as speaking English (or English and another language) and the per-
cent of people who are immigrants to Canada were also examined
as potentially relevant factors.
Finally, representatives from the 25 lower-tier municipalities in
the GTA were previously surveyed regarding municipal policy and
programs focused on urban forestry (Conway and Urbani, 2007).
The information pertaining to municipal policies on planting and
protection of trees on private property and street trees, as well as
their relationship with non-governmental organizations, was also
used in the analysis.
3.2. Analysis
The first part of the analysis focused on determining the types
of urban forestry activities the community groups engage in, and
then explored their overall level of involvement. To assess over-
all involvement, a 10-point scoring scheme was applied to each
BIA and RA (Table 2). The components of the scoring schemed were
developed based on activities that the community groups identified
as relevant to urban forestry during the interviews. A cumulative
measure of involvement was chosen over focusing on presence or
absence of specific committees or actions, in part to account for
the very different contexts between community groups, which may
justify different types of activities. For example, an RA located in an
older neighborhood with an extensive tree canopy may be most
interested in conducting a tree inventory to ensure protection of
the existing resource, while an RA in a new suburb may view an
inventory as less important than planting activities due to a lack of
existing trees. It is also important to remember that level of activ-
ity is not necessarily correlated with canopy extent or composition
of trees within a group’s catchment, as these are also influenced by
physical space constrains, legacy effects, and other factors that may
not be controlled by the community groups. What level of involve-
ment does indicate is the relative degree to which these groups are
involved with urban forestry issues and the extent their actions may
have on conditions now and into the future. Based on the binary dis-
tribution of both the BIA and RAs’ involvement scores, the 10-point
scale was generalized to two categories of involvement: little or no
involvement (0 to <5), with the majority of scores three or lower,
and active or high involvement (5–10), with the majority between
6 and 8.
The second part of the analysis compared community
groups’ overall level of involvement to various neighbor-
hood socioeconomic characteristics using the census data. The
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test statistic, a non-parametric method for
testing similarity of distributions between groups, was used to
compare the two involvement categories with the census data
and two group characteristics (date formed and geographic size
of catchment). The geographic size of catchments was calculated
by mapping each group in ArcGIS 9.2 onto street maps, based on
the boundaries provided during the interviews. While number of
members was initially considered, the groups’ defined member-
ship is different ways, making standardization of this measure very
difficult.
The third part of the analysis examined the relationship between
BIA and RAs’ level of involvement and the extent of municipal urban
Table 2
Level of involvement scoring scheme for BIAs and RAs.
Variable Score
BIA RA
Three most important issues: any vegetation related 1 2
Vegetation related committee: its activities and existence 1 2
Acquired funds from town/city for beautification project and its use 1 0
Tree inventory 1 1
Vegetation planting 1 1
Vegetation maintenance 1 1
Involved with vegetation on private property 0 1
Worked with town/city on urban forestry 1 0.5
Worked with RA/NGO on urban forestry 1 0.5
Other vegetation related activities 1 1
Desire/Need to obtain more information on urban forestry 1 0
Total 10 10
T.M. Conway et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (2011) 321–329 325
02468101214
Community Events and Festivals
Marketing & Promotion of Business …
Streetscape and Urban Design
Community Safety & Cleanliness
Beautification
BIA Neighbourhood Branding
Stakeholder & Partnership Development
Parking Issues
Historic Presevation of Downtown
Economic Development
Number of BIAs
Issues
Fig. 2. Top issues addressed by BIAs.
Table 3
Level of involvement scoring scheme for municipalities.
Variable Score
Program for planting new street trees 1
Program for replacing street trees 1
Program to monitor health of street trees 1
Any regulations on removal of street trees by adjacent property
owners
1
Modifications in above regulations over the years 0.25
Any regulations on removal of street trees by adjacent property
owners
1
Modifications in above regulations over the years 0.25
Performance zoning standards or regulation for amount or type of
vegetation on residential property
1
Enforcement and penalties associated with above regulations 1
Municipality led tree planting program on private or publicly
owned land
1
Support for organization(s) engaged in native tree planting on
private property
0.5
Work with other municipalities on urban forestry related policies
or programs
0.5
Any other policies or programs related to urban forestry 0.5
Total 10
forestry policies. In particular, each lower-tier municipality that
contained a BIA or RA included in this study was given an involve-
ment score based on the extent of their policies and programs
focused on street and privately owned trees (Table 3). A chi-square
test was then used to compare each BIA and RA’s involvement
category with its corresponding municipality’s level of involve-
ment category to see if BIAs and RAs with active involvement were
more likely to be in municipalities that were also engaged in urban
forestry activity. Finally, the interview responses were analyzed
to try to identify factors respondents identified as motivators or
limiters of their urban forestry activities. In particular we were
interested in factors that influence the groups’ level of involvement
that may not have been captured in the more quantitative analyses.
