Aligning urban forest management actions with urban sustainability goals: A multi‐city expert elicitation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract City leaders are setting ambitious plans to achieve critical urban sustainability goals such as reducing urban heat, mitigating flooding during storms, and conserving biodiversity, and increasingly rely on urban forests as a key nature‐based solution to such challenges. Current paradigms of urban forest management typically prioritize goals like increasing tree canopy cover that are often viewed as proxies for increased ecosystem service provision, in a general sense. However, urban foresters, the professionals with responsibility to manage urban forests, are increasingly faced with the complex challenge of managing for new goals related to ecosystem services, biodiversity, or people–nature relationships, as cities increasingly set goals centered on such outcomes, without robust guidelines to follow. We ask: How can urban foresters align their street tree management actions with specific urban sustainability goals? We conducted a structured expert elicitation of urban forest professionals in three cities: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, United States; and Washington, DC, United States. A socio‐ecological lens was used to examine urban foresters as agents of change in urban ecosystems. Participants assessed the impacts of 40 direct management actions on five goals: (1) canopy cover increase and tree risk reduction, (2) urban heat reduction, (3) people–nature relationships, (4) wildlife habitat, and (5) stormwater interception and infiltration. While certain actions (e.g., in the mature tree maintenance phase) were selected as needed to advance every goal, experts identified numerous actions which aligned with one or several goals, but not all. Preplanting actions, specifically site selection and species selection, presented the greatest opportunities to advance specific goals, suggesting that aligning this phase with city sustainability goals is critical. Participants were highly confident in being able to advance all goals through street tree management, but were more confident in being able to advance the goals of increasing canopy cover while reducing tree risk and of mitigating urban heat, possibly because these goals more closely align with traditional canopy cover goal setting. This research underscores the necessity of considering site‐level ecosystem management actions to advance strategic sustainability goals, while also revealing the complexity of the role and responsibilities of professionals who manage urban ecosystems.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».