Opportunities for enhancing stewardship among private property owners within ’s ravines

by Justin Rai

A capstone submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Forest Conservation Graduate Department of Forestry

© Copyright by Justin Rai (2020) Rai 1

Executive Summary

The City of Toronto and its unique ravine system is examined as a case study in urban ecosystem management. A brief history of the ravines and the city that emerged around them is discussed. Emphasis is placed on the current poor health of this system that is a rich source of cultural history and a major contributor to the City’s biodiversity. A review of existing legislation and policy complements a questionnaire delivered to 300 private properties throughout Toronto’s Moore Park, Park Drive and Cedarvale ravines as part of this study. This questionnaire was designed to assess participation in and openness to stewardship activities among private ravine property owners, as well as their awareness of existing legislation and a management guide produced by the City. Recommendations are made to address how the City of

Toronto can improve efforts to restore the ravines by engaging private property owners that are willing and able to assist in stewardship efforts. Rai 2

Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 List of figures and tables 3 Background 4 Objectives and Rationale 8 Methods Policy and legislation review 10 Survey preparation and delivery 12 Survey analysis 13 Results Policy and legislation review 15 Survey analysis 16 Discussion 22 Recommendations 24 Literature Cited 28 Acknowledgments 31 Appendix A 32 Appendix B 33 Appendix C 37 Appendix D 41 Appendix E 42 Appendix F 43 Appendix G 44 Appendix H 45 Appendix I 50

Rai 3

List of Figures and Tables Figure 1. Participation in stewardship among private property owners in Toronto’s 17 ravines.

Figure 2. Aspects of stewardship that private property owners enjoy. 18

Figure 3. Awareness of legislation that governs Toronto’s ravines. 19

Figure 4. Awareness of “A Property Owner’s Guide to Healthy Ravines.” 19

Figure 5. Motivators for participation in stewardship activity. 21

Figure 6. Likelihood of participation in potential stewardship programs. 22

Figure A1. Low Density Residential dwellings throughout Ch.658 Protected 32 Areas.

Figure E1. Map of the ravines surveyed throughout this study. 42

Figure F1. Predicted probabilities of responses to potential motivators. 43

Figure G1. Predicted probabilities of responses to potential stewardship programs. 44

Figure I1. An analysis of address density throughout Ch.658 Protected Areas. 50

Table 1. A forestry student’s interpretation of excerpts from key sections of 15 Ch.658 related to stewardship and forest management.

Table 2. Excerpts from documents published by the TRCA and the City of 16 Toronto that directly relate to recommendations put forth by the TRRS regarding the restoration of ecological integrity of the ravines.

Rai 4

In his book Half-Earth: Our planet’s fight for life, E.O. Wilson (2016) makes what some may describe as an outrageous claim in calling for half of the Earth’s surface to be devoted to nature. This effort, Wilson posits, is required in order to conserve biodiversity and save our Earth from the blight brought about by our species throughout the Anthropocene – the epoch of humans. With projections of around 68% of the world’s population living in urban areas by 2050 according to the United Nations (2018), increased urbanization is expected. While Wilson’s calls may seem out of reach to some, they must be taken seriously. An emphasis must be placed on protecting ecosystems that exist in and around urban centres, with all hands on deck. In particular, protecting key natural spaces as strongholds within these urban areas is crucial for conserving biodiversity (Beninde, Veith & Hochkirch, 2015). This is no easy task, as “urban ecosystems” bear the brunt of anthropogenic stressors (Miller, 2008). However, they also present unique opportunities for conservation efforts, as they provide value to those living within urban centres through ecosystem services, and act as portals through which urban dwellers may interact and feel at one with nature (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999; Miller, 2008). Because they serve as tangible aspects of nature that urban dwellers can connect with, these urban ecosystems are key to global conservation efforts that require people to care about the natural world around them

(Dunn, Gavin, Sanchez & Solomon, 2006).

The Toronto ravines present an interesting case study in urban ecosystems. The origin story of today’s “Toronto” has been traced back more than 11 thousand years to glacial runoff forming meltwater lakes at the end of the last ice age (Benn, 2006). The City of Toronto as it is known today has been built around the deep rivers running north and south between the Great

Lakes, remnants of these meltwater lakes, which provided passageways for trade and travel to

Indigenous communities and early European settlers (City of Toronto, 2013). Skipping through Rai 5 the grisliness of various battles between the French, British and Indigenous groups which culminated in the in 1787, the strength of the fur trade in the region was diminished due to the clearing of forests and rise of agriculture. Coupled with the militarization of the region due to the threat of American invasion, this agricultural economy led to a growing, sedentary community that was incorporated as the City of Toronto – the first municipality of

Ontario – in 1834 (Benn, 2006). As the city expanded, the benefits which ravines provided to the hunters and traders of the past were forgotten, and the ravines were often treated as barriers to development. “For about a century and a half, Torontonians did their best to bury the ravines, with varying degrees of success, by overlaying them with sidewalks, streets, bridges, highways and rail lines” (City of Toronto, 2013, p.13). And then there came the story of the hurricane.