4. Results
Of the 58 BIAs and 62 RAs initially contacted, 19 BIAs and 35
RAs agreed to be interviewed, representing 20% and 14% of the total
number identified in the study area. However, a substantial number
of the initial group contacted were no longer active, at least based
on available contact information. Thus, it is likely that the inter-
view sample represents a higher percentage in terms of active BIAs
and RAs, and highlights the somewhat nebulous nature of these
volunteer-dependent groups. The range of RA founding dates was
1929–2009, while BIAs in the study were started between 1970 and
2008. As expected, the average geographic area of the BIAs (0.4 km2)
tends to be smaller than for the RAs (12.6 km2), with groups located
closer to the city center usually having the smallest geographic size.
When looking at the top issues of focus for each group (Fig. 2),
most BIAs were involved in organizing and sponsoring commu-
nity events, while about half of those interviewed considered (1)
streetscape or urban design and (2) beautification, two issues
related to urban forestry, as top priorities. RAs overwhelming
focused on community infrastructure (Fig. 3), which includes
provision and maintenance of roads, parks, schools, etc. While com-
munity infrastructure potentially includes public and private green
infrastructure, built infrastructure tended to be emphasized by
respondents. Interestingly, given RAs historic connection to urban
nature promotion, issues aligned with urban forestry (i.e. beauti-
fication, environment and sustainability) were much less likely to
be the focus of RAs as compared to BIAs.
In terms of level of involvement, 13 of the 19 BIAs interviewed
were considered highly involved in urban forestry related activi-
ties, while only 4 had little or no involvement. Sixteen have planted
vegetation in the last year; 10 annually conduct vegetation main-
tenance activities like weeding, mulching, watering, and providing
tree shelters for winter protection; and 12 have conducted tree
inventories to determine the amount and health of trees, support
large landscaping projects, or as part of a municipal forestry study.
Apart from traditional vegetation projects, some BIAs were also
branching into other types of projects such as water conservation,
planting ‘living’ fences, and encouraging installation of green roofs.
For RAs, 10 of the 35 were highly involved while 25 had little or
no involvement, indicating fewer RAs are engaged in urban forestry
activities as compared to the BIAs interviewed. Twenty-one RAs did
complete some type of vegetation planting last year, 13 engaged in
vegetation maintenance activity, and 10 RAs have conducted a tree
inventory. Additionally, 15 of the 35 RAs have become involved in
protecting trees on private property, although this is typically lim-
ited to notifying municipal officials when developers are (illegally)
removing trees.
The results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests indicate that
none of the group characteristics or surrounding neighbourhoods’
socioeconomic variables are significantly related to BIAs category
326 T.M. Conway et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (2011) 321–329
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Community Infrastructure
Development and Activism
Population and Intensification
Environmental Health
Safety and Security
Municipal Policies and Legislation
Noise and Odour
Housing
Social and Cultural Events
Community Development and Promotion
Beautification
History and Heritage
Humanitarian Work
Environment and Sustainability
Number of RAs
Issues
Fig. 3. Top issues addressed by RAs.
of involvement (Tables 4 and 5). However, there is a moderate
significant relationship between the BIAs and their municipal-
ity (rho = 0.333; p= 0.028), with all highly involved BIAs located
in municipalities also classified as highly active. For the RAs, 5
socioeconomic variables are significantly related to level of involve-
ment, with neighbourhoods that have higher median house prices,
greater percentages of owner-occupied dwellings and single fam-
ily homes, fewer older houses (pre-1946) or more new houses
(1996–2006) associated with RAs that are actively involved in
urban forestry (Table 4). More active RAs also tended to be older
and have slightly smaller catchments (Table 5), but there was
no relationship between RAs and level of municipal involvement
(rho = 0.089; p> 0.1).
