DOCSLIB.ORG

Language Spoken Most Often at Home - Lingala by Census Tract

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Language Spoken Most Often at Home - Lingala by Census Tract Language Spoken Most Often at Home - Lingala By Census Tract Steeles Ave E Steeles Ave W d R t S y d t A e l l n b S R i i K o r 130 n m e 116 i n R e e f g r d n o f t n B 36 50 49 n u 21 s 24 o e e D 35 Y 48 d W y Finch Ave E 2 27 Finch Ave W R 129 d E e v d A R 37 s w l l 131 22 e i 34 i 46 117 v 3 M y 52 47 25 51 a n o B Sheppard Ave W D R 132 ex t Sheppard Ave E d S a t le t t 4 S 38 53 s B S l r 1 v e l d e u 118 e n h 128 t e H a N 5 40 a d J K i 26 d 7 g R B R 33 e n 2 h o t v s e York Mills Rd w g y Wilson Ave n v i A a t K a o y S k w r Ellesmere Rd r r h 2 e G a i d e d 134 D g 7 l P i n v R 45 R s i S H w t a 135 23 e A i r n e m L r i 39 a d a d a o v 28 t n M w 126 h R g 29 c a k o i l ixon Rd t n D 105 r i 6 c d n 42 V 137 l 127 a i c r 31 133 32 41 u e a 113 M M M 119 o v C d e m A R v h d g s c 103 A l n R r l i 30 i 8 i l n e B e p M 7 i u d n r K n e 136 o a v 43 115 D W 108 102 A e 112 100 125 v Eglinton Ave E 138 A W e n 44 v d A o 110 140 n t 109 99 R o g nt 101 th i n r l i Eg 10 l 9 107 106 56 55 fo Rd s n 11 I 111 n 124 a to 139 d D gs 41 Bridle Path-Sunnybrook-Y ork Mills 95 Annex R n 91 92 120 Ki e 54 123 42 Banbury-Don M ills 96 Casa Loma u n 97 43 Victori a Village 97 Yonge-S t.Clair 13 90 96 e 58 94 v 44 Flemingdon P ark 98 Rosedale-Moore P ark A 57 15 89 98 45 Parkwoods-Donalda 99 Mount P leasant E ast 114 Bloor St W 59 60 46 Pleasant View 100 Yonge-E gli nton 12 93 95 47 Don V al ley V illage 101 Forest Hil l South 88 Bloor St E 67 Danforth Ave 121 r 48 Hil lcrest Vill age 102 Forest Hil l North D 14 49 Bayview Woods-Steeles 103 Lawrence Park South e 74 d 83 80 i 69 79 75 68 62 122 50 Newtonbrook E ast 104 Mount P leasant West s 71 87 k 51 Willowdale East 105 Lawrence Park North r t 64 a 16 S 81 65 P 86 52 Bayview Village 106 Hum ewood-Cedarvale s 84 76 i 70 78 v 53 Henry F arm 107 Oakwood Village The Queensway r 72 a 73 54 O'Connor-Parkvi ew 108 Briar Hill-Belgravia J 63 85 1 West Humber-Cl airville 55 Thorncliffe P ark 109 Cal edonia-Fairbank 82 77 2 Mount Olive-Silverstone-Jamestown 56 Leasi de-Benni ngton 110 Keelesdale-E glinton West 3 Thi stl etown-B eaumond Hei ghts 57 Broadvi ew North 111 Rockcliffe-S mythe 20 17 4 Rexdale-Kipling 58 Old East Y ork 112 Beechborough-Greenbrook 5 Elms-Old Rexdale 59 Danforth E ast York 113 Weston 18 6 Kingsview V illage-The Westway 60 Woodbi ne-Lum sden 114 Lambton Baby Point 7 Wi llowridge-Martingrove-Ri chvi ew 61 Taylor-Massey 115 Mount Denni s 8 Humber Heights-Westmount 62 East End-Danforth 116 Steel es 19 9 Edenbridge-Humber Valley 63 The Beaches 117 L'Amoreaux L a k e O n t a r i o 10 Princess-Rosethorn 64 Woodbi ne Corridor 118 Tam O'S hanter-Sullivan 11 Eringate-Centennial-West Deane 65 Greenwood-Coxwel l 119 Wexford/Maryvale 12 Markland Wood 66 Danforth 120 Clairl ea-Birchmount 13 Etobicoke West Mall 67 Playter Estates-Danforth 121 Oakridge 14 Isl ington-Ci ty Centre West 68 North Riverdal e 122 Bi rchcliffe-Cliffside 15 Kingsway S outh 69 Blake-Jones 123 Cliffcrest 16 Stonegate-Queensway 70 South Riverdal e 124 Kennedy P ark 17 Mimico 71 Cabbagetown-South St.James Town 125 Ionview 18 New Toronto 72 Regent P ark 126 Dorset P ark 19 Long Branch 