Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321081850
CITATION READS
1 146
3 authors, including:
Natalie Gulsrud
University of Copenhagen
13 PUBLICATIONS 25 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Urban woodland in Europe - What can NFI tell us? View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Natalie Gulsrud on 23 November 2017.
Environmental Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envres
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: A nature-based approach to climate resilience aims to challenge and re-frame conventional environmental
Urban green infrastructure management methods by refocusing solutions from technological strategies to socio-ecological principles such as
Community engagement human well-being and community-based governance models, thereby improving and legitimizing the delivery of
Nature-based solutions ecosystem services (ES). There are, however, many challenges to applying a socio-ecological agenda to urban
Urban climate resilience
climate resilience and thereby re-framing ES delivery as community and people focused, a knowledge gap ex-
tensively outlined in the environmental governance literature. In this paper, we aim to contribute to this re-
assesment of urban environmental governance by examining the City of Melbourne's approach to urban re-
naturing governance from a place-based perspective. Here we focus on the city's internationally-acclaimed urban
forest strategy (UFS), investigating how and to which extent the governance arrangements embedded within the
UFS draw strength from diverse perspectives and allow for institutional arrangements that support “situated”
reflexive decision making and co-creation. We find that Melbourne's UFS governance process fosters green
placemaking by re-focusing climate adaptation solutions from technological strategies to situated socio-ecolo-
gical principles such as human well-being and community-based decision making. In this sense, this case pro-
vides valuable insight for the broader UGI governance field regarding the opportunities and challenges asso-
ciated with a socio-cultural approach to urban re-naturing and ES delivery.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nagu@ign.ku.dk (N.M. Gulsrud), Kelly.Hertzog@melbourne.vic.gov.au (K. Hertzog), Ian.Shears@melbourne.vic.gov.au (I. Shears).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005
Received 22 December 2016; Received in revised form 31 October 2017; Accepted 1 November 2017
0013-9351/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
N.M. Gulsrud et al. Environmental Research 161 (2018) 158–167
perceived as harbingers of “environmental bads” (Anguelovski, (Beatley and Newman, 2009; Ferguson et al., 2013; Siemens, 2014).
2016:25; Buizer et al., 2016; McPhearson et al., 2016). Cases from di- The case of Melbourne can, therefore, be situated in a broader context
verse cities have shown how the economic imperative of delivering of global cities seeking ecological solutions to climate resilience. Ana-
ecosystem services through urban greening campaigns has raised issues lyzing the governance of Melbourne's UFS allows for revelatory insight
of “ecological gentrification” whereby so-called revitalization invest- into the city's community-based approach to environmental problem
ments in urban greening in run down areas have led to raised land solving and management (Yin, 1989). We end the paper by discussing
values and the displacement of community members (Checker, 2011; the implications of the Melbourne case for the broader UGI governance
Dooling, 2009; Safransky, 2014). Along this line, there are many ex- context and conclude by assessing green placemaking seen from a
amples of the overly “technocratic” tendencies of an ecological focus in nature- based approach to climate resilience.
urban re-naturing, revealing the heavily-contested nature of large-scale
tree planting campaigns and the transformation of post-industrial 2. Operationalizing a place-based approach to environmental
spaces into parks (Gulsrud and Ooi, 2014; McKendry and Janos, 2014). governance
Further studies show that ethno-cultural preferences and a lack of
“sense of belonging” impact the distribution of cultural ecosystem 2.1. Theoretical frame
services in UGI planning raising the question of which services are
provided through ecological networks and for whom? (Byrne, 2012; The soci-cultural lens we introduce in this paper is a place-based or
Wolch et al., 2014). This implies a lack of local socio-cultural context in “situated” approach to environmental governance (Cote and
urban environmental governance, management, and planning, a Nightingale, 2012:482) whereby the governing of UGI implementation
knowledge gap highlighted by Kabisch et al. (2016) in their assessment and subsequent ES delivery allows for contested, diverse, and ever-
of a how a nature-based solutions approach to climate resilience could changing place attachment values (Williams, 2014). The governance of
impact environmental governance. UGI implementation and ES delivery can be understood as the collec-
Scholars have accordingly called for a re-assessment of urban en- tive steering of decision-making involved in the control and manage-
vironmental governance to fill this knowledge gap, moving from a ment of physically and functionally interconnected networks of green
scientific and technocratic “view from nowhere” to an enriched socio- spaces, ranging from woodlands and parks to community gardens
cultural view that is deeply place-based (Buizer et al., 2016; (Lovell and Taylor, 2013; Wurzel et al., 2013). Idealized arrangements
Frantzeskaki and Kabisch, 2016; Haraway, 1992; Williams, 2014:74). of UGI governance span the range of hierarchical to reflexive en-
Tuan (1977) illustrates how a place-based approach to inquiry allows vironmental maneuvering, whereby “green statism” calls for a tightly
for consideration of the dynamic human emotions and relationships state-controlled implementation of UGI and delivery of ES,“eco-man-
involved in individual's and group attachment to a specific location or agerialism” calls for restricted cooperation between the state and non-
place. Williams (2014) demonstrates how the act of placemaking can state actors such as citizens and NGOS, and “reflexive” advocates for
mediate contested social practices and institutional arrangements the broad dispersion of power between expert and non-expert actors
creating space for competing and diverse identity claims. Buizer et al. and transdisciplinary networks (Buizer et al., 2016; Luke, 2009)(Fig. 1).