Given the lack of significant relationships for the BIAs with the
socioeconomic variables, and possibility for other factors to influ-
ence RAs’ activity level, we were also interested in statements made
Table 4
Results of Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for BIA and RA neighborhood socioeconomic variables between the two involvement score categories: low (<5) and high (5–10).
Census variables BIA RA
Mean Test statistics Mean Test statistics
Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement
Population density (km2) 7000 8589 1.039 3140 5700 1.122
Percent of population with university
education
37 34 0.546 27 34 0.909
Median household income (CAD) 34,713 28,891 1.247 33,606 36,000 0.588
Average value of owned dwelling
(CAD)
422,190 441,154 0.520 486,911 716,329 1.390a
Percent of owner-occupied dwellings 59 50 0.883 67 90 2.031b
Percent of dwellings constructed
before 1946
22 31 0.909 35 11 1.390a
Percent of dwellings constructed
between 1946 and 1970
25 24 0.701 29 24 0.748
Percent of dwellings constructed
between 1971 and 1995
32 34 0.675 24 30 0.962
Percent of dwellings constructed
between 1996 and 2006
21 11 0.597 11 32 1.882a
Percent of dwellings that are single,
semi detached, or row house (i.e. not
an apartment)
44 31 0.701 56 92 2.245b
Percent non-visible minority
(excluding aboriginal)
81 62 1.247 77 69 0.855
Percent South Asian 3 8 0.779 5 6 0.962
Percent Chinese 5 9 0.727 5 10 1.016
Percent of population who speak
English (or English and another
language) at home
89 78 0.185 85 79 0.541
Percent of population who are
immigrants
28 40 0.089 32 37 0.805
aSignificant at p< 0.05.
bSignificant at p< 0.01.
T.M. Conway et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (2011) 321–329 327
Table 5
Results of Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for BIA and RA organizational characteristics between the two involvement score categories: low (<5) and high (5–10).
Organization characteristic BIA RA
Mean Test statistic Mean Test statistic
Low involvement High involvement Low involvement High involvement
Date formed 1991 1988 0.546 1990 1971 1.390a
Catchment area (km2) 0.6 0.4 0.701 17.6 14.9 0.695
aSignificant at p< 0.05.
during the interview that may explain the level of involvement by
the community groups. Analysis of interview responses highlighted
three common factors: individual members’ interests and exper-
tise, initial reason for groups’ formation, and existing conditions in
the neighborhood.
The factor that was most frequently noted by both BIAs
and RAs was related to individuals’ actions, in particular those
who held leadership positions having significant influence over a
group’s engagement with urban forestry. For BIAs this was mostly
expressed in terms of not having the engaged members needed to
conduct projects: “It would be helpful to have more funding and
more people to do the work” (Anonymous BIA); “[for] two years,
which is as long as I have been in this position, there was a so called
[greening] committee but it was doing nothing” (Church Wellesley
Village BIA); and “different executives [from different time periods]
do different things” (Bolton BIA).
Several RAs noted that a lack of expertise in their organization
meant that there was little or no interest in starting urban forestry-
related projects:
They’re all volunteers so we bring in people as much as we
can but there aren’t always enough experts in the field. We
have lawyers and engineers, but the people involved are mostly
donating their time so it’s difficult for the association to gain
undivided attention (Kleinburg RA).
A lack of expertise was less of an issue for BIAs, possibly because
they have a stable budget to hire professionals: 8 of the 19 BIAs said
that they hire a horticulturalist or landscaping company to do most
tasks.
RAs also frequently highlighted how one or two key people
influenced the focus of the entire group. For example, quite a few
RA responses underscored how individuals with particular inter-
ests helped establish the groups’ current urban forestry-related
projects: “[we] have someone on the board of directors who is an
expert on native trees” (Kingsway RA); several people are “into that
green effort and such” (Oshawa RA) and “one of the association’s
directors works for Environment Canada; she was instrumental in
[identifying] guidelines and was also head of the [tree inventory]
sub-committee” (Vellore Woods RA). The representative inter-
viewed from the Palmerston RA attributed the creation of their
successful backyard tree planting program to one individual who
is an environmental educator.