73 Moss Park 127 Bendal e 20 Alderwood 74 North S t.James Town 128 Agincourt South-M alvern West 21 Humber Summit 75 Church-Y onge Corridor 129 Agincourt North 22 Humberm ede 76 Bay Street Corridor 130 Mill iken 23 Pelmo Park-Hum berlea 77 Waterfront Communities-The Island 131 Rouge 24 Black Creek 78 Kensington-Chinatown 132 Malvern 25 Glenfiel d-Jane Heights 79 University 133 Centennial Scarborough 26 Downsview-Roding-CFB 80 Palmerston-Li ttle Italy 134 Highl and Creek Legend 27 York University Heights 81 Tri nity-Bellwoods 135 Morni ngside / 28 Rustic 82 Niagara 136 West Hill Lingala 29 Maple Leaf 83 Dufferi n Grove 137 Woburn 30 Brookhaven-Am esbury 84 Li ttl e Portugal 138 Eglinton East 0 31 Yorkdal e-Glen Park 85 South P arkdale 139 Scarborough Vi llage Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2011; City of Toronto. 32 Engl em ount-Lawrence 86 Roncesvalles 140 Guildwood 33 Clanton P ark 87 High P ark-S wansea 1 - 10 34 Bathurst Manor 88 High P ark North Copyright (c) 2012 City of Toronto. All Rights Reserved. 35 Westminster-Branson 89 Runnymede-B loor West Vi llage No Data Published: August 2014 36 Newtonbrook West 90 Junction Area 0 1 2 3 4 37 Wi llowdal e West 91 Weston-P el lam Park Prepared by: Social Policy Analysis & Research 38 Lansing-W estgate 92 Corso Italia-Davenport Km Contact: [email protected] Neighbourhood Boundary 39 Bedford P ark-Nortown 93 Dovercourt-Wall ace Em erson-Juncti 40 St.Andrew-Windfields 94 Wychwood *NOS = Not Otherwise Specified. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Neighbourhood Equity Scores for Toronto Neighbourhoods and Recommended Neighbourhood Improvement Areas
    Appendix B Neighbourhood Equity Scores for Toronto Neighbourhoods and Recommended Neighbourhood Improvement Areas All Scores are out of a maximum 100 points: the lower the Score, the higher the level of total overall inequities faced by the neighbourhood. Neighbourhoods with Scores lower than the Neighbourhood Equity Benchmark of 42.89 face serious inequities that require immediate action. Neighbourhoods marked with "*" in the Rank column were designated by Council as Priority Neighbourhood Areas for Investment (PNIs) under the 2005 Strategy. For neighbourhoods marked with a "+" in the Rank column, a smaller portion of the neighbourhood was included in a larger Priority Neighbourhood Areas for Investment designated by Council under the 2005 Strategy. Neighbourhood Recommended Rank Neighbourhood Number and Name Equity Score as NIA 1* 24 Black Creek 21.38 Y 2* 25 Glenfield-Jane Heights 24.39 Y 3* 115 Mount Dennis 26.39 Y 4 112 Beechborough-Greenbrook 26.54 Y 5 121 Oakridge 28.57 Y 6* 2 Mount Olive-Silverstone-Jamestown 29.29 Y 7 5 Elms-Old Rexdale 29.54 Y 8 72 Regent Park 29.81 Y 9 55 Thorncliffe Park 33.09 Y 10 85 South Parkdale 33.10 Y 11* 61 Crescent Town 33.21 Y 12 111 Rockcliffe-Smythe 33.86 Y 13* 139 Scarborough Village 33.94 Y 14* 21 Humber Summit 34.30 Y 15 28 Rustic 35.40 Y 16 125 Ionview 35.73 Y 17* 44 Flemingdon Park 35.81 Y 18* 113 Weston 35.99 Y 19* 22 Humbermede 36.09 Y 20* 138 Eglinton East 36.28 Y 21 135 Morningside 36.89 Y Staff report for action on the Toronto Strong Neighbourhoods Strategy 2020 1 Neighbourhood Recommended
    [Show full text]
  • City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average Price by Percentage Increase: January to June 2016
