MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pathways towards equity: Solutions-focused workshops with urban greening professionals

2025· article· en· W4411092577 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kaitlyn Pike, Lorien Nesbitt, Daniel Sax, Cecil C. Konijnendijk, Susan D. Day, Tenley M. Conway, Amber Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueLandscape and Urban Planning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsGreeningUrban greeningEquity (law)Environmental planningBusinessEnvironmental resource managementGeographyPolitical scienceEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban green governance refers to the complex network of actors working across sectors to manage urban vegetation. While recent research has identified barriers to addressing green space inequities, there has been much less focus on how these barriers interact as self-reinforcing systems or on potential solutions. This study explores how urban greening professionals understand and operationalize pathways toward more equitable governance, applying a multidimensional justice framework that considers distributional, procedural, and recognitional aspects of equity. We conducted participatory workshops with 28 urban greening professionals in two Canadian metro regions, using a Future Wheel methodology that had participants collaboratively analyze barriers to equity and strategies for addressing them across seven locally relevant greening initiatives. Participants’ equity-related concerns included documented experiences of recognitional injustice, ambiguity regarding implementation processes, and competing priorities between actors. These concerns were reinforced by interconnected barriers: limited resources, insufficient coordination, and systemic constraints from existing governance structures. To overcome these challenges, participants recommended policy changes that prioritize multi-level collaboration and community engagement throughout planning processes. Participants believed addressing these interconnected barriers would have mostly positive implications—including improved governance capacity, more meaningful community engagement, and more equitable access to green spaces—though some acknowledged potential negative outcomes such as displacement or political backlash. Our findings highlight how barriers to equity persist through mutually reinforcing feedback loops, demonstrating the importance of reflexive, collaborative governance approaches that can address multiple dimensions of equity simultaneously while remaining adaptable to local contexts.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandscape and Urban PlanningSame topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207