A second factor that may explain RAs activity level in particular
is the original motivation for creating the group. Several RAs formed
in reaction to a particular issue, usually regarding development or
redevelopment of part of their neighborhood. In some cases, the
group never branched out beyond this activity. For example, the
Chapman Park Community Ratepayers’ Association formed to fight
a proposed development and “have only opposed a developer twice
and [we] haven’t had to do anything else”. On the other hand, the
representative from the Lisgar RA said his group formed to protect
a stream corridor in their then new development, and have been
planting trees along that corridor for the last 18 years.
Third, existing conditions in a BIA or RA’s catchment also con-
tributed to the group’s current activity level. BIA respondents
tended to mention a lack of physical space as a major limiter of their
activities, illustrated by this comment from the York-Eglington BIA:
“there is little room for trees other than those already present.”
Other BIAs said that they engaged in activities out of necessity given
existing conditions: “we want to keep the neighborhood clean and
safe for everyone,” and dead or dying trees impacted peoples’ safety
(Toronto Entertainment District BIA). Thus, the group had to engage
in vegetation maintenance since the trees were already present
and the BIA did not want them to become unsafe or aesthetically
unpleasant.
Several RAs indicated that the existing tree canopy helps define
their neighborhood, making it natural for the RA to address issues
around urban forestry. For example, the representative from Mark-
land Homes RA stated that
Markland woods has trees, in fact, it is [the] logo... it is a trea-
sured part of the community and that [is] very important to us
because all of the all tall timbers and pines were all chopped
out. So this is all a second growth from about 180 years ago.
The sentiment was echoed by the North Rosedale RA, who iden-
tified residents’ interest in tree canopy and green spaces a result
of these features prominence in the neighborhood. The interest
in urban forestry activity in areas with extensive tree cover pro-
vides an explanation for the positive correlation we found between
RAs activity level and neighborhood house values, as wealthier
neighbourhoods are often more likely to have higher canopy cover
(Heynen and Lindsay, 2003; Landry and Chakraborty, 2009). Thus,
RAs appear to be feeding the positive feedback loop between neigh-
borhood wealth and urban forest cover.
5. Discussion
The analysis of the BIAs and RAs included in this study indicate
the level of urban forestry activities varies between the groups.
While differences in activity level do not necessarily translate into
differences in on-the-ground conditions, due to the myriad of fac-
tors shaping the urban forest, at a minimum uneven levels of
activity create inequalities in the level of influence community
groups’ likely have over management of their local trees. Further-
more, RAs in wealthier neighbourhoods, with higher levels of single
family homes and owner-occupancy, tended to be more active; this
is the same type of neighborhood that tends to have higher canopy
cover (e.g. Landry and Chakraborty, 2009).
While BIAs are relatively more involved in urban forestry related
activities than RAs, the level of activity by BIAs in this study was not
related to the surrounding neighbourhoods’ socioeconomic condi-
tions. There are at least three plausible explanations for the lack
of significant relationship. First, the relatively strong relationship
between BIAs and municipalities likely moderates the impacts of
BIAs’ neighborhood conditions. In general, the BIAs included in the
study worked closely with their municipality, with 16 of the 19
specifically mentioning their relationship with the municipality’s
urban forestry or parks department. Additionally, the BIAs often
participate in joint municipal projects or receive material, expert
knowledge, and funding to carry out urban forestry activities. Thus,
328 T.M. Conway et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (2011) 321–329
in municipalities that emphasis urban forestry the BIAs did as well.
However, future research should determine if the municipal–BIA
relationship fosters greater inequalities between areas with and
without BIAs, as oppose to between BIAs.
A second explanation for the lack of significant relationship
between BIAs’ involvement and neighborhood socioeconomic con-
ditions may be that physical space is so limited for certain BIAs
that it obscures any neighborhood correlations. However, while
the respondents did repeatedly mention space limitations, their
involvement scores were generally higher than RAs, in part because
of our broad description of urban forestry, suggesting that many
of these groups are finding creative ways to be involved. Finally,
a relationship between BIA activity and neighborhood socioeco-
nomics may exist but was not captured by the statistical analysis,
in part because the census tract, used to define neighbourhoods in
this study area, may not be well correlated with BIAs’ catchments.
