What we learned: Community Workshops

Trees as living relatives: Participants emphasized that Indigenous communities view trees as living relatives who hold traditional knowledge and are vital survival and well-being. Approaching forest management as a reciprocal relationship rather than viewing it as asset management or resource management. Prioritizing the health of trees and forests is vital for community health and well-being.

Indigenous participation and stewardship: Strong support for the City to decolonize forest management through Indigenous participation was expressed. This included land back for Indigenous stewardship and the support for Indigenous community members to spend time on the land and forests including committing resources to help Indigenous people get to know their relatives and ancestors (trees and forests) so they can learn to care for them as well as supporting youth mentorship programs and cultural conservancies.

Working with community and relationship building: There is a strong desire for the City to build long-term relationships with nations allowing more time and confidence to contribute more to plans like the Forest Management Strategy. Participants also wanted to see ongoing long-term relationships with community like All Our Relations Land trust, Little Forest Kingston, and the Kingston Native Centre and Language Nest to support cultural life and Indigenous knowledge. This also included community engagement with developers and Indigenous peoples to support the rural and urban forests.

Ecological and climate: Healthy forests are seen as critical for climate resilience and an opportunity to protect and support local ecosystems. Participants wanted tree planting to make sure the right trees are planted in the right places so they will succeed and to consider other options like native plants, hedgerows, or pollinator meadows where trees won’t be successful. Participants strongly supported the removal of invasive species of tree.

Policy and legislation: Existing bylaws and policies are seen as favouring development over tree retention or replacement and so there is a strong desire to see these revisited to prioritize more retention and protection of existing trees and sustainable development. Site development guidelines to address rainwater management and treed areas as well as design. There was also interest in the City addressing loopholes landowners temporarily plant corn on a site, allowing for tree removal, before changing the use from agricultural to development. While participants favoured strengthening existing policy tools they wanted the City to be careful with any private tree bylaws not to negatively impact low-income or new homeowners and to provide support for them with tree care and to not over legislate but to look for community solutions and incentives. Greater transparency from the City Council regarding development and impacts on trees

Incentives for canopy growth: There was a strong desire to see the City expand incentives and partnerships to increase tree planting and maintenance including partnering with community groups already engaged in this work to support them. Other ideas included looking for way to incentive converting low-production agriculture lands to woodland cover encouraging lawn replacement.

Ecosystem-Centered and Holistic Approach: Participants emphasized the importance of adopting an ecosystem-based approach to Rural and Urban Forest management. They expressed a desire for integrating ecological corridors into the Forest Management Strategy.

Balancing Development and Protecting Existing Trees: Strong support was expressed for policies that protect existing trees and woodlands during development. Participants recommended that new developments include parkland and align with the 3-30-300 rule, which recommends that every home, school, or workplace have view of at least 3 trees, have 30% tree canopy cover within the neighbourhood, and be within 300 meters of a green space.

Private Land By-Laws: There was strong backing for the introduction of private tree by-laws to encourage landowners to protect and maintain trees on their properties. The cities of Oakville and Toronto were suggested as successful examples of implantation.

Incentivizing Best Practices: Alongside by-laws, there was a call for policies that encourage best practices on private land. These policies might cover areas such as lawn maintenance, and how individuals can manage their properties to support the broader ecosystem

Building a Community Culture that Supports the RUF: There was a desire to cultivate a community culture that values and supports trees, encouraging residents to take pride in their local tree canopy and contribute to its preservation. This includes educating citizens and implementing policies that promote best practices for managing the RUF in a holistic manner.

Supporting Capacity Development: Participants advocated for funding to support RUF care, with an emphasis on building expertise within the city. This includes hiring more tree experts and providing education for by-law officers.

Expanding the Tree Canopy through Community Programs: Participants suggested various programs to help expand and enhance the city’s tree canopy, such as community gardens, Little Forest programs, community nurseries, and pocket forest initiatives. Exploring potential land acquisition for tree planting was also seen as a promising way to increase the RUF.

Learning from Other Cities: Examples from other cities, such as Summit Circle in Montreal, Victoriaville and Reforest London, were mentioned as potential models for Kingston to follow.

Kingston as a Leader in Forest Management: The workshop concluded with the recognition that great cities are built around strong, thriving urban forests, such as those in London and New York. Participants expressed a clear desire for Kingston to position itself as a local leader through the sustainable management of the Rural Urban Forest.

Balancing Needs: Identifying tree disservices, such as poorly located trees and balancing risk management, legislative development, and canopy growth. Ensuring costs and resourcing are matched to the plan proposal.

Environmental challenges and forest management: Challenges with the Limestone bedrock close to the surface and clay soil can be challenging for tree growth. Participants recommended a focus on species selection that will work in the soil conditions here. They also suggested other practices like succession planting and careful selection of planting locations valuing location quality over quantity.

Community engagement and activation: Working with community groups to leverage local expertise regarding invasive species management, tree management and planting was strongly supported. As well as developing incentives including financial incentives, for private landowners to plant more tress and support them in retaining existing trees.

Policy and legislative tools: Participants discussed the limitations of the planning act and current tree bylaw and expressed there was strong desire to see protections put in place. This included applying the City’s tree permit process to all private landowners, and a strong desire to see rules requiring developers to retain more trees, create tree protection plans earlier in the development process, to involve arborists in their plans and to use new innovative ways to retain trees during construction. Cost, resourcing and current response times for permit processing were raised as concerns.

Innovation and creative solutions: Thinking outside of traditional policy tools was another topic that had strong support. This included looking at buying up land as available to create small forest lots throughout the city. Better coordination between utilities transit and other right of way stakeholders to create planting corridors and reduce conflict between infrastructure and trees, or reducing road widths to allow space for trees and infrastructure. Green infrastructure was also suggested in places where traditional tree planting might not be feasible, including green roofs.

Other case studies: Participants pointed to a number of other jurisdictions around the world as examples the City should learn from as it relates to tree protection in development from including more generally Europe for advanced planting and maintenance practices as well as the UK for tree preservation requirements in development. Specific examples included the Town of Oakville for its calculation of tree canopy needs in development applications, Brooklyn Pier Park and Toronto’s Leslie Street Lookout for selective naturalization to reduce maintenance and Hamilton’s project to convert some surface parking lots to green spaces.