MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402330504 · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2024.105406

Measuring and modelling values, beliefs and attitudes about urban forests in Canada and Australia

2024· article· en· W4402330504 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Camilo Ordóñez, Dave Kendal, Stephen J. Livesley, Tenley M. Conway

Bibliographic record

VenueCities · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAustralian Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsGeographyRegional science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nature-based solutions are informed by how communities think about nature. However, research on how urban communities think about urban nature is seldom carried out across urban contexts. In doing so it can be useful to select specific aspects of urban nature, such as urban forests and urban trees. Our study responds to these needs by measuring the cognitive constructs of values, beliefs, and attitudes towards urban forests and modelling their relationships using a representative survey of >3400 residents living across two different urban contexts: Toronto, Canada, and Melbourne, Australia. Means difference, generalized linear regression, and structural equation analyses, were used to test how values, beliefs, and attitudes differed between metropolitan areas, and how they related to other cognitive constructs, social-ecological context, and demographic factors. We found that resident values and beliefs (more abstract and general constructs) about urban trees were similar across metropolitan areas, but some attitudes (more specific and variable constructs) were different between metropolitan areas, including residents' level of trust in how municipalities manage urban forests and their level of satisfaction with trees and their management. Female residents, and residents who had higher levels of nature relatedness and subjective wellbeing, valued urban forests more. Values, beliefs, and knowledge of trees were significant drivers of resident satisfaction with trees and their management. We discuss implications for urban nature policies. • We evaluated people's values, beliefs, and attitudes associated with urban forests. • We compared representative data between cities, Melbourne and Toronto. • Values and beliefs were similar across cities. • Attitudes, including trust in cities and satisfaction with trees, varied across cities. • Understanding how communities think about urban nature can lead to better policies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCitiesSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207