Hurricane Hazel wrought havoc as it reached Toronto on October 15, 1954 (Environment and Climate Change , 2015). With up to 225mm in rainfall, a death toll of 81 and almost

1900 families losing their homes, Hazel devastated the . However, she also provided valuable lessons that led to the development of foundational flood management principles across the province (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2016b). In the aftermath, the province of augmented the power of the Conservation Authorities Act, giving rise to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) among others, and providing these authorities with the power to acquire land for the purposes of conservation and flood management (City of Toronto, 2017; TRCA, 2019). Further, Torontonians slowly took interest in the ravines, as an awareness of the benefits that healthy ravines provided came to light.

The spark of interest in the environmental health of the ravines in this time period has been tied to a few factors. Foremost among these was the formation of the Ministry of Natural Rai 6

Resources (MNR) in 1972, that was tasked with overseeing the spending of conservation authorities in a time of recession (Bilton, 2004). With less money available, the TRCA transitioned from their early focus on heavy engineering towards ecological management as a means for . At the same time, financial cuts to the TRCA’s budget put in place by the MNR led to local community groups stepping up. “Groups like Save the Rouge Valley

System, the Task Force to Bring Back the Don and Action to Restore a Clean Humber used volunteer efforts and community activism to highlight environmental concerns in their watersheds” (Bilton, 2004, p.90). A number of surveys, focused on the environmental health of the ravines, were also conducted throughout the 1970s (Wong & Smith, 2018).

“Healthy” ravines within the City of Toronto are desirable for numerous reasons. The

Toronto ravines cover approximately 17% of the City of Toronto, consisting of over 11 thousand hectares of land. They also contain 87% of Toronto's environmentally significant areas and form one of the world's largest urban ecosystems (City of Toronto, 2017). As a major urban ecosystem, it undoubtedly provides a variety of valuable ecosystem services to the City of

Toronto and its inhabitants beyond just flood control, which the City has formally acknowledged

(Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999; City of Toronto, 2017). Additionally, the ravines are rich with cultural history that citizens and visitors alike can experience and appreciate (Ramsay-Brown,

2015). There is strong reason to believe that individuals throughout the city are willing to assist in managing this precious natural ecosystem, as they have in the past.

Unfortunately, recent research conducted by the Toronto Ravine Revitalization Study

(TRRS) group has found that the health of this ravine ecosystem has declined greatly since initial surveys of the land were conducted decades ago (Davies et al., 2017). Invasive species, habitat fragmentation and other human-caused disturbances have played a great role in this Rai 7 decline. Findings from TRCA report cards state that “forest conditions” throughout the watersheds they manage are holding steady at a grade of “D” (TRCA, 2018) while biodiversity ranked as “poor” in urban areas (TRCA, 2016a, p.72). Another study has recently identified 28 gaps within the ravine system which are of high concern to environmental specialists from the

City, due to the fragmentation issues they cause (Racine, 2017). Approximately 40% of these gaps exist on privately-owned property.

Forty percent is also the approximate amount of ravine land that is covered by privately- owned property within the City of Toronto (2017). Of this, over 24 thousand addresses throughout the ravines are low density residential buildings (see Appendix A). While it is great that the City and the TRCA have taken steps towards managing these ravines, the problems these ravines face do not only occur on public property. Private property owners have a critical role to play in the future of these ravines and helping to solve the problems at hand. Local research has shown that providing private property owners with “information about how declines in wetland areas can personally affect them” can serve as a significant motivating factor for increasing enrollment in voluntary stewardship programs (Nebel, Brick, Lantz & Trenholm, 2017). More broadly, research in flood risk management across the globe has suggested that cooperation between “state” and civil society is becoming more commonplace (Meijerink & Dicke, 2008). In the case of the Toronto ravines, actionable solutions to the challenges at hand may be uncovered by focusing on this public/private dichotomy, and ensuring action plans include cooperation among all involved.

Using this unique ravine ecosystem as a case study can help to provide a framework for how urban ecosystems across the globe may be managed in an effort to conserve biodiversity and combat the grave challenges brought forth throughout the Anthropocene. The City of Rai 8

Toronto has been built on these ravines; their history has been well recognized. However, it is now time to focus on their future to ensure they continue to thrive. For this to come to fruition, cooperation between state and civil society – public land managers and private property owners – must become the norm.

