MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408097924 · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104026

History, engagement, and visibility of Indigenous Peoples in urban forest management plans from Canada and the United States

2025· article· en· W4408097924 on OpenAlex
Alexander J.F. Martin, Niigani Migizikwe, Serena Soucy, Amber Grant, Tenley M. Conway

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaGovernment of ManitobaConcordia UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIndigenousVisibilityGeographyForest managementEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningEnvironmental protectionForestryEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental justice in urban forestry is concerned with recognizing and centering the needs of under-engaged communities in planning and decision-making processes. To examine the engagement and visibility of Indigenous Peoples in urban forestry, this study reviewed 181 urban forest management plans (UFMPs) from Canada and the United States. Themes pertaining to Indigenous Peoples were found in only 16 Canadian (22 %) and 27 US (25 %) UFMPs. The most common reference to Indigeneity in the UFMPs briefly referred to the pre-European history of the region, often omitting how settler-colonialism impacted the socio-ecological landscape. Only three UFMPs included a land acknowledgement, despite all cities being located on traditional territory of Indigenous Peoples. Even with a focus on the socio-ecological benefits of urban trees throughout the UFMPs, few referenced socio-cultural and provisioning benefits for Indigenous Peoples specifically. On-going Indigenous engagement was only discussed in one UFMP, although five acknowledged Indigenous engagement in creating the UFMP and eight mentioned plans for long-term engagement. Reconciliation was described in three UFMPs, with one Canadian UFMP referencing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action. Given the deep cultural connection that Indigenous communities share with the environment, the impacts of settler colonialism, and the underrepresentation of reconciliation and decolonization principles with urban environmental planning, it is imperative that Indigenous Peoples be recognized and centered within urban forest planning and decision-making. Supporting engagement and co-governance with Indigenous Peoples acknowledges their rights, traditional ways of knowing, promotes recognitional justice, and helps to foster a more sustainable and just urban future.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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