This explanation is supported by some evidence from the interview
responses that indicated that a BIAs’ context is related to their pri-
orities, with a general pattern of BIAs in poorer neighbourhoods
emphasizing safety (by enhancing security and/or promoting their
BIA as a safe place to shop) as a top issue, over the streetscaping
and beautification focus of other BIAs. Alternately, the majority of
customers for some BIAs may not live in the surrounding neigh-
borhood, and the BIA’s actions may reflect the expectations of their
actual customer base, not local residents.
The RAs included in our study, on the other hand, seem to
more clearly contribute to uneven urban forestry activity between
neighbourhoods that others have previously document: RAs in
neighbourhoods with higher priced houses, dominated by single
family dwellings, and greater rates of owner-occupancy tended to
be more involved with urban forestry activities. The positive rela-
tionship for neighbourhoods with more houses built in the last 10
years potentially highlights the many opportunities that exist for
tree planting in new developments. While the race variables, per-
cent of households speaking English and new immigrants were not
significantly related to involvement level, these are relatively sim-
ple measure of ethnocultural diversity. A more detailed exploration
of the GTAs many ethnocultural groups’ urban forest preferences
and activities is needed.
Finally, the importance of individuals shaping RAs activities was
not surprising given that these are volunteer-lead organizations
that, unlike BIAs, do not have steady sources of income. The RAs that
are actively involved with urban forestry are dependent on volun-
teers’ time and expertise, donation of materials, and/or occasional
grants. But while these groups can be positively led by one or two
individuals, reliance on volunteers for these types of projects means
that in several cases respondents noted that their projects stopped
when a key individual left the group, highlighting the dynamic
nature of urban forestry activities by many RAs.
The interviews also signalled that RAs interest in urban for-
est management is based on RA members’ perceptions of current
canopy conditions. For example, several RAs noted that the mature
trees in their neighbourhoods were a defining feature of the area,
thus there was interest in protecting that resource. In this way, RAs
can contribute to the positive feedback loop associated with uneven
urban forest distributions, with neighbourhoods that already have
extensive urban forests more interested in managing them than
neighbourhoods where there are currently fewer or smaller trees.
And while it is the current conditions that are influencing the
level of importance placed on trees today, the existence of a
mature canopy is often a result of socioeconomic conditions several
decades earlier (Boone et al., 2010).
The role of historic context is best exemplified by the Parkdale
Residence Association in Toronto. The Parkdale neighborhood was
developed around 1900, with large homes built for wealthy res-
idents. However, starting in the latter half of the 20th Century,
many of the single family homes were converted to apartments and
rooming houses, and the neighborhood experienced a shift towards
lower income residents. In the last decade or so there has been some
gentrification of the neighborhood, in part because of the historic
homes. There is also a significant mature tree canopy that the RA
is working to protect. While interest in the tree canopy is likely
partially related to the gentrification that is occurring, the canopy’s
existence is very much a legacy of Parkdale’s wealthy status in the
first half of the 20th Century rather than today’s socioeconomic
conditions, highlighting how current RA activity may be shaped by
legacy effects. And, of course, the success of today’s management
activity will determine the health of the tree canopy in years to
come.
While we examined the type and overall level of urban forestry-
related activity by a sample of BIAs and RAs in the GTA, it is
important to remember that these activities occur for a variety of
reasons. BIAs are primarily interested in supporting businesses and
attracting customers, so will likely engaged in planting and tree
maintenance to the extent it can help fulfill those primary goals.
For example, one BIA stated that they conducted their tree inven-
tory primarily to figure out how many Christmas lights they needed
to hang, ensuring there were enough branches to host their display;
while the inventory may lead to the planting of more trees it will
be driven by objectives associated with holiday decorations rather
than environmental considerations.
In addition, several BIA respondents said that they engaged in
certain activities because they wanted to portray a ‘green’ image
since that is what consumers are looking for today. It is unclear if
their activities will continue at current levels if consumer interest in
environmental qualities wanes. Though less pronounced, the same
pattern of engaging in urban forestry activity if it helped meet their
primary goals also existed with the RAs. In this case their primary
goal was maintaining property values, thus based on our inter-
views, RAs were equally concerned about residents who did not
mow their laws as they were about developers and homeowners
who cut down mature trees.