Objectives

The overarching goal of this research is to use the Toronto ravines as a case study for finding ways to align efforts made by private property owners with those made by organizations in charge of managing public land. Through doing so, it is believed that opportunities to promote stewardship among private property owners can be discovered. In this study, stewardship is considered active land management that includes any or all of the following actions: i) removing invasive species, ii) planting and nurturing native species and, iii) assisting in maintaining or restoring ecosystem health.

The three primary objectives of this study are to examine:

1) how existing policy and legislation impact the ravines and private property owners;

2) what private property owners are actively doing – or not doing – on their privately-

owned property; and

3) opportunities to foster stewardship among private property owners and improve

public/private cooperation in ravine land management.

Rationale

Objective 1)

Before considering what people are doing or what else can be done, a basic understanding of what people are allowed to do within the confines of existing legislation is needed. Further, examining the policies of authorities that oversee public ravine land provides Rai 9 context regarding what problems these authorities are aware of within the ravines, as well as insight into where their priorities lay and how they believe they can overcome existing problems.

Objective 2)

The ecological challenges throughout the ravines do not stop at the boundaries between public and private property. As private property owners do not produce documents outlining what their intentions are or how they are actively managing the land they reside on, a census of ravine residents is required to determine how the land is being managed. Further, it is necessary to gain insight into whether or not private property owners are aware of efforts by the City and other authorities to manage the ravines. Awareness of these efforts could suggest that private property owners are coalescing their own management efforts with these authorities, while a lack of awareness could suggest alternative approaches being taken that may help or hinder ongoing efforts on public ravine land.

Objective 3)

Stewardship activities help to improve the ecological health of a region through increasing biodiversity and mitigating the adverse effects of climate change and erosion. As a result, stewardship is a crucial component of flood risk management and conservation. It is predicted that there are more people willing or wanting to partake in stewardship activities than those that would outright refuse. Those that want to partake in restoration or conservation efforts may already be active stewards. If they are not, they may be looking for guidance or economic assistance that the City or other relevant parties can provide. Further, those that are willing to partake in restoration efforts may become active stewards if they are made aware of the challenges and threats at hand (through education), or if they are provided an economic incentive to participate by the City. Rai 10

Methods

The methodology of this study was separated into three parts. The first part consisted of researching the existing policy and legislation related to the Toronto ravines. This aided in completing Objective 1 of this study. The second part consisted of creating and delivering a survey to private property owners within the Toronto ravines. The third part consisted of analyzing the responses to this survey, which provided insight that helped to complete Objectives

2 and 3 of this study.

Policy and legislation review (Objective 1)

An initial review of existing policy and legislation was conducted during the first month of my internship with the TRRS. I began by browsing through two databases – e-Laws Ontario and and Committees By-laws and Municipal Code – to find relevant legislation pertaining to the Toronto ravines (City of Toronto, 2019; Government of Ontario,

2019). From this search, I selected various documents which I intuitively felt might apply to private property owners within the ravines for review. Foremost among these was Toronto

Municipal Code Ch.658 (Ravine and Natural Feature Protection), which directly outlines what is and is not permitted throughout Toronto’s ravines (City of Toronto, 2016). I also reviewed

Ch.608 (Parks) and Ch.813 (Trees) from the Toronto Municipal Code (City of Toronto, 2015;

2018). While these two documents do not directly apply to the management of ravine land, they did provide insight into alternative legislation within the City of Toronto pertaining to trees, for comparison with Ch.658. Further, I read through the Conservation Authorities Act and O. Reg.

166/06, which provide the TRCA with their legal authority (Minister of Natural Resources and

Forestry, 2013; 2019a). In addition, while reading through these pieces of legislation, I took note of references to other by-laws or statutes and read through corresponding documents as Rai 11 necessary to gain background information. A summary of the points I drew from relevant legislation, including the Conservation Authorities Act and Invasive Species Act, may be found in Appendix B (Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2019a; 2019b).

After concluding this review of existing legislation, I began to read through relevant pieces of policy related to the Toronto ravines, to understand how those that hold power over public ravine land view the issues at hand and intend to tackle them. First, I read the City of

Toronto’s (2017) “Toronto Ravine Strategy.” I then turned to the TRCA’s “The Living City

Policies: For planning and development in the watersheds of the Toronto and Region

Conservation Authority” (2014), a broad document that outlines the TRCA’s targets for all the land they preside over. In addition to taking notes of key points made within these documents, I compared them to recommendations made within the TRRS group’s report. Specifically, I focused on recommendations related to the restoration of ecological integrity, the ability of a natural system – in this case, the ravines – to maintain its natural functions and support the living organisms within it (Davies et al., 2018). Ecological integrity can serve as a proxy through which ravine health can be measured; thus, the restoration of ecological integrity is a crucial component of ensuring the ravines can be conserved.