    City of Toronto — Detached Homes Average price by percentage increase: January to June 2016 C06 – $1,282,135 C14 – $2,018,060 1,624,017 C15 698,807 $1,649,510 972,204 869,656 754,043 630,542 672,659 1,968,769 1,821,777 781,811 816,344 3,412,579 763,874 $691,205 668,229 1,758,205 $1,698,897 812,608 *C02 $2,122,558 1,229,047 $890,879 1,149,451 1,408,198 *C01 1,085,243 1,262,133 1,116,339 $1,423,843 E06 788,941 803,251 Less than 10% 10% - 19.9% 20% & Above * 1,716,792 * 2,869,584 * 1,775,091 *W01 13.0% *C01 17.9% E01 12.9% W02 13.1% *C02 15.2% E02 20.0% W03 18.7% C03 13.6% E03 15.2% W04 19.9% C04 13.8% E04 13.5% W05 18.3% C06 26.9% E05 18.7% W06 11.1% C07 29.2% E06 8.9% W07 18.0% *C08 29.2% E07 10.4% W08 10.9% *C09 11.4% E08 7.7% W09 6.1% *C10 25.9% E09 16.2% W10 18.2% *C11 7.9% E10 20.1% C12 18.2% E11 12.4% C13 36.4% C14 26.4% C15 31.8% Compared to January to June 2015 Source: RE/MAX Hallmark, Toronto Real Estate Board Market Watch *Districts that recorded less than 100 sales were discounted to prevent the reporting of statistical anomalies R City of Toronto — Neighbourhoods by TREB District WEST W01 High Park, South Parkdale, Swansea, Roncesvalles Village W02 Bloor West Village, Baby Point, The Junction, High Park North W05 W03 Keelesdale, Eglinton West, Rockcliffe-Smythe, Weston-Pellam Park, Corso Italia W10 W04 York, Glen Park, Amesbury (Brookhaven), Pelmo Park – Humberlea, Weston, Fairbank (Briar Hill-Belgravia), Maple Leaf, Mount Dennis W05 Downsview, Humber Summit, Humbermede (Emery), Jane and Finch W09 W04 (Black Creek/Glenfield-Jane
    [Show full text]
  • Community Conversations: North York West Sub-Region
    Central LHIN System Transformation Sub-region Planning Community Conversations: North York West Sub-region April 5, 2017 Setting the Stage for Today’s Discussions Kick off sub-region planning & share the Central LHIN strategy; Bring sub-region communities together to strengthen relationships through collaborative networking; Listen and reflect upon experiences of patients and providers as they move through the system; Create a common understanding of sub-regional attributes related to their communities and populations; Generate greater context of sub-region needs and attributes through collaborative discussion; Set the stage to co-create the system collectively to identify gaps in care continuity during transitions 2 Central LHIN Community Conversation North York West Sub-region Agenda Time Item Presenters 7:45 to 8:30 am Registration & Light Refreshments Sub Region Community Wall 8:30 am Overview of the Day Welcome & Kick Off Kim Baker Central LHIN Sub-region Strategy: Transitions Chantell Tunney 9:50 am Sharing Experiences in Care Guest Speaker: Central LHIN Resident Cottean Lyttle Guest Speaker: Care Provider Dr. Jerome Liu 9:50 pm BREAK 10:00 am Building a Foundation: Information Eugene Wong 11:00 am Filling in the Gaps Group Work 11:25 am Wrap Up & Next Steps Chantell Tunney 3 Integrated Health Service Plan 2016 - 2019 4 Sub-region Strategy Building momentum, leveraging local strengths and co-designing innovative approaches to care continuity 5 Population Health – What does it mean to take a Population Health approach? Population health allows us to address the needs of the entire population, while reminding us that special attention needs to be paid to existing disparities in health.