(2016) suggest that a place-based approach to UGI planning and ES Local and reflexive knowledge is understood in this context as the
delivery could contextualize and shed light on new and reflexive plat- pluralistic and varied positions of awareness and meaning associated
forms for environmental governance, allowing for diverse and con- with a place and is informed by daily interactions based on concrete
flicting accounts of urban nature values and claims to belonging. Cote activities (Buizer et al., 2016; Cote and Nightingale, 2012; Williams,
and Nightingale (2012:482) also appeal for a “situated” approach to 2014).
resilience by conceptualizing local knowledge as a “process, performed Williams (2014:75) helps us understand how varied positionings of
in the everyday” thereby challenging the homogenization of local socio-cultural “awareness, knowledge and meaning” are conceptualized
knowledge frequently modeled into socio-ecological systems. In this in understandings of place and offers a powerful framework of how
sense, a place-based approach to urban climate resilience could provide diverse readings of place meaning can be situated in a UGI governance
a rich socio-cultural account of UGI planning by re-framing and med- context (Fig. 2). According to Williams, place-based discourses typically
iating understandings of ES delivery through processes in which local identified in UGI governance can be classified according to various
citizens iteratively create and recreate the green landscapes in which ontological and epsitemological assumptions moving from an inherent
they live. or objective shared understanding of place to a deeply-personal and
This paper aims to contribute to this re-assesement of urban en- subjective conception of place (Table 1). The first two surface mean-
vironmental governance by examining the City of Melbourne's ap- ings, “inherent” and “instrumental” are the layers of place generally
proach to urban re-naturing governance from a place-based perspec- legitimzed in UGI governance processes while “socio-cultural” and
tive. Here we focus on the city's internationally-acclaimed urban forest “identity-expressive” concepts of place are frequently neglected in UGI
strategy (UFS), investigating how and to which extent the governance policy due to the difficulty of modeling and managing intangible and
arrangements embedded within the UFS draw strength from diverse personal knowledge (Buizer et al., 2016; Edge and McAllister, 2009;
perspectives and allow for institutional arrangements that support “si- Williams, 2014).
tuated” reflexive decision making and co-creation (Buizer et al., 2016; Analyzing a UGI governance process through a place-based lens
Cote and Nightingale, 2012; Edge and McAllister, 2009; Raymond et al., raises questions regarding how much power and agency citizens’ var-
2010). The City of Melbourne is an appropriate case for this analysis as ious place-based perspectives are granted within a given policy process
it represents an opportunity to reveal and analyze new and or unique and thus invites an inquiry into how local knowledge is conceptualized
phenomenon within the context of nature-based solutions to climate and deliberated through nested social and political processes. This
resilience and ES delivery through urban re-naturing. The city of Mel- perspective also provides necessary insight into the lessons learned
bourne is facing three substantial challenges: climate change, popula-
tion growth and urban heating which threaten to undermine the quality
of life and wellness of city residents and ravage its urban tree popula-
tion (City of Melbourne, 2012a). At the same time, the City of Mel-
bourne has been recognized by its peer-city-leaders in the C40 Cities
Climate Leadership Group and academics alike as a fore-runner city
with an exemplary and ambitious approach to urban re-naturing for Fig. 1. Continuum of idealized UGI governance arrangements (adapted from Arnouts
et al. (2012) and based on Luke (2009) and Buizer et al. (2016)).
climate resilience including extensive citizen engagement efforts
159
N.M. Gulsrud et al. Environmental Research 161 (2018) 158–167
Table 1
Examples of place meaning based on (Williams, 2014).
Varied dimensions of place meaning in UGI governance from generalizable and shared to contextual and personal
A place identity that is collectively shared A place identity that refers to the objective A perspective on place that refers to the An approach to place that taps into the
and understood by all, such as a city's needs all individuals might have in any contested and diverse expectations and intangible, emotional, and spiritual
reputation as a green, “garden city” city, such as clean air and clean water, and norms various groups and cultures in an meanings ascribed by individuals to a
due to its tree-lined boulevards and is potentially generalizable across similar urban populace ascribe to landscape place which give individuals a sense of
parks as outlined in green city landscapes and bio-regions as reflected in attachment. These norms are socially and self and an attachment to place. An
branding literature (Gulsrud et al., discourses of ecosystem services (Nowak culturally constructed by historical, example could be a citizen's strong
2013). and Dwyer, 2007). sociological and geographical aspects of attachment to an individual street tree as
day- to day life. Wolch et al. (2014) illustrated by Lo and Jim (2015).
and Williams (2014:77) raise the example
that neighborhood parks can serve as social
“territories” of ethnic group identities
where some feel a sense of belonging and
others can feel excluded.
160
N.M. Gulsrud et al. Environmental Research 161 (2018) 158–167
defined (municipal and citizen) ambitions for the workshop. For ex-
ample, citizen input data from the neighborhood workshops for the
Melbourne Urban Forest Precinct Plans was categorized based on ci-
tizen driven concepts such as “places we value,” “important land-
scapes,” “hopes for the future,” “locations for more greening,” and
municipal driven concepts such as the overall vision for the neighbor-
hood's urban forest, community preferences for vegetation color and
shapes, tree species, and tree location. Neighborhood children were also
consulted in the process, awarding prizes to their favorite photos of
diverse landscapes with high and or low canopy trees in various colors
and shapes. E-governance exchange data consisted of emails sent from
citizens to 70,000 geo-tagged municipal trees in Melbourne. Data was
gathered between 2013 and 2015 and during this time over 3000
emails were sent to trees. Of the 3000 emails, municipal officers ran-
domly chose 100 emails and categorized them based on a citizen's re-
action(s) to a tree. Categories identified included adoration, nostalgia,
concerns at tree decline and recognition of loss, humor, poetry and art,
Fig. 4. A layered approach to investigating UGI governance, moving from the broad to grief, and curiosity. Social media exchanges were gathered by searching
the focused perspective. for key phrases such as “Melbourne Urban Forest Strategy,” “save the
elms Melbourne,” “citizen forester Melbourne,” “natives vs. exotics
documents relating directly to the UFS. Interviews (10) were conducted Melbourne,” and “tree removal Melbourne.” Searches were conducted
with employees of the City of Melbourne sustainable urban landscapes to gague citizen reactions to UFS initiatives and social learning between
division and members of the city council active in the environmental citizens (Linders, 2012). Similarly newspaper articles and editorials
policy realm. In 2011 the interviews (4) were semi-structured with the were gathered to gague citizen opinion on the UFS and evaluate shifts
aim to better understand UGI governance arrangements and uncover in citizen values and assumptions over the initial implementation
normative assumptions associated with ecological approaches to urban period of the UFS. Layer 4 data was analyzed in a descriptive manner
re-naturing and citizen engagement. In 2016 interviews (6) were using Williams' (2014) layers of place meaning framework with the aim
structured to investigate 1) drivers and challenges involved with com- to identify how citizens related to place and landscape from an inherent
munity engagement and co-creation and 2) the capacity for shared to an identity expressive level. Additionally data was analyzed de-
learning and diverse notions of landscape and place in the UFS. Policy scriptively to evaluate citizen engagement and ownership over shared
documents concerning the UFS were collected and analyzed fwith focus learning and co-creation (Buizer et al., 2016; Cote and Nightingale,
on the inherent and instrumental descriptions of place as well as the 2012).