I must note that Ontario statutes are not directly addressed within this study, as their scope is much wider than just the Toronto ravines. These documents are complex, and I did not feel that I was adequately prepared to interpret their impact on the ravines specifically.

Nevertheless, Appendix B does include some of my personal notes on what I believed to be the most pertinent pieces of provincial legislation for reference.

Rai 12

Survey preparation and delivery

The questionnaire for private property owners was constructed with input from my supervisor, as well as drawing from comparable studies examining motivators of stewardship behavior (Goddard, Dougill & Benton, 2013; Nebel et al., 2017; Paxton Ramsdell, Sorice &

Dwyer, 2016). The complete questionnaire may be seen in Appendix C. Before delivering the questionnaires to private properties, approval was gained through the University of Toronto’s

Research Ethics Board (REB). This required that I create an information and consent form to be delivered alongside the questionnaires for potential participants to sign. An online version of the questionnaire (with an equivalent informed consent page) on www.allcounted.com was also created, as I felt this would increase the response rate. In addition, an instruction sheet on how participants could access the survey online via a direct URL or QR code was included (see

Appendix D). Further, I provided a mailing address and email address for participants to send their responses to, in an effort to make responding as convenient as possible for potential participants. Altogether, this meant each “package” for private property owners contained a four- page questionnaire, a double-sided information and consent form and an instruction sheet.

Producing 30 thousand copies of this package for all private property owners throughout the Toronto ravines was not possible within the existing financial and temporal constraints.

Instead – upon gaining approval from the REB – 300 copies were produced for delivery, representing approximately 1% of private ravine properties. These packages were hand delivered to houses backing onto ravine land around the Cedarvale, Moore Park and Park Drive ravines.

Only those houses that backed onto ravine land were delivered to, as their property was identified as being within the boundaries of Ch.658 Ravine and Natural Feature Protection areas

(see Appendix E). Properties with no apparent place to deliver mail or with signs in their Rai 13 mailboxes such as “No drop-offs” were skipped. The delivery off all 300 letters took two days to complete.

As responses came in, results were checked to ensure that consent was provided by participants. Those that failed to provide a signed consent form were excluded from analysis. For results from the online survey, participants were not permitted to complete the questionnaire if they did not agree to the terms provided in the consent form.

Survey analysis (Objectives 2 & 3)

Various statistical methods were used to analyze survey responses, and all statistical analysis was performed in either R Studio or MS Excel. The first question was fairly straightforward (Do you actively steward you land?), and allowed for categorization of respondents into different groups (Yes, No, Somewhat). I then compared the average

Environmental Index (EI) scores – adapted from a similar study conducted with rural property owners throughout southwestern Ontario – between these groups (Nebel et al., 2017). An EI score was assigned to each participant based on their responses to questions 5 and 6 within the survey, and served as an indicator of participants’ attitude towards conservation. Responses were scored on a scale from 1 – 5, with “unimportant” being ranked as 1, and “extremely” being ranked as 5. Any “Don’t know” or failures to respond were scored as 0. Scores for responses to

5(c) were doubled, in line with Nebel et al.’s (2017) study. The maximum possible EI score a participant could receive was 35, with higher scores suggesting a stronger positive attitude towards conservation. A Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare EI scores across groups due to the uneven distribution of group sizes and unequal variance between them. The results of this analysis may be seen in Figure 1. Rai 14

The Likert-scale based questions that made up the majority of the survey (Questions 4 and 7) required more effort to analyze. The “appropriate” statistical analysis of Likert scale responses has long been debated (Carifio & Perla, 2008; Jamieson, 2004). Questions have arisen regarding whether Likert items should be treated as ordinal or categorical. Further, the equality of intervals between response categories cannot be assured. An additional complication thrown into the mix is the issue of varying scales, wherein contextual differences between participants skew the value of their responses relative to one another on a “standard” scale (Bartoshuk et al.,

2004).

Ultimately, I decided to analyze the results of these scale-based questions in two ways.

The first was to conduct on ordinal logistic regression on responses to these questions. This allowed me to determine which items (in question 4 and 7) were significantly influential, while accounting for within-participant bias. Additionally, I created a stacked-column bar chart for each question, displaying predicted probabilities of responses ranging from highly unlikely to highly likely for each of the different items within these questions (see Appendix F and G).