    [Show full text]
  • Downsview Major Roads Environmental Study Report
    City of Toronto Downsview Major Roads Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report Prepared by: AECOM 30 Leek Crescent, Floor 4 905 882 4401 tel Richmond Hill, ON, Canada L4B 4N4 905 882 4399 fax www.aecom.com April, 2018 Project Number: 60306466 City of Toronto Downsview Area Major Roads Environmental Study Report Distribution List # Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name City of Toronto AECOM Canada Ltd. Rpt_2018-04-20_Damr_Final Esr_60306466 City of Toronto Downsview Area Major Roads Environmental Study Report Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”): . is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); . represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; . may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; . has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; . must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; . was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and . in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Bathurst Manor
    Canadian Jewish Studies / Études juives canadiennes, vol. 31, 2021 181 Donna Bernardo-Ceriz A Jewish Tale of Suburbia: Bathurst Manor 182 Donna Bernado-Ceriz / A Jewish Tale of Suburbia: Bathurst Manor How does one tell the story of a neighbourhood? If examining the changing and de- veloping physical landscape, then records are in no short supply at various govern- ment archives: census records, municipal planning records, maps, assessment roles, directories, building surveys, and aerial photographs, to name only a few. Retelling the experiences of a community of people, however, requires a slightly different re- search strategy. Personal papers, photographs, letters, home movies, and oral histo- ries offer a glimpse into the lives of residents. Organizational records can provide insight into the cultural, religious, and social needs of a community and the services offered. But what if those records do not exist or cannot easily be located? The Ontario Jewish Archives (OJA) receive over 650 research requests each year. If we divide that by the number of working days (ignoring vacations, stat, and Jewish hol- idays), that equals 2.5 inquiries every day. Some of these inquiries are fairly quick and straightforward, and some are long, protracted research endeavours. We also receive over 50,000 unique users to our website each year; researchers whom we never in- teract with and whose research we never hear about. Of these research requests, a sizable number are related to Jewish spaces and shifting landscapes. “I’m researching the history of Kensington Market”; “Do you have any records on The Ward?”; “I’d like to study the small communities in Ontario”; “I’m interested in how Bathurst Street became the spine of Toronto’s Jewish community.” While these questions may appear well defined, it is the archivist’s job to determine what the researcher is actually asking.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Other* Dwelling Density Availability of Destinations
    21 24 116 130 2 35 36 50 49 48 27 131 22 34 37 117 129 3 25 51 52 47 46 4 132 26 38 53 118 1 5 33 40 128 135 134 23 39 45 6 29 113 28 32 105 133 31 41 42 119 126 137 7 8 30 103 127 136 115 112 108 102 43 125 100 138 140 11 10 110 109 101 99 44 9 111 107 104 56 55 139 106 124 Dwelling Availability of 91 92 97 54 120 density destinations 13 90 94 96 58 123 15 89 98 57 High - High 12 114 93 59 60 14 88 95 67 61 121 83 74 66 High - Low 87 80 79 71 68 69 62 16 75 64 122 86 84 81 78 76 65 Low - High 7372 63 85 70 Low - Low 20 17 82 77 Other* 18 19 0 2.5 5 km * Indicates DB belonged to the middle quintile of Neighbourhoods dwelling density and/or availability of destinations 1 West Humber-Clairville 25 Glenfield-Jane Heights 49 Bayview Woods-Steeles 73 Moss Park 96 Casa Loma 121 Oakridge 2 Mount Olive-Silverstone- 26 Downsview-Roding-CFB 50 Newtonbrook East 74 North St. James Town 97 Yonge-St.Clair 122 Birchcliffe-Cliffside Jamestown 27 York University Heights 51 Willowdale East 75 Church-Yonge Corridor 98 Rosedale-Moore Park 123 Cliffcrest 3 Thistletown-Beaumond Heights 28 Rustic 52 Bayview Village 76 Bay Street Corridor 99 Mount Pleasant East 124 Kennedy Park 4 Rexdale-Kipling 29 Maple Leaf 53 Henry Farm 77 Waterfront Communities- 100 Yonge-Eglinton 125 Ionview 5 Elms-Old Rexdale 30 Brookhaven-Amesbury 54 O'Connor-Parkview The Island 101 Forest Hill South 126 Dorset Park 6 Kingsview Village-The Westway 31 Yorkdale-Glen Park 55 Thorncliffe Park 78 Kensington-Chinatown 102 Forest Hill North 127 Bendale 7 Willowridge-Martingrove-Richview 32 Englemount-Lawrence