allocation of power and resources between actors. Together these data layers were analyzed as a nested and on-going
Layer 4 data was gathered by municipal employees from 2011 to political and socio-cultural process. Emphasis was placed on identifying
2017 drawing on citizen input from municipality-led community converging place-based narratives regarding Melbourne's UGI govern-
workshops on UFS initiatives (6), e-governance exchanges from the ance and these narratives were then related to Williams' (2014) layers
municipal digital platform Urban Forest Visual (100 e-mails), social of place meaning framework (Hajer, 2002). All data was triangulated
media exchanges between citizens on blogs and chat forums (8), and and verified by peer-reviewed literature (Yin, 1989). This was done to
newspaper editorials concerning citizen perspectives on urban trees and investigate how the nested governance arrangements embedded within
the UFS (10). Data from community workshops draws on input from the UFS engage in and support reflexive decision making and co-crea-
approximately 920 citizens and was gathered and analyzed based on co- tion.
161
N.M. Gulsrud et al. Environmental Research 161 (2018) 158–167
Table 2
Case study data sources sorted by data layer.
Melbourne City Council: Council Urban Forest Strategy 2012 Community Consultation Report: City of Carlton consultation results March
Plan 2013 − 2017 Melbourne Draft Urban Forest Strategy 2012 2013
Melbourne City Council: Council Urban Forest Precinct Plans 2013 − 2023 Unleashing the potential of nature in South Yarra consultation results May
Plan 2017 − 2021 Melbourne: the community workshop report 2013
2015
City of Melbourne 10 year Melbourne Urban Forest Visual City of Melbourne Aboriginal Heritage Action Central City consultation results
Financial Plan 2015 − 2025 Plan 2015 – 2018 2013
Climate Adaptation Strategy 2009 The City of Melbourne's Future Urban Forest: Future Melbourne 2026 bringing your ideas North & West Melbourne
Identifying vulnerability to future temperatures together consultation results December 2013
2016
Open Space Strategy 2012 2011 Interviews (4) 2016 interviews (6) Docklands consultation results March
2014
Urban Forest Strategy 2012 (3) City of Melbourne employees from the division (4) City of Melbourne employees from the Kensington consultation results April
of sustainable urban landscapes division of sustainable urban landscapes 2014
Total Watermark City as a (1) Melbourne City Council member (2) city council members E-governance exchanges (100)
Catchment 2014
Growing Green Guide 2014 Social media articles (8)
Climate Adaptation Strategy 2017 Newspaper articles (10)
Nature in the City Strategy 2017
3. Results ecosystems. Between 1995 and 2009, The City of Melbourne suffered
extreme hot weather resulting in drought, water shortage, and heat
3.1. Layer 1: The UGI governance context from inherent to instrumental waves that killed several hundred people, elevating extreme heat to the
representations of green place identity number one cause of weather-related deaths in urbanized Australia
(Krafft and Fryd, 2016). These same trends threatened the long-term
The City of Melbourne has a clear inherent and instrumental green health of the city's extensive urban forest (Kendal et al., 2012). The
place identity supported by a balance of eco-managerialist and reflexive immediate response of state and city leaders was to drastically reduce
UGI governance arrangements. Colonial founders of Melbourne pro- the irrigation of the city's urban forest and remove a large percentage of
moted the city as a green and livable”garden city.” Nineteenth-century the city-owned street trees, a plan which would have reduced the re-
British colonials drastically altered the landscape of Melbourne, an silience of Melbourne's urban green infrastructure and capacity for the
important meeting place for many Aboriginal tribes (Ives et al., 2013). delivery of much needed climate mitigating ecosystem services (City of
Landscape revisions at the time included planting vast stands of non- Melbourne, 2011a). But city officials, moved by community concerns
native European tree species to shade the sun-drenched alleys of Mel- surrounding the drought-ridden and degraded state of the urban land-
bourne and provide green public spaces in a rapidly developing urban scape, specifically the urban trees, prompted a long-term strategic
area (City of Melbourne, 2012a). This green, garden city reputation has process focused on community wellness and urban landscape resilience
carried over into current times as since 2010 the Melbourne City (City of Melbourne, 2011a). More recently citizens have been engaged
Council has adapted an ecosystem-based approach to climate adapta- in contributing visions and concrete suggestions for Melbourne's green
tion to improve livability and resilience at the cost of over 60 million future in UGI co-governance forums such as the on-line Participate
Australian dollars (City of Melbourne, 2015, 2013a; Melbourne City Melbourne forum, pop-up face-to-face-engagement sessions across the
Council, 2017). Melbourne's approach focuses on a host of inter-linking city, stakeholder workshops and target discussion groups (City of
UGI strategies to increase storm-water harvesting and urban green Melbourne, 2016a). The City of Melbourne 10 Year Financial Plan for
space as well as enhancing biodiversity and supporting the greening of 2015–2025 was heavily influenced by a “People's Panel” made up of
buildings with green roofs, walls, and facades (City of Melbourne, diverse and representative citizens of Melbourne, including residents,
2017b, 2017c, 2014a, 2012a, 2012b). These strategies are set in place businesses, and students, who voted in 2014 that Melbourne in 2025
to secure the quality and resilience of the urban fabric against threats of should be “one of the world's most livable cities,” and should be “re-
climate change, population growth, and urban heating with the overall cognized internationally for its successes in sustainability and response
goal of cooling Melbourne by 4 °C. Melbourne's green reputation is to climate change”(City of Melbourne, 2015, 2014b).