While these predicted probabilities did depict how participants responded, their reliability was low due to the small sample size obtained. Because of this, I decided to conduct a series of

Pearson’s chi-squared tests to obtain a determine whether or not the motivation provided by each item – either positive (i.e. highly likely or likely) or negative (i.e. highly unlikely or unlikely) – was significant. This was accomplished by grouping positive and negative responses, which served as two “observed” categories and allowed me to bypass many of the issues raised regarding Likert scales (such as removing the challenge of equal intervals and issues of scale; any highly likely or likely responses are all guaranteed to fit into a category of positive motivation; likewise, highly unlikely or unlikely responses fit into a category of negative/non- Rai 15

motivation). Expected values for each were calculated by dividing n by two (as H0 = no

significant difference, expected results from n responses would be 50% positive and 50%

negative).

Results

Policy and legislation review

Table 1 includes key sections of Municipal Code Ch.658 that I have derived specific

“Pros” and “Cons” from as a student of forestry. Table 2 focuses on how the TRCA’s Living City

Report Card (TRCA, 2016a) and the City of Toronto’s Toronto Ravine Strategy (2017) address

the restoration of “ecological integrity” within the ravines, one of the key recommendations

made within the TRRS report that is most relevant to this study (Davies et al., 2018). Ecological

integrity is recognized as a “guiding principal and standard scientific framework for monitoring,

restoring, and sustainably managing the world’s ecosystems” (Davies et al, 2018, p.16).

Table 1. Pros and Cons of excerpts from Ch.658 related to stewardship and forest management. Section Verbatim Interpretation 2.A No person shall injure, destroy, remove or CON: The definition of TREE in s.1 is “a tree of any species and any size.” permit the injury, destruction or removal of Thus, when s.2 prevents the injury, destruction and removal of trees without a any tree on any land in a protected area, permit, it is also protecting invasive tree species of any size. This blanket unless authorized by permit to do so. protection, in contrast to that provided in Ch.813, Article III for trees on private property (“that has a diameter measurement of 30 centimetres or more measured at 1.4 metres above ground level”), may dissuade individuals from removing young invasive trees before they mature and reproduce. 2.B No person shall place or dump fill or refuse CON: Certain invasive plant species such as Japanese Knotweed may require or alter the grade of land or permit the extensive digging for complete removal. If one were to strictly follow the words placing or dumping of fill or refuse or set out in this legislation, the removal of certain invasive plants can be viewed alteration of grade on any land in a as requiring a permit (as the “grade of land” would be altered through digging). protected area unless authorized by permit to This may dissuade individuals from stopping the spread of invasive plants. do so. 6.A(5) Where a plan has been prepared for ravine PRO: There are clear provisions made within this legislation for permitting restoration or forest stewardship, restoration and stewardship, in line with approval by City staff. This serves to management or enhancement and the plan ensure that these efforts are in line with efforts being made by the City. has been approved by the General Manager. 6.A(8) Where the injury, destruction or removal of PRO: Again, there are clear provisions made for the removal of trees as a means trees has been ordered or approved by the of managing pests or other forms of infestation. This can assist in wider ranging General Manager for arboricultural forest management efforts to combat outbreaks such Emerald Ash Borer. management, pest management, or otherwise for purposes of dealing with trees affected by disease or infestations. Rai 16