6. Conclusion
Urban forests provides a broad range of benefits to communities,
with recent research supporting the hypothesis that poorer neigh-
bourhoods and those dominated by minority-groups and renters
have less canopy cover, therefore experience fewer benefits. Our
investigation into two types of community groups suggests that
RAs engage in uneven levels of urban forestry activity, which has
the potential to create inequalities in canopy cover, while BIAs’
level of activity is related to their municipality, raising questions
about differences between commercial areas with and without
BIAs. Future research should focus on how both community actors
directly and indirectly influence the actions of individual property-
owners, municipal departments and elected officials, who, in turn,
may foster additional inequalities. Finally, the research highlights
the need for municipal programs, environmental NGOs, and others
to address the gaps left by BIAs and RAs in an effort to minimize
the uneven distribution of the urban forest.
References
Anderson, L.M., Cordell, H.K., 1998. Influence of trees on residential property values
in Athens, Georgia (USA): a survey based on actual sales prices. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 15, 153–164.
Beito, D.T., Gordon, P., Tabarrok, A. (Eds.), 2002. The Voluntary City: Choice, Com-
munity, and Civil Society. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Boone, C.G., Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M., Schwarz, K., Buckley, G.L., 2010. Land-
scape, vegetation characteristics, and group identify in an urban and suburban
watershed: why the 60s matter. Urban Ecosyst. 13, 255–271.
Briffault, R., 1999. A government for our time? Business Improvement Districts and
urban governance. Columbia Law Rev. 99 (2), 365–477.
T.M. Conway et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 101 (2011) 321–329 329
CAL, 2003. An Introduction to Community Association Living. Community Associa-
tions Institute, Alexandria, VA.
Conway, T.M., Hackworth, J., 2007. Urban pattern and land cover variation. Can.
Geogr. 51 (1), 43–57.
Conway, T.M., Urbani, L., 2007. Variations in municipal urban forestry policies: a
case study of Toronto, Canada. Urban For. Urban Green. 6 (3), 181–192.
Donovan, G.H., Butry, D.T., 2010. Trees in the city: valuing street trees in Portland,
Oregon. Landsc. Urban Plan. 94 (2), 77–83.
Emmanuel, R., 1997. Urban vegetation change as an indicator of demographic trends
in cities: the case of Detroit. Environ. Plann. B 42, 415–426.
FitzGiggon, J., Summers, S., 2002. Report on tree conservation by-laws in south-
ern Ontario. School of Rural Planning and Development, University of Guelph,
Guelph, ON.
Fraser, E.D.G., Kenney, W.A., 2000. Cultural background and landscape history as
factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. J. Arbor. 26 (2), 106–113.
Fung, T., Sui, W., 2000. Environmental quality and its changes, an analysis using
NDVI. Int. J. Remote Sens. 21, 1011–1024.
Grineski, S., Bolin, B., Boone, C., 2007. Criteria air pollution and marginalized pop-
ulations: environmental inequity in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona. Soc. Sci. Q.
88 (2), 535–554.
Grove, J.M., Cadenasso, M.L., Burch, W.R., Pickett, S.T.A., Schwarz, K., O’Neil-Dunne, J.,
Wilson, M., Troy, A., Boone, C., 2006. Data and methods comparing social struc-
ture and vegetation structure of urban neighbourhoods in Baltimore, Maryland.
Soc. Nat. Resour. 19 (2), 117–136.
Heynen, N., 2006. Green urban political ecologies: toward a better understanding of
inner-city environmental change. Environ. Plann. A 38, 499–516.
Heynen, N.C., Lindsay, G., 2003. Correlates of urban forest canopy cover: implications
for local public works. Public Works Manage. Policy 8 (1), 33–47.
Heynen, N., Perkins, H.A., Roy, P., 2006. The political ecology of uneven green space:
the impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmen-
tal inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Aff. Rev. 42 (1), 3–25.
Hope, D., Gies, C., Zhu, W., Fagab, W.F., Redman, C.L., Grimm, N.B., Nelson, A.L., Martin,
C., Kinzig, A., 2003. Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. 100 (15), 8788–8792.