widely acknowledged in an international context. Since 2011, Mel-
bourne has been ranked annually as the most “livable” city in the world
by the Economist Intelligence Unit (Eiu, 2016), an entrepreneurial 3.2. Layer 2: The UFS as case – balancing eco-managerialism with reflexive
group that assesses cities based on economic stability indicators asso- UGI governance
ciated with environment, infrastructure, health care, culture, education
and stability (Krueger and Gibbs, 2007). Additionally, scholars herald The UFS is a central strategy in Melbourne's ecosystem-based ap-
Melbourne as a best practice case study in green urbanism and climate proach to climate adaptation and underpins the city's aim to create
adaptation, citing the city's progressive and forward thinking UGI healthy ecosystems for people and nature. Launched in 2012, the
governance practices (Beatley and Newman, 2009; Ferguson et al., strategy builds off of the Melbourne Open Space Strategy to increase
2013; Leeuwen, 2017) community wellness and resilience by increasing the amount and
Reflexive co-governance is critical to the success of Melbourne's UGI quality of the city's urban green infrastructure. The UFS aims to double
regime as they aim to connect citizens with nature to foster social re- Melbourne's existing tree canopy cover of 20–40% over the next 20
silience, wellbeing, and a sense of stewardship over the natural en- years, while increasing the diversity of the urban tree stock (City of
vironment (City of Melbourne, 2017b). Citizens played an active role in Melbourne, 2012a). Strategy implementation relies on a balance of
politicizing the link between community health, wellness, and resilient technical expertise and situated citizen knowledge by drawing actively
on “the community's sense of place and capacity for change… to ensure
162
N.M. Gulsrud et al. Environmental Research 161 (2018) 158–167
163
N.M. Gulsrud et al. Environmental Research 161 (2018) 158–167
tree plantings. All data on the platform is open to public purusal and Nick writes,
can be accessed via the City of Melbourne's open data portal. Another
“Dearest Green Leaf Elm 1025301, I am so sad to learn that you, the first
essential feature of the platform is a digital map of Melbourne's pub-
magnificent thing I see upon exiting Parliament Station each morning, are
lically-managed trees, symbol coded to indicate tree genus and color
on the decline. Please know that you imbue my days with fresh happiness
coded to indicate tree health and life expectancy. Viewers can zoom in
right when I need it most, before I crawl into a fluorescent lit office to
to an individual tree data point and learn about the individual tree's
trudge away most of my day. Thank you. I will endeavor to appreciate
genus and life expectancy. Each tree is assigned a specific email ad-
you more in the years to come. Much love from your adoring friend,
dress, an idea that originated in the interest of citizens concerned about
Nick” (City of Melbourne, 2016b).
at-risk trees and tree maintenance issues (City of Melbourne, 2016b).
Municipal employees have, however, been overwhelmed with “love The City of Melbourne facilitates reflexive co-governance in the UFS
letters” to the trees from local citizens of all ages as well as visitors to fostering daily opportunities for citizens to share and discuss personal
the city expressing their appreciation for and connection to Melbourne's situated knowledge and attachment to urban trees and landscapes.
urban trees (City of Melbourne, 2016b).
A five-year old boy, named Oliver, writes: 4. Discussion
“Hi tree, It's Oliver here (5 y/o). What color flowers do you have? How
This case reveals that the City of Melbourne is working with a
old are you? How big are you? Do you have a bird nest? How much do
variety of UGI governance arrangements that facilitate reflexive deci-
you weigh? I love the interactive map. You are a crymbia tree and come
sion making, the legitimation of situated local knowledge, and co-
from Western Australia (my mum says). From Oliver” (City of
production. Here initial research has shown that the UFS supports
Melbourne, 2016b).
multi-level and collaborative approaches to urban re-naturing, balan-
The Melbourne Urban Forest Visual provides a digital context for cing and linking objectives of biodiversity with those emphasizing
citizens to consistently engage in local place narratives and forge new socio-ecological resilience (Buizer et al., 2016). These governance ar-
socio-cultural understandings associated with the urban forest. rangements support broad stakeholder involvement and draw upon
socio-cultural and identity expressive place-based narratives of local
3.5. Layer 4: fostering identity expressive green place-attachment landscapes fostering the rights and and responsibilities of citizens as
urban ecosystem managers (Buijs et al., 2016b; Fors et al., 2015;
The City of Melbourne has actively worked to foster social resilience Williams, 2014). Additionally UFS governance arrangements facilitate
through the UFS, engaging with individual citizens’ sense of place and knowledge co-production processes that legitimize diverse and con-
expert knowledge regarding their local green heritage and landscapes. tested citizen knowledge of urban ecosystems (Cote and Nightingale,
The municipality has viewed citizens as experts, or “citizen foresters,” 2012; Frantzeskaki et al., 2016). Melbourne's UFS governance process
facilitating the training of interested citizens in urban tree care (City of fosters green placemaking by re-focusing climate adaptation solutions
Melbourne, 2017b). One such activity has included genetic sampling of from technological strategies to situated socio-ecological principles
Elm trees to evaluate resilience to pests and disease and mapping of such as human well-being and community-based decision making. In
understory vegetation. Over 200 samples have been collected by citizen this sense, this case provides valuable insight for the broader UGI
foresters, connecting citizens to local biodiversity and their role in governance field regarding the opportunities and challenges associated
protecting it. As one citizen forester, who identifies herself as an ex- with a socio-cultural approach to urban re-naturing and ES delivery.
perienced horticulturalist reflects:
4.1. Reflexive decision making as mosaic governance
“The council has been working with the community and have organised a
group of volunteers called Citizen Foresters to help identify and collect
Cities are increasingly becoming more socially and culturally di-
elm leaves in the Fitzroy Gardens. I went along and learnt a lot about
verse and this poses a challenge to the inclusive governance of UGI and
identifying elms. Gosh, have I been walking around all this time and not
ES delivery (Buizer et al., 2016). Urban environmental governance
noticed the differences?… Yes. It was a really great morning. First,
literature reveals the complexity associated with accounting for con-
Amelia and David (one the City of Melbourne's arborists) taught us how
tested social practices with competing and diverse identity claims to
to distinguish the different elms features. It seems that a lot of what we
belonging (Byrne, 2012; Williams, 2014). This is specifically pertinent
think are English Elms are actually Dutch Elms, that is Ulmus x hol-
in urban re-naturing campaigns as city officials strive to connect people
landica” (Pullman, 2014).