Table 2. Excerpts from documents published by the TRCA and the City of Toronto that directly relate to recommendations put forth by the TRRS regarding the restoration of ecological integrity of the ravines. TRRS Living City Report Card Toronto Ravine Strategy Recommendations Increase ecological “Finally, work is required to close gaps, plan “We must strive to improve the physical connectivity and additional routes, and create a varied natural connections into and between ravine buffers for experience that will link recreational areas for ecological function, biodiversity greenspaces with significant natural heritage infrastructure and recreation. By areas and local communities…By linking the providing opportunities for all significant ravine systems that typically run Torontonians to access the ravines in a north and south with greenways through safe and sustainable way, we can hydro corridors running east and west, we are strengthen their sense of connection to building an incredible matrix of connected and shared ownership of these spaces” greenspaces on a scale that is unparalleled in (p.28) an urban area anywhere in the world” (p.50) Regenerate and “Municipalities are working with TRCA and “ACTION 19: Develop outreach plans to reintroduce: Seed other conservation authorities to update their particular population groups including forecasting and natural heritage policies and identify areas for park users, property owners adjacent to collection protection and enhancement of natural cover” ravines, pet owners and underserved (p.76) communities. Communicate good stewardship practices for uses and activities in ravines to ensure that these do not adversely impact natural habitats and, where possible, restore and enhance natural areas” (p.37) Plant local native “We have planted over one million native “For example, in 2015, staff coordinated species trees, shrubs and aquatic plants since the last the CSP at seven sites around the city report card. Healthy forests and wetlands and worked with these volunteers to: provide habitat for wildlife, help cool urban • plant 800 native trees, shrubs, areas, retain water and reduce runoff, and help wildflowers” (p.36) reduce impacts of climate change” (p.2) Rank invasiveness “Through various stewardship programs, local “Every year the City plants more than and remove residents, municipalities, companies and 80,000 trees and shrubs, manages invasive species institutions must work to improve the natural invasive species in 40 ravines, holds habitat on their lands and stop the spread of seven Community Stewardship Program invasive, non-native species” (p.72) sites, and engages thousands of volunteers” (p.16) Note. This is not an exhaustive list. These excerpts are just a handful of examples that suggest that these authorities – at the least – have the intention to do what is best for the health of the Toronto ravines, in line with actions that the TRRS has recommended.

Survey analysis

The majority of respondents indicated that they are at least “somewhat” actively

participating in stewardship activity (see Figure 1). There was also no significant difference

found in average EI scores between the groups of respondents (“Yes,” “No,” and “Somewhat”; Rai 17

N = 33, df = 2, p = 0.354). This could be tied to a conservation-oriented attitude among ravine property owners, with the average EI score of all respondents equaling 26.545 (N = 33,

σ = 5.826) out of a maximum possible score of 35. For comparison, the highest average index score among different groups in the study conducted by Nebel et al. (2017) was 20.826.

Figure 1. left: Breakdown of responses to the first survey question, “Do you actively steward your land?” (n = 33); right: A comparison of the average Environmental Index score for respondents that answered

“Yes” (n1 = 14, μ = 26.286, σ = 5.312), “No” (n2 = 5, μ = 25, σ = 4.183), or “Somewhat” (n3 = 14, μ = 27.357, σ = 6.946) to the first survey question. A Kruskal Wallis was used to compare the scores between these groups due to unequal sample sizes and variance. There was no significant difference in Environmental Index scores between these groups (N = 33, df = 2, p = 0.354).

Respondents that do actively steward their land at least somewhat indicated that they enjoy various aspects of stewardship (see Figure 2; n = 28). Being outdoors (p̂ = 0.89,

SE = 0.058), improving the aesthetics of their property (p̂ = 0.86, SE = 0.066) and restoring features of sensitive natural areas and providing habitat for animals (p̂ = 0.71, SE = 0.085) ranked as the top three aspects of stewardship which respondents enjoyed. Other responses included “planting native flora to reduce risk of erosion,” “blending architecture features with the natural features of [their] ravine property,” as well as participating in the “David Suzuki Bees in my Backyard program” and an “annual maintenance program to care for property trees.” Rai 18

Figure 2. A representation of responses regarding what aspects of stewardship activities that respondents who answered “yes” or “somewhat” to the first survey question enjoy (n = 28). Error bars represent standard error of these proportions. While a similar question was asked regarding barriers to participation in stewardship activities of those that answered “no” to the first question, these responses were not analyzed due to the small number of respondents in this group (n = 5).

Awareness of existing legislation was fairly low. Only 36% of all respondents, all of whom were private property owners within the Toronto ravines, were aware of Ch.658, with fewer aware of provincial legislation such as the Conservation Authorities Act and the Invasive

Species Act (see Figure 3). Even fewer respondents were aware of the City of Toronto’s “A

Property Owner’s Guide to Healthy Ravines” (see Figure 4). Due to the limited number of respondents that were even aware of these documents, no further analysis was conducted, as follow-up questions regarding opinions of this guide were left incomplete. Rai 19

Figure 3. The percentage of respondents that were aware of various pieces of legislation that may have been applicable to the management of their property. Less than half of respondents were aware of any of these existing legislative documents (n = 16). Due to the small proportion of respondents that were aware of these documents, no further analysis was conducted.

