Prioritizing Street Tree Planting Locations to Increase Benefits for All Citizens: Experience From Joliette, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the climate continues to warm and the world becomes more urbanized, our reliance on trees and the benefits they provide is rapidly increasing. Many cities worldwide are planting trees to offset rising temperatures, trap pollutants, and enhance environmental and human health and well-being. To maximize the benefits of planting trees and avoid further increasing social inequities, a city needs to prioritize where to establish trees by first identifying those areas of greatest need. This work aims to demonstrate a spatially explicit approach for cities to determine these priority locations to achieve the greatest returns on specific benefits. Criteria for prioritization were developed in tandem with the City of Joliette, Canada, and based on nine indicators: surface temperature, tree density, vegetation cover, resilience, tree size and age, presence of species at risk, land use type, socioeconomic deprivation, and potential for active transportation. The City’s preferences were taken into account when assigning different weights to each indicator. The resulting tree planting priority maps can be used to target street tree plantings to locations where trees are needed most. This approach can be readily applied to other cities as these criteria can be adjusted to accommodate specific tree canopy goals and planning constraints. As cities are looking to expand tree canopy, we hope this work will assist in sustaining and growing their urban forest, enabling it to be more resilient and to keep providing multiple and sustained benefits where they are needed the most.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".