with nature to facilitate social resilience and human wellbeing (Buijs
Along these lines, citizens are sharing knowledge with each other et al., 2016b; Raymond et al., 2016; van den Bosch and
regarding the future development of Melbourne's urban forest. In May Nieuwenhuijsen, 2017). We can then draw on elements of the colla-
2016, a citizen posted a video of a big tree being moved at Lincon borative governance approaches from the Melbourne UFS to discuss
Square in central Melbourne. The individual followed up with an in- opportunities of engaging in socio-cultural approaches to urban re-
formative post explaining that the tree, a Blue Atlas Cedar, was being naturing and ES delivery. In the UFS, Melbourne adopts a reflexive
temporarily located up the block to allow for the excavation of an un- governance platform to facilitate a context sensitive approach to UGI
derground water tank. An exchange between users of the site ensued planning and implementation accounting for diverse landscapes, com-
whereby citizens were teaching citizens about the principles and aims munity identities, and specific practices of active citizen groups (Buizer
of the UFS. As one user writes: et al., 2016; Cote and Nightingale, 2012; Vierikko et al., 2016). The
neighborhood precinct plans engage the deep and divisive socio-cul-
“Established trees in the city of Melbourne are valued at around $80,000
tural place meanings surrounding the aforestation of Melbourne, and
I believe, or there abouts. So when a developer wants to remove a tree to
acknowledge the social and ecological identities of geographically di-
help with construction they have to pay a bit to get that happening and
verse sections of the city. Working at a site-specific level allows local
CoM organize a younger replacement (they are trying to diversify the
authorities the opportunity to engage with voices often silenced by
current species of trees within the cbd so drought and disease doesn't wipe
dominant friends groups such as children, the elderly, and socio-eco-
out every tree in the cbd at once)” (Brunswoo and drawnimo, 2016).
nomic diverse populations, engendering environmental learning and a
The Melbourne Urban Forest Visual has also provided an opportu- greater sense of place (Bendt et al., 2013). The Urban Forest Visual
nity for citizens to express extremely personal narratives regarding in- supports citizen co-management of UGI by giving them a platform for
dividual trees on the record with the municipality. A citizen named social learning and engagement with challenging discussions regarding
164
N.M. Gulsrud et al. Environmental Research 161 (2018) 158–167
the impact of climate change on the management of tree diversity. The 4.3. Situating green placemaking as a nature-based approach to climate
literature shows that digital governance can empower new and often resilience
unheard voices, specifically youth and those unable to make meetings
(Akom et al., 2016). These situated governance approaches acknowl- A nature-based approach to climate resilience aims to improve and
edge that there is not just one ideal combination of governance in- legitimizing the delivery of ES by refocusing solutions from technolo-
struments but rather that optimal and resilient UGI planning is reliant gical strategies to socio-ecological principles such as human well-being
on what Buijs et al. (2016b) term a “mosaic governance” approach. Key and community-based governance models (European Commission,
to this approach is coordination by local authorities that recognizes the 2015; Kabisch et al., 2016). Results from this analysis demonstrate that
autonomy of the individual and their situated expertise in social-eco- the City of Melbourne has achieved a nature-based solutions approach
logical resilience (Buijs et al., 2016b; Cote and Nightingale, 2012). to climate resilience by combining pluralistic place-based community
values associated with urban re-naturing to technical solutions asso-
ciated with UGI and ES delivery (Eggermont et al., 2015). Melbourne
4.2. Knowledge legitimation and co-production
has achieved this through symbolic and deliberative community en-
gagement including Type 1 and Type 2, or “inherent” and “instru-
Rapid urbanization and fluctuating climates are pressuring urban
mental,” place-based narratives of local landscape in the UFS govern-
green spaces and the subsequent delivery of ES (Gómez-Baggethun and
ance process (Fig. 6). Additionally, Melbourne augments an eco-
Barton, 2013; McPhearson et al., 2015). In order to support UGI plan-
managerialist approach to UGI implementation and ES delivery by ac-
ning and protect existing urban green spaces, planning and governance
tively engaging Type 3 and Type 4 understandings of place and urban
approaches are needed that bridge different types of knowledge – from
landscape, drawing on concrete and reflexive processes of social
expert to citizen – to engage broad public support while accounting for
learning and co-creation (Fig. 6) (Edge and McAllister, 2009; Buizer
competing value systems (Andersson et al., 2015; Cote and Nightingale,
et al., 2016). Melbourne's UFS governance process illustrates the nested
2012; Frantzeskaki et al., 2016). Melbourne's approach to community-
social and political typologies of green placemaking involved in urban
based planning in the UFS illustrates the opportunities involved with
re-naturing and provides valuable insight regarding the opportunities
legitimating diverse forms and systems of ecological knowledge and
and challenges of integrating local knowledge into ecological decision
provides insight into novel forms of green co-creation. The neighbor-
making.