Figure 4. This chart demonstrates participants’ responses to the question, “Are you aware of the City of Toronto’s A Property Owner’s Guide to Healthy Ravines?” (N = 33). Respondents were also asked how satisfied they were with this document; however, due to the limited number of participants that were aware of this guide for ravine property owners, these results were not analyzed further. Note. Following the initial presentation of these findings, I was informed by City staff that only around 10 thousand copies of this guide had been distributed originally, and that further distribution of this guide is planned. Based on feedback I received from survey respondents, it could be helpful to periodically redistribute this guide (or notices of its availability) if possible. Rai 20

Various logit models were assessed to determine if active stewardship, awareness of legislation or environmental index scores were influential predictors of responses to both question 4 (How likely do you think it is that each of the following would motivate you to participate in stewardship activities on your property or in your community?) and question 7

(How likely are you to make use of the following potential programs related to stewardship on your property or in your community?). However, as they were not significantly influential, they were excluded from the final models (see Appendix F and G). Information about how invasive species can damage the infrastructure surrounding their property (p = 0.015) and tax incentives for maintaining their land (p = 0.002) were significantly influential in the final logit model for question 4, while public recognition (p < 0.001) was of highly significant influence. Biodiversity youth volunteers (p = 0.033) and subsidized native trees for planting (p = 0.017) were significantly influential in the final logit model for question 7, while stewardship incentive credits (p < 0.001) was of highly significant influence.

Information about how the decline of ravine health will affect them and their community

(n = 33), information about how invasive species can damage the infrastructure surrounding their property (n = 32), access to technical assistance (n = 32) and tax incentives for maintaining their land (n = 33) were all highly significant positive motivators (p < 0.001) for participation in stewardship activities. Information about how the decline of ravine health may impact property values (n = 32, p = 0.007), agglomerating tax incentives (n = 33, p = 0.04) and community cost- sharing programs to fund stewardship activities (n = 32, p = 0.003) were all found to be significant positive motivators. Public recognition (n = 32, p = 0.002) was the only “negative” significant motivator (see Figure 5). Rai 21

Figure 5. A display of participants’ responses to the question, “How likely do you think it is that each of the following would motivate you to participate in stewardship activities on your property or in your community?” grouped into positive and negative responses (n = 32 - 33; [+] = highly likely or likely; [-] = highly unlikely or unlikely). A single asterisk (*) denotes a significant difference in observed responses (p ≤ 0.05). A double asterisk denotes a highly significant difference (p ≤ 0.001). Biodiversity youth volunteers (n = 33), paid youth conservation jobs (n = 33), stewardship incentive credits (n = 32), subsidized native trees (n = 33) and trained volunteer-led stewardship (n = 33) were all programs that respondents indicated a highly significant positive likelihood of participating in (p < 0.001). Trained youth forest rangers (n = 33, p = 0.003) and supervised student tree planting companies (n = 33, p = 0.003) were also programs that respondents indicated a significant positive likelihood of participating in. No significant likelihood (neither positive nor negative) of respondents’ participation in community cost sharing programs (n = 33, p = 0.06) was found (see Figure 6). Rai 22

Figure 6. A display of participants’ responses to the question, “How likely are you to make use of the following potential programs related to stewardship on your property or in your community?” grouped into positive and negative responses (n = 33; [+] = highly likely or likely; [-] = highly unlikely or unlikely). A single asterisk (*) denotes a significant difference in observed responses (p ≤ 0.05). A double asterisk denotes a highly significant difference (p ≤ 0.001).

Discussion

At present, it is unknown what private property owners are actually doing on their properties. This is concerning, considering this study found low awareness of existing legislation and extremely low awareness of the City’s guide produced specifically for these private property owners. The City of Toronto has to be commended for having legislation in place to protect the ravines, as well as their existing policy that guides their efforts to restore and conserve these ravines. However, legislation and policy hold little weight if residents are not on board with them. As mentioned already, the challenges facing the ravines do not stop at the boundaries between public and private property. Efforts between public land managers and private property owners must align in order to have a meaningful effect. Rai 23

In Table 1, aspects of the existing legislation that may dissuade private property owners from participating in stewardship activities were identified. From words shared with me by respondents, and those I spoke with while delivering questionnaires, I gathered that there is some apprehension towards actively managing invasive species among private property owners (many of whom are knowledgeable of the various invasive species on their property and throughout the ravines) due to a fear of “getting caught” breaking the law. While it may be easier to blankly prohibit any alteration of the land or removal of trees within the ravines (and have those that are interested in making changes seek out a permit), this “protection” is extended to invasive species that might otherwise be removed before they spread.

Clearly outlining exemptions to these prohibitions, with emphasis placed on the requirement for expert advice rather than approval by the City, could serve to increase active stewardship among private property owners (see Recommendations). Further, there is a lack of clarity on the City of Toronto’s webpage, which may serve as the only interface through which many private property owners interact with the City (see Appendix H). These webpages are where citizens may turn to find information relevant to their intended actions, as well as the appropriate forms for following existing protocols. It is critical to ensure that these pages are up to date and in line with existing legislation and policy, particularly within the technological context of today where everything goes through the web.