Hoyt, L., Gopal-Agge, D., 2007. The Business Improvement District model: a balanced
review of contemporary debates. Geogr. Compass 1 (4), 946–958.
Iverson, L.R., Cook, E.A., 2000. Urban forest cover of the Chicago region and its relation
to household density and income. Urban Ecosyst. 4, 105–124.
Landry, S.M., Chakraborty, J., 2009. Street trees and equity: evaluating
the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environ. Plann. A 41,
2651–2670.
Martin, C.A., Warren, P.S., Kinzig, A.P., 2004. Neighborhood socioeconomic status
is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighbor-
hoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69, 355–
368.
McDonnell, M.J., Pickett, S.T.A., 1990. Ecosystem structure and function along
urban rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71 (4),
1232–1237.
Merse, C.J., Buckley, G.L., Boone, C.G., 2009. Street trees and urban renewal: a Balti-
more case study. Geogr. Bull. 50, 65–81.
Mitchell, J., 2003. Business Improvement Districts and innovation service delivery.
In: Abramson, M.A., Kieffaber, A.M. (Eds.), New Ways of Doing Business, IBM
Endowment for the Business of Government. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers,
Inc., Maryland, USA.
Morales, D., Boyce, B.N., Favretti, R.J., 1976. The contribution of trees to residential
property values: Manchester, Connecticut. Valuation 23 (2), 26–43.
Nelson, R.H., 2005. Private Neighborhoods and the Transformation of Local Govern-
ment. Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC.
Nowak, D.J., Noble, M.H., Sisinni, S.M., Dwyer, J.F., 2001. People and trees: assessing
the US urban forest resource. J. Forest. 99 (3), 37–42.
Payton, S., Lindsey, G., Wilson, J., Ottensmann, J.R., Man, J., 2008. Valuing the benefits
of the urban forest; a spatial hedonic approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 51 (6),
717–736.
Pedlowski, M.A., Adell, J.J.C., Heynen, N.C., 2002. Urban forest and environmental
inequality in Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Urban Ecosyst. 6,
9–20.
Perkins, H.A., Heynen, N., Wilson, J., 2004. Inequitable access to urban reforestation:
the impact of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests.
Cities 21 (4), 291–299.
Schaller, S., Modan, G., 2005. Contesting public space and citizenship: implications
for neighborhood Business Improvement Districts. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 24 (4),
394–407.
Smardon, R.C., 1988. Perception and aesthetics of the urban reforestation: the impact
of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests. Cities 21 (4),
291–299.
Smith, R.M., Gaston, K.J., Warren, P.H., Thompson, K., 2005. Urban domestic gar-
dens (V): relationships between landcover composition, housing and landscape.
Landsc. Ecol. 20 (2), 235–253.
Stokes, R., 2007. Business Improvement Districts and small business advocacy: the
case of San Diego’s citywide BID program. Econ. Dev. Q. 21 (3), 278–291.
Stone Jr., B., 2004. Paving over paradise: how land use regulations promote residen-
tial imperviousness. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69, 101–113.
TABIA, 2007. TABIA: Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas.
http://www.toronto-bia.com (accessed 08.08.10).
Talarchek, G.M., 1990. The urban forest of New Orleans – an exploratory analysis of
relationships. Urban Geogr. 11, 65–86.
Troy, A.R., Grove, J.M., O’Neil-Dunne, J.P.M., Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L., 2007. Pre-
dicting opportunities for greening and patterns of vegetation on private urban
lands. Environ. Manage. 40, 394–412.
Wakefield, S., Bienefeld, M., Jermyn, L., 2007. Preliminary Report of the Multicul-
tural Yard, Health and Environment Project (MYHEP). Centre for Urban Health
Initiatives, University of Toronto, Toronto.
Wall, B.W., Straka, T.J., Miller, S.E., 2006. An econometric study of the factors influ-
encing participation in urban and community forestry programs in the United
States. Arboric. Urban For. 32 (5), 221–228.
Ward, K., 2007. Business Improvement Districts: policy origins, mobile policies and
urban livability. Geogr. Compass 1 (3), 657–672.
Wickware, G.M., Rubec, C.D.A., 1989. Ecoregions of Ontario. Ecological Land Classi-
fication Series, No. 26. Sustainable Development Branch, Environment Canada,
Ottawa.