    [Show full text]
  • Toronto North Local Immigration Partnership
    Toronto North Settlement and Employment Strategy October 2012 F I N A L Submitted to Citizenship and Immigration Canada October 31, 2012 Table of Contents Welcoming Toronto’s Future ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 The Role of Local Immigration Partnerships ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Toronto North LIP – History and Catchment ................................................................................................................................ 3 Toronto North Newcomer Demographic and Needs Profile ............................................................................................................. 4 General overview of Toronto North ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Area Boundaries ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Census demographics .................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Epidemic: a Report on Child and Family Poverty in Toronto
    DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card November 2016 1 DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card Acknowledgements This report was researched and written by a working group that included: Michael Polanyi Community Development and Prevention Program, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Jessica Mustachi Family Service Toronto (Ontario Campaign 2000) michael kerr Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change Sean Meagher Social Planning Toronto Research and data analysis support provided by the City of Toronto is gratefully acknowledged. Financial support was provided by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and the Children’s Aid Foundation. Design support was provided by Peter Grecco. We thank Ann Fitzpatrick, Said Dirie, Sharon Parsaud and Beth Wilson for their assistance with, and review of, the report. Data and mapping support for the transit section of the report from Steve Farber and Jeff Allen, Department of Human Geography, University of Toronto, Scarborough, is gratefully acknowledged. Data support for housing provided by Scott Leon, Wellesley Institute. 2 DIVIDED CITY: Life in Canada’s Child Poverty Capital 2016 Toronto Child and Family Poverty Report Card Contents Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 6 2. Unequal Child and Family Incomes 8 3. Unequal Educational and Recreational Opportunities 14 4. Unequal Access to
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Car and House Ownership in the Face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE)
    A Study of Car and House Ownership in the face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE) by Elli Maria Papaioannou A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Masters of Applied Science Graduate Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto © Copyright by Elli Maria Papaioannou, 2014 A Study of Car and House Ownership in the face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE) Elli Maria Papaioannou Masters of Applied Science Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto 2014 Abstract This research presents the design, implementation and results of a survey of Car and House Ownership in the face of Increasing Commuting Expenses (CHOICE). The CHOICE survey is a web-based survey that combines RP and SP components, and was designed to collect information of commuting mode choices, housing and neighbourhood preferences along with vehicle ownership choices of households with cross-regional commuters in the Greater Toronto Area. Investigations of the survey data revealed that for small increases in commuting costs people are willing to change to more efficient cars. As commuting costs reached higher levels, participants chose to relocate their home in order to commute shorter distances. This study provides evidence that vehicle ownership and especially residential location decisions are a complex process and are interrelated. The findings of this study show some of the possible reactions of households in the GTA in the face of extreme increases in transportation costs. ii Acknowledgments This two-year-long journey flew by and I am standing at the end of it today trying to think of all the challenges I faced, all the wonderful and bright people I met, all the things I learned, and all the friends I earned.
