History of Urban Forests in Canada

The history of urban forests and forestry in Canada and the relationships between people and urban trees are deeply rooted in the natural environment and diverse cultural values of Canadians. Land and forest stewardship that is based on a deep respect for the natural world and harmony with nature has been practiced by Indigenous peoples who have been stewarding the land and waters for millennia (Artelle et al., 2019). Canadian cities and towns have been established on the traditional ancestral territories of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people, whose rights assert their authority to exercise their own jurisprudence and decision-making on these lands (Reo et al., 2017; Artelle et al., 2019; Dietz et al., 2021; Moola et al., 2024). 

However, these rights were not recognized by English and French colonizers, who brought their European land use values and drastically changed the land and forest. They stripped Indigenous people of their land, resources, rights, knowledge, governance, and their way of land stewardship (Youdelis et al., 2021; Mansuy et al., 2023; Townsend and Roth, 2023). European settlers perceived the land primarily as a resource for extraction and an opportunity for short-term profit. This mindset led to rapid changes and degradation of the forests and lands. What was once a lush landscape, rich with forests and wetlands, was permanently changed due to deforestation, resource extraction, and the establishment of permanent settlements, villages, towns, and farms.

European settlers established permanent villages and towns, introducing various new land use practices, including farms, residential areas, permanent roads, railways, parks, cemeteries, and industrial zones, to name a few. These changes in land use, coupled with a century of intensive deforestation and degradation, resulted in environmental problems such as erosion and stream sedimentation within a few decades of settlement (e.g. In Ontario by the late 1800s). Driven by the economic cost that environmental degradation and deforestation caused, the first government-led conservation movement started in Ontario at the turn of the 20^th century. Trees, once seen solely as timber value and revenue, were recognized as being important for stabilizing soils, sheltering homes from winds, providing shade, stopping stream sedimentation, and providing food and beauty around homes and settlements.  Due to poor environmental conditions in urban areas, city dwellers began to yearn for more green spaces and escape to natural surroundings outside the cities. This prompted the creation of some of the first parks within or in proximity to urban centres, such as Stanley Park in Vancouver, BC (1888), High Park in Toronto, ON (1873), Mont-Royal Park in Montreal, QC (1876), and Point Pleasant Park in Halifax, NS (1866). These early urban parks are now iconic and indispensable to the urban fabric of these cities. 

The creation of natural and manicured parks, urban tree plantings, and the practice of European-style gardening and beautification spread across towns and villages and expanded over time. Urban trees were planted and enjoyed for their shade, exotic properties, and beauty. As such, groups dedicated to ‘urban greening’ started to form in cities, such as the Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation group established in 1884 under the name “Committee on public walks and gardens”, and the “Vancouver Park Board” in 1886. For Ottawa, the first municipal response related to urban trees was a bylaw passed in 1869 (Dean, 2005). 

In the early 1900s, a devastating fungal pathogen called Dutch Elm Disease (DED) reached Canada and decimated American elms (Ulmus americana), one of the most popular urban trees. Thus, the urban tree canopy of many cities in eastern Canada, at the time dominated by elms, was lost. Following the DED outbreak and tree canopy loss across eastern parts of the country, the public and decision-makers started to realize the gap left by the loss of many trees in their communities. The severity of canopy loss from one single pathogen also highlighted the risk of narrow tree selection and the vulnerability of overplanting one singular tree species. It also highlighted the need to strategically manage urban trees and parks to prevent such catastrophes in the future.

In the 1960s, this vulnerability was recognized by a forward-thinking forest pathologist named Dr. Erik Jorgensen, who was conducting research on tree diseases, including DED, at the University of Toronto. Prevention and tree-protection measures had been one of the main focuses of his work for nearly a decade. In the 1950s, he estimated that ninety percent of the trees on the University of Toronto St. George campus were American elms (Ulmus americana) vulnerable to DED (Dean, 2009). As a researcher, he witnessed the devastation that DED caused while recognizing that the problem could have been mitigated by proper tree management and care. Dr. Jorgensen and Brigadier J. F. Westhead lobbied municipal politicians and representatives to create a united front against DED, establishing the Dutch Elm Disease Control Committee for Metro Toronto in 1962. 

Eventually, the loss of elms and tree canopy in urban areas was so significant that Dr. Jorgenson coined the term “urban forestry” in 1974 and pioneered the first urban forestry program at the University of Toronto. Once defined, urban forests became more recognized and urban tree management and similar departments were created in larger cities, such as Toronto in 1965 and Montreal in 1977 (Jorgensen, 1974; Desbiens, 1998). While these departments were under various names, such as parks and recreation, they started to practice ‘urban forestry’ and related activities. In many cities, these departments have since been re-named and are now urban forestry departments, while some cities still practice ‘urban forestry’ under various municipal departments (Puric-Mladenovic & Bardekjian, 2023) or agencies within a city. For example, urban forests and trees in Ottawa are managed by several bodies, including the National Capital Commission, the Federal Ministry of Transportation, Hydro Ottawa, Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department, and the Public Works and Environmental Services Department, to name a few (Bider, 2024). 

In the mid-1970s, with the expansion of urban forestry across larger municipalities, the Dutch Elm Disease Control Committee of Toronto (piloted by Dr. Jorgensen) expanded into the Ontario Shade Tree Council, a province-wide network with a broader mandate of managing trees in the urban area (Dean, 2009). About the same time, the first federal urban forestry program called ‘A Forest for Man’ started. While it only lasted until 1979, the movement continued with the first International Conference on Urban Forests that same year, which was held at Laval University (Rosen & Tree Canada, 2015). 

In the next couple of decades, while many municipalities across Canada had developed urban forestry or urban forestry-related departments, there was still a lack of cohesion across provincial and national scales. To address this gap, an NGO called Tree Canada was established in 1992 (Tree Canada, 2024). Being the only national NGO with an urban forestry portfolio, Tree Canada partnered with the Ontario Shade Tree Council as well as professionals pioneering urban forestry in Canada to organize the first Canadian Urban Forest Conference (CUFC) in 1993 in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Tree Canada continued to organize bi-annual conferences, allowing professionals from across Canada to gather and share new innovations and knowledge regarding urban forestry practices, policies, and research (Tree Canada, 2024; Tree Canada, 1993). As an outcome of the 5th Canadian Urban Forest Conference in 2003, the Canadian Urban Forest Network (CUFN) Listserv for urban forestry was formed and the Canadian Urban Forest Network was established as a result (CANUFNET, 2024; CUFN, n.d.).

Urban forestry in Canada continued to evolve from the 1990s to the early 2000s. Another urban forest vulnerability wake-up call came in the early 2000s due to the impact of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) and the loss of ash trees across Ontario and Quebec. Once again, the loss of urban trees prompted increased interest in the conservation of trees, resulting in another jump in urban forestry programs across municipalities. In addition, urban forests and urban forestry were integrated for the first time into Canada’s National Forest Strategy for 2003-2008 (NFSC, 2003). Since 2010, urban forestry as a field has grown across Canada, and about 50% of municipalities with a population greater than 3,000 are funding some form of urban forestry or urban greening department (Puric-Mladenovic & Bardekjian, 2023).

As new environmental and social issues arise in urban areas across Canada, public interest in urban forest conservation and community stewardship of trees is increasing. The goals and values of urban forestry are continually evolving. What initially started as a response to pest control has expanded to include various aspects of urban trees, their value, and management. New topics have emerged, such as green infrastructure, asset management involving trees, and natural climate solutions. Urban forestry in Canada has a rich history, and it continues to develop alongside the growth and intensification of urban areas as well as public awareness about trees and urban forests.