hood-scale planning for the UFS brings transparency and openness to
the governance process (Crowe et al., 2016). Designing the future urban
forest in line with community aspirations and expectations fosters 5. Conclusion: green placemaking as a nature-based solution to
adaptive co-management and knowledge sharing about urban ecosys- climate resilience
tems (Fors et al., 2015; Frantzeskaki and Kabisch, 2016). The Mel-
bourne Urban Forest Visual further emphasizes citizens as co-managers The results and analysis of this paper highlight the “synergies” and
of the UFS as they are encouraged to interact with visualizations of the “tradeoffs” between the integration of community-sourced and place-
risks and challenges associated with climate change and actively plan based preferences of UGI governance and “utilitarian” ES delivery,
for future tree plantings based on time and place-specific local pre- pointing to reflexive green placemaking as a successful model for robust
ferences (Lange et al., 2013). E-governance exchanges with the city's ES delivery and urban climate resilience supported by concrete ex-
trees promote concerned citizens as environmental stewards and eco- amples of co-creation and social learning (Eggermont, 2015; Buizer
logical memory keepers (Andersson and Barthel, 2016) as their emo- et al., 2016; Kabisch et al., 2016). This analysis suggests that a green
tional and personal emails to trees record and pass along biocultural placemaking approach to UGI governance can successfully include
knowledge of specific trees to the municipality that could be critical to “other knowledge systems outside of modern science” such as local
future ecological restoration efforts (Colding and Barthel, 2013). The place-based perspectives (Williams, 2014; Eggermont, 2015) and can
Urban Forest Visual platform e-mail exchanges with trees legitimates actively facilitate pluralistic views of landscape based in hybrid un-
and celebrates diverse citizen perceptions and emotions attached to derstandings of place (Fig. 6). In this regard, a green placemaking ap-
urban nature (Tuan, 1977; Williams, 2014), an approach that falls in proach to UGI governance and climate resilience can be seen as in-
line with the argumentation of Haraway (1992) and Williams (2014) tegrating socio-cultural and scientific knowledge to successfully
calling for a shift in UGI governance from a scientific and technocratic promote and achieve higher-levels of urban biodiversity (Eggermont,
“view from nowhere” to an enriched socio-cultural view that is deeply 2015; Buizer et al., 2016; Kabisch et al., 2016). There are nested social
place-based. This re-framing and mediating of ES delivery is especially and political challenges and complexities associated with green place-
pertinent in urban re-naturing campaigns where planning processes making as illustrated through the Melbourne case and the overlapping
frequently fail to take into account diverse community values (Ordóñez- rationalities of UGI governance represented in Fig. 6. Challenges of
Barona, 2017) and focus on technical outputs as opposed to community ecological gentrification and institutionalised hierarchies of cultural
empowerment (Buijs et al., 2016b; Lawrence and Ambrose-Oji, 2015). representation must be taken seriously by politicians, community
165
N.M. Gulsrud et al. Environmental Research 161 (2018) 158–167
leaders, and academics alike and warrent in-depth future studies. Based City of Melbourne, 2011a. Personal communication with City of Melbourne.
on this analysis, green placemaking should be seen as a nature-based City of Melbourne, 2011b. Draft Urban Forest Strategy: Future Melbourne (Eco City)
Committee Report. Melbourne.
solution to urban climate resilience. City of New York, 2013. A Stronger More Resilient New-York. New York.
Colding, J., Barthel, S., 2013. The potential of “Urban Green Commons” in the resilience
References building of cities. Ecol. Econ. 86, 156–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2012.10.016.
Cote, M., Nightingale, A.J., 2012. Resilience thinking meets social theory Situating social
Akom, A., Shah, A., Nakai, A., Cruz, T., 2016. Youth Participatory Action Research change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 475–489.
(YPAR) 2.0: how technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708.
revolution in East Oakland. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 29, 1287–1307. http://dx.doi. Crowe, P.R., Foley, K., Collier, M.J., 2016. Operationalizing urban resilience through a
org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1201609. framework for adaptive co-management and design: five experiments in urban
Andersson, E., Barthel, S., 2016. Memory carriers and stewardship of metropolitan planning practice and policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 62, 112–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.
landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 70, 606–614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02. 1016/j.envsci.2016.04.007.
030. Davies, C., Reis, S., Caspersen, H., Hansen, R., Rall, E., Pauleit, S., Lafortezza, R., Bellis,
Andersson, E., Tengö, M., McPhearson, T., Kremer, P., 2015. Cultural ecosystem services Y., De, Santos, A., Tosics, I., Gerőházi, E., Tönkő, A., Ambrose-Oji, B., van der Jagt,
as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 165–168. http:// A., Smith, M., Stahl-Olafsson, A., Steen-Møller, M., Delshammer, T., Fors, H.,
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.002. Vierikko, K., Kronenberg, J., Nastran, M., Kabisch, N., Haase, D., Konijnendijk, C.C.,
Anguelovski, I., 2016. From Toxic Sites to Parks as (Green) LULUs? New challenges of Pauleit, S., 2015. Green Infrastructure Planning and Implementation: the status of
inequity, privilege, gentrification, and exclusion for urban environmental justice. CPL European green space planning and implementation based on an analysis of selected
Bibliogr. 31, 23–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885412215610491. European city-regions. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1723.0888.
Arnouts, R., van der Zouwen, M., Arts, B., 2012. Analysing governance modes and shifts - Dooling, S., 2009. Ecological gentrification: a research agenda exploring justice in the
Governance arrangements in Dutch nature policy. For. Policy Econ. 16, 43–50. city. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 621–639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.04.001. 00860.x.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016. Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2016 Edge, S., McAllister, M.L., 2009. Place-based local governance and sustainable commu-
[WWW Document]. URL 〈http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3218.0〉 nities: lessons from Canadian biosphere reserves. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 52,
(accessed 31 August 2017). 279–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560802703058.
Beatley, T., Newman, P., 2009. Green Urbanism Down Under: Learning from Sustainable Eggermont, H., Balian, E., Azevedo, J.M.N., Beumer, V., Brodin, T., Claudet, J., Fady, B.,
Communities in Australia. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2009.11.004. Grube, M., Keune, H., Lamarque, P., Reuter, K., Smith, M., van Ham, C., Weisser,
Bendt, P., Barthel, S., Colding, J., 2013. Civic greening and environmental learning in W.W., Le Roux, X., 2015. Nature-based solutions: new influence for environmental
public-access community gardens in Berlin. Landsc. Urban Plan. 109, 18–30. http:// management and research in Europe. GAIA - Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 24, 243–248.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.003. http://dx.doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.4.9.
brunswoo, drawnimo, 2016. Big tree being moved at Lincoln Square : melbourne [WWW Eiu, 2016. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview August 2015, Summary
Document]. Reddit.com. URL 〈https://www.reddit.com/r/melbourne/comments/ Report Liveability Ranking 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425.
4kxdpj/big_tree_being_moved_at_lincoln_square/〉 (accessed 15 September 2017). European Commission, 2015. Towards an EU Research and Innovation policy agenda for
Buijs, A., Elands, B., Havik, G., Ambrose-Oji, B., Cvejic, R., Debellis, Y., Davies, C., Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities. http://dx.doi.org/10.2777/765301.
Delshammar, T., Erlwein, S., Gerőházi, E., Goodness, J., Hansen, R., Fors, H., van der Ferguson, B.C., Brown, R.R., Frantzeskaki, N., de Haan, F.J., Deletic, A., 2013. The en-
Jagt, A., Luz, A., Mattijssen, T., Nastran, M., Steen Møller, M., Otten, R., Rall, E., abling institutional context for integrated water management: lessons from
Santos, A., Spanò, M., Száraz, L., Tosic, I., Vierikko, K., Železnikar, S., 2016a. Melbourne. Water Res. 47, 7300–7314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.09.
Innovative governance of urban green spaces WP6 1. pp. 1. 045.
Buijs, A., Mattijssen, T.J., Van der Jagt, A.P., Ambrose-Oji, B., Andersson, E., Elands, B.H., Fors, H., Molin, J.F., Murphy, M.A., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C., 2015. User partici-
Steen Møller, M.,, 2016b. Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering pation in urban green spaces? For the people or the parks? Urban For. UrbanGreen.
the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Curr. 14, 722–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.05.007.
Opin. Environ. Sustain. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002. Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., 2016. Designing a knowledge co-production operating
Buizer, M., Elands, B., Vierikko, K., 2016. Governing cities reflexively—The biocultural space for urban environmental governance?Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands
diversity concept as an alternative to ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 62, and Berlin, Germany. Environ. Sci. Policy 62, 90–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
7–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.003. envsci.2016.01.010.
Byrne, J., 2012. When green is White: the cultural politics of race, nature and social Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., McPhearson, T., 2016. Advancing urban environmental
exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum 43, 595–611. http://dx. governance: understanding theories, practices and processes shaping urban sustain-
doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.002. ability and resilience. Environ. Sci. Policy 62, 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Chapin, F.S.I., Randerson, J., McGuire, A., Foley, J.A., Field, C., 2008. Changing feed- envsci.2016.05.008.
backs in the climate– biosphere system. Ecol. Front. 6, 313–320. http://dx.doi.org/ Gao, J., Sun, Y., Liu, Q., Zhou, M., Lu, Y., Li, L., 2015. Impact of extreme high temperature
10.1890/080005. on mortality and regional level definition of heat wave: a multi-city study in China.
Checker, M., 2011. Wiped out by the “Greenwave”: environmental gentrification and the Sci. Total Environ. 505, 535–544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.
paradoxical politics of urban sustainability. City Soc. 23, 210–229. http://dx.doi.org/ 028.
10.1111/j.1548-744X.2011.01063.x. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for
City of Melbourne, 2017a. City of Melbourne Daily Population Estimates and Forecasts urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2017 [WWW Document]. URL 〈http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ 2012.08.019.
SiteCollectionDocuments/daily-population-estimates-and-forecasts-report-2017.pdf〉 Grigg, J., 2012. Diversify plantings. Age (Omaha).
(accessed 1 January 2017). Gulsrud, N.M., Gooding, S., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.C., 2013. Green space
City of Melbourne, 2017b. Nature in the city: thriving biodiversity and healthy ecosys- branding in Denmark in an era of neoliberal governance. Urban For. UrbanGreen 12,
tems [WWW Document]. URL file:///C:/Users/tsm183/Dropbox/Writing/ 330–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.03.001.
Melbournelit/nature-in-the-city-strategy.pdf (accessed 1 January 2017). Gulsrud, N.M., Ooi, C., 2014. Manufacturing Green Consensus: Urban Greenspace
City of Melbourne, 2017c. Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Refresh: 2017 [WWW Governance in Singapore, in: Urban Forests, Trees, and Greenspace - A Political
Document]. URL 〈http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/common/public/ Ecology Perspective. pp. 77–92. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315882901〉.
documents/8ce5879f7f85db8-Climate〉 Change Adaptation Strategy.PDF. Hajer, M., 2002. Discourse analysis and the study of policy making. Eur. Polit. Sci.
City of Melbourne, 2017d. Melbourne Urban Forest - Visual [WWW Document]. URL Haraway, D.J., 1992. Simians, cyborgs, and women: the reinvention of nature. Contemp.
〈http://melbourneurbanforestvisual.com.au/〉 (accessed 8 December 2017). Sociol. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2076334.
City of Melbourne, 2016a. Future Melbourne 2026. Ives, C.D., Beilin, R., Gordon, A., Kendal, D., Hahs, A.K., McDonnell, M.J., 2013. Local
City of Melbourne, 2016b. Personal Communication with City of Melbourne. Assessment of Melbourne: The Biodiversity and Social-Ecological Dynamics of
City of Melbourne, 2015. City of Melbourne 10 Year Financial Plan 2015 - 2025. pp. Melbourne, Australia, in: Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services:
2015–2025. Challenges and Opportunities. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 385–407.
City of Melbourne, 2014a. Total Watermark: City as a Catchment 2014. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_20〉.
City of Melbourne, 2014b. Report to the Future Melbourne (Finance and Governance) Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., Haase, D.,
Committee Agenda item 3.1 People’s Panel recommendations on the 10 Year Knapp, S., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Zaunberger, K., Bonn, A., 2016a. Nature-based so-
Financial Plan. lutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on
City of Melbourne, 2013a. Melbourne City Council - Council Plan 2013-17 [WWW indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol. Soc. 21, 39.
Document]. URL 〈https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/ http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239.
council-plan-2013-17.pdf〉. Kendal, D., Williams, N.S.G., Williams, K.J.H., 2012. A cultivated environment: exploring
City of Melbourne, 2013b. East Melbourne Urban Forest Precinct Plan 2013 – 2023. the global distribution of plants in gardens, parks and streetscapes. Urban Ecosyst. 15,
City of Melbourne, 2013c. South Yarra Urban Forest Precinct Plan 2013 – 2023. 637–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-011-0215-2.
City of Melbourne, 2012a. Urban Forest Strategy: Making a great city greener 2012-2032. Krafft, J., Fryd, O., 2016. Spatiotemporal patterns of tree canopy cover and socio-
Melbourne. economics in Melbourne. Urban For. Urban Green. 15, 45–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.
City of Melbourne, 2012b. Open Space Strategy: Planning for Future Growth 27. pp. 27. 1016/j.ufug.2015.10.011.
City of Melbourne, 2012c. Community Consultation Report: City of Melbourne Draft Krueger, R., Gibbs, D., 2007. The sustainable development paradox: Urban political
Urban Forest Strategy. economy in the United States and Europe.
166
N.M. Gulsrud et al. Environmental Research 161 (2018) 158–167
Lange, P., Driessen, P.P.J., Sauer, A., Bornemann, B., Burger, P., 2013. Governing towards its implications for managing urban nature in a multicultural landscape: a systematic
sustainability—conceptualizing modes of governance. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 15, review of the literature. Urban For. Urban Green. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.
403–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.769414. 2017.06.006.
Lawrence, A., DeVreese, R., Johnston, M., Konijnendijk, C.C., Sanesi, G., De Vreese, R., Popa, F., Guillermin, M., Dedeurwaerdere, T., 2014. A pragmatist approach to transdis-
Johnston, M., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.C., Sanesi, G., 2013. urban forest gov- ciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive sci-
ernance: towards a framework for comparing approaches. Urban For. UrbanGreen. ence. Futures. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002.
12, 2011–2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.05.002. Pullman, S., 2014. Save Melbourne’s elms as a citizen forester - GardenDrum [WWW
Lawrence, A., Ambrose-Oji, B., 2015. Beauty, friends, power, money: navigating the Document]. Gard. Drum beating a new path. URL 〈https://gardendrum.com/2014/
impacts of community woodlands. Geogr. J. 181, 268–279. http://dx.doi.org/10. 06/25/save-melbournes-elms-as-a-citizen-forester/〉 (accessed 15 September 2017).
1111/geoj.12094. Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., Weber, D., 2010. The measurement of place attachment:
Leeuwen, C. van, 2017. Water governance and the quality of water services in the city of personal, community, and environmental connections. J. Environ. Psychol. 30,
Melbourne. Urban Water J. 422–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.08.002.
Linders, D., 2012. From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen Raymond, C.M., Gottwald, S., Kuoppa, J., Kyttä, M., 2016. Integrating multiple elements
coproduction in the age of social media. Gov. Inf. Q. 29, 446–454. http://dx.doi.org/ of environmental justice into urban blue space planning using public participation
10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003. geographic information systems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 153, 198–208. http://dx.doi.
Lo, A.Y., Jim, C.Y., 2015. Community attachment and resident attitude toward old ma- org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.005.
sonry walls and associated trees in urban Hong Kong. Cities 42, 130–141. http://dx. Safransky, S., 2014. Greening the urban frontier: race, property, and resettlement in
doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.09.006. Detroit. Geoforum 56, 237–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.
Lovell, S.T., Taylor, J.R., 2013. Supplying urban ecosystem services through multi- 003.
functional green infrastructure in the United States. Landsc. Ecol. 28, 1447–1463. Siemens , 2014. C40 and Siemens honor cities for leadership in tackling climate change •
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y. [WWW Document]. URL http://c40-production-images.s3.amazonaws.com/press-
Lucas, C., 2006. Dry city faces loss of its exotic green heritage. Age (Omaha). releases/images/63_City_Climate_Leadership_Awards_Press_Release_FINAL.original.
Luke, T., 2009. Situating knowledges, spatializing communities, sizing contradictions. pdf?1411406914. (accessed 31 August 2017).
Environ. Gov. Power Knowl. Tuan, Y., 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience.
McKendry, C., Janos, N., 2014. Greening the industrial city: equity, environment, and van den Bosch, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., 2017. No time to lose – Green the cities now.
economic growth in Seattle and Chicago. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 15, Environ. Int. 99, 343–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.025.
45–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10784-014-9267-0. Vierikko, K., Elands, B., Niemelä, J., Andersson, E., Buijs, A., Fischer, L.K., Haase, D.,
McPhearson, T., Haase, D., Kabisch, N., Gren, Å., 2016. Advancing understanding of the Kabisch, N., Kowarik, I., Luz, A.C., Olafsson Stahl, A., Száraz, L., Van der Jagt, A.,
complex nature of urban systems. Ecol. Indic. 70, 566–573. http://dx.doi.org/10. Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C., 2016. Considering the ways biocultural diversity
1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.054. helps enforce the urban green infrastructure in times of urban transformation. Curr.
McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., Frantzeskaki, N., 2015. Resilience of and Opin. Environ. Sustain 22, 7–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.006.
through urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 152–156. http://dx.doi.org/10. Williams, D.R., 2014. Making sense of “place”: reflections on pluralism and positionality
1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012. in place research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 131, 74–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Melbourne City Council, 2017. : Council Plan 2017 - 2021. City of Melbourne. landurbplan.2014.08.002.
Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, Ministry of National Development, Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P., 2014. Urban green space, public health, and en-
2015. Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015, Singapore Ministry of the Environment vironmental justice: the challenge of making cities?Just green enough? Landsc. Urban
and Water Resources and Singapore Ministry of National Development. Singapore. Plan. 125, 234–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017.
Nowak, D.J., Dwyer, J.F., 2007. Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Urban Forest Wurzel, R., Zito, A., Jordan, A.J., 2013. Environmental Governance in Europe: A
Ecosystems. Handb. Urban Community For. North East. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ Comparative Analysis of the Use of New Environmental Policy Instruments.
978-1-4020-4289-8_2〉. Yin, R.K., 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Applied Social Research
Ordóñez-Barona, C., 2017. How different ethno-cultural groups value urban forests and Methods Series. Sage, Newbury Park CA.
167