    [Show full text]
  • WESTMINSTER – BRANSON Neighborhood Wellbeing Survey 2014-2015 Report
    WESTMINSTER – BRANSON Neighborhood Wellbeing Survey 2014-2015 Report Immigrant Women Integration Program Adele Ibragimova Toronto 2014-2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Executive Summary…………………………………….. 3 2. Introduction……………………………………………... 6 3. Methodology…………………………………………….. 7 4. Neighbourhood History……………………………….. 8 5. Survey findings and data analysis 5.1. Demographics………………………………... 15 5.2. Economic and social wellbeing………….. 20 5.3. Physical and mental health………………. 27 5.4. Civic and community engagement………… 29 5.5. Safety……………………………………………… 33 6. Personal observation and recommendation…….. 35 7. Bibliography/References………………………………. 37 8. Abbreviations List ……………………………..……... 38 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Neighbourhood Well-Being Survey (NWBS) which called “Understanding Our Neighbourhood” is the most important part of the Immigrant Women Integration Program (IWIP) of the Toronto Centre for Community Learning and Development (TCCL&D). The purpose of this Canadian Index of Well-Being (CIWB) that includes: demographic information, economic and social living standards, physical and mental health, civic and community engagement, safety, physical environmental and infrastructure. The survey was conducted from October to November 2014 in the Westminster-Branson community of Toronto. Respondents could participate by filling out an online version, or a hard copy form, in order to identify the gaps within the community’s ability to access different accessible services, and it was distributed among residents and some organizations. First and foremost NWBS helped to identify different factors that residents encountering in the neighbourhood. Out of the total 56 respondents, 35% are male and 65% female; only 44% of them are Canadian citizen, 30 % have permanent status, 13% are international students, 8,5% are refuge claimants and 4% are foreign temporary workers .
    [Show full text]
  • Child & Family Inequities Score
    CHILD & FAMILY INEQUITIES SCORE Technical Report The Child & Family Inequities Score provides a neighbourhood-level measure of the socio-economic challenges that children and families experience. The Child & Family Inequities Score is a tool to help explain the variation in socio-economic status across the City of Toronto neighbourhoods. It will help service providers to understand the context of the neighbourhoods and communities that they serve. It will also help policy makers and researchers understand spatial inequities in child and family outcomes. While other composite measures of socio-economic status in the City exist, the Child & Family Inequities Score is unique because it uses indicators that are specific to families with children under the age of 12. The Child & Family Inequities Score is a summary measure derived from indicators which describe inequities experienced by the child and family population in each of Toronto’s 140 neighbourhoods. The Child & Family Inequities Score is comprised of 5 indicators: • Low Income Measure: Percent of families with an after-tax family income that falls below the Low Income Measure. • Parental Unemployment: Percent of families with at least one unemployed parent / caregiver. • Low Parental Education: Percent of families with at least one parent / caregiver that does not have a high school diploma. • No Knowledge of Official Language: Percent of families with no parents who have knowledge of either official language (English or French). 1 • Core Housing Need: Percent of families in core housing need . This report provides technical details on how the Child & Family Inequities Score was created and describes how the resulting score should be interpreted.
    [Show full text]
  • Every Tree Counts. a Portrait of Toronto's Urban Forest
    Every Tree Counts A Portrait of Toronto’s Urban Forest Parks, Forestry & Recreation Urban Forestry Parks, Forestry & Recreation Urban Forestry Every Tree Counts A Portrait of Toronto’s Urban Forest Foreword For decades, people flying into Toronto have observed that it is a very green city. Indeed, the sight of Toronto’s tree canopy from the air is impressive. More than 20 years ago, an urban forestry colleague noted that the trees in our parks should, and in many cases do, spill over into the streets like extensions of the City’s parks. Across Toronto and the entire Greater Toronto Area, the urban forest plays a significant role in converting subdivisions into neighbourhoods. Most people have an emotional connection to trees. In cities, they represent one of our remaining links to the natural world. Properly managed urban forests provide multiple services to city residents. Cleaner air and water, cooler temperatures, energy savings and higher property values are among the many benefits. With regular man- agement, these benefits increase every year as trees continue to grow. In 2007,Toronto City Council adopted a plan to significantly expand the City’s forest cover to between 30-40%. Parks, Forestry and Recreation responded with a Forestry Service Plan aimed at managing our existing growing stock, protecting the forest and planting more trees. Strategic management requires a detailed understanding of the state of the City’s forest resource. The need for better information was a main reason to undertake this study and report on the state of Toronto’s tree canopy. Emerging technologies like the i-Tree Eco model and remote sensing techniques used in this forestry study provide managers with new tools and better information to plan and execute the expansion, protection and maintenance of Toronto’s urban forest.
    [Show full text]