It must be noted that the participants in this study are from a very specific group of people within the City of Toronto, and these results should not be viewed as representative of the entirety of City of Toronto residents. Nevertheless, there are clear trends that have emerged from the results of this study which I believe are worth examining further, considering they have been drawn from participants that were willing to take the time to respond to my lengthy questionnaire Rai 24

(which suggests interest in the health of the ravines and some level of engagement). Respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they are at least somewhat actively stewarding their land. As mentioned previously, this could be tied to a conservation-oriented attitude among these ravine property owners, and is backed by their average EI score being considerably higher than scores found in Nebel et al.’s (2017) study.

Participants in this study also indicated interest in all proposed stewardship programs aside from community cost-sharing. Most of those that responded are willing to pay to ensure their property is effectively managed and are open to receiving information about the problems at hand. If this were to hold true across the 30 thousand private property owners throughout the ravines, it would suggest that campaigns to involve these property owners in stewardship initiatives for the betterment of ravine health could prove fruitful. The challenges the ravines face do not stop at the boundaries between public and private; neither should efforts to restore them.

Recommendations

The City of Toronto has a lot of pieces in place that other major urban centres can look to as a leading example for managing urban ecosystems. This includes its unique legislation,

Ch.658, specifically protecting the City’s precious ravine system. There is also the City’s working partnership with the TRCA and other groups that serves to promote scientifically-based public land management and conservation of natural areas. However, the fact is that the ravines are in a state of decline, and desperately require further attention (Davies et al., 2018). The following recommendations are specific to the City of Toronto; although, if followed and found to be successful on a municipal scale, they may be incorporated by other municipalities facing similar challenges in their urban ecosystems. These are among the conservation projects that Rai 25

E.O. Wilson states require human intervention. “Each project is special unto itself. Each requires knowledge and love of the local environment shared by partnerships of scientists, activists, and political and economic leaders” (Wilson, 2016, p.175). The City of where there are trees in the water can and should be among the leaders in this global effort.

Recommendation 1: A review of the interface

As highlighted in Appendix H, there is a lack of clarity, as well as some inconsistencies on the City of Toronto’s website. Given the dominance of technology across our society today, it is not unreasonable to assume that the first place people turn to for help and answers is the internet. For reference, 73% of the participants in this study responded via online survey or email. Trust in governments providing information through their webpages, an effective search engine that allows users to find the information they require and adherence of information to existing laws have been found to be critical components of “successful” open government websites (Sandoval-Almazán, 2015).The City must ensure there is consistency between its major interface through which citizens acquire information regarding the appropriate protocols to follow and its existing legislation, with clear steps for users to follow.

Recommendation 2: Permitting experts to take charge

The desire to place a blanket of protection over the precious ravine ecosystem is understandable; however, it seems the blanket might be smothering stewards. The City of

Toronto hosts a variety of experts, many of whom have working relationships with the City.

Within Ch.658, section 4 provides a number of exceptions in which permits are not required.

This includes the “pruning of a tree in accordance with good arboricultural practice to maintain the health of the tree” (City of Toronto, 2016). A similar exception could be made for the removal of invasive tree species, as long that they are properly identified by experts and are Rai 26 under a certain size threshold set by the City (with the potential for different size thresholds being set for different species). Alternatively, section 7B grants City Council the power to authorize removal of trees and alteration of the grade of land. Hypothetically, an invasive species removal program could be implemented by the City without needing to alter the existing legislation at all. Either of these options would allow stewards, that might otherwise have not taken action due to concerns about dealing with the City’s permit process, to remove invasive species from their own property before they are able to reproduce. This would help slow the spread of invasive species and likely reduce management costs in the long-term.

Recommendation 3: Targeted awareness campaigns

There are a lot of people living within Ch.658 Protected Areas, and there may not be enough resources available to reach out to all of them. However, key areas where there are high densities of addresses (and by extension, likely higher densities of people) can be targeted for awareness campaigns to promote efforts to restore the ravines (see Appendix I). These campaigns can also be conducted in areas where the City deems there is potential to increase connectivity with TRCA-owned property that is spread across these Protected Areas, as well as in areas of environmental significance (as determined by the City).

Recommendation 4: Establishing a stewardship norm

Agglomeration bonuses – a way of incentivizing conservation that has been suggested to promote cooperation among private property owners (which can in turn help to decrease fragmented conservation efforts) and increase efficiency of government-provided incentives – are also something that should be considered (Smith & Shogren, 2001). