MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415099608 · doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2025.129114

Small decisions as social and ecological leverage points for cities to meet sustainability goals: A synthesis for urban forestry research and practice

2025· article· en· W4415099608 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Corinne G. Bassett, Susan D. Day, Cecil C. Konijnendijk, Lara A. Roman

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban forestry & urban greening · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSustainabilityUrban forestryUrban forestEcosystem servicesForest managementLeverage (statistics)Context (archaeology)Urban sustainabilityUrban planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While urban forest management is increasingly held up as a nature-based solution to myriad urban challenges, major gaps exist in research and practice in the links between decision-making at different scales and their impacts on different dimensions of sustainability. Where are the key levers to change the future of urban forests, and set cities on more sustainable pathways? Using street trees as a generalizable, focal unit of analysis, the Street Tree Futures research project explored urban foresters’ influence on strategic goals, particularly goals to increase ecosystem services. In the context of the United States and Canada, we explored how urban foresters are able to effect change through direct tree-level management (i.e. decisions which physically affect trees), as a necessary precursor to improving indirect management (e.g. policies, education, outreach). This article is a synthesis of a series of studies examining these issues from multiple dimensions and culminating in a focus group of cross-sector urban forestry experts. Overall, we establish that often undervalued small, site-level, decisions are not only necessary for urban tree survival and growth but are also key points of influence where urban foresters’ expert knowledge contribute to large-scale strategic sustainability goals. Overlooking site-level decisions leads to missed opportunities to foster interdisciplinary collaboration, and most importantly, advance towards multiple critical sustainability goals. • Urban foresters are often isolated from other sustainability efforts in their cities. • Practitioners sum up this common mentality as “my goals vs. their goals”. • Urban forest management decisions can align with strategic sustainability goals. • Urban tree life cycle phases are leverage points for different sustainability goals. • These leverage points are opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.022
Scholarly communication0.0190.021
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.006
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban forestry & urban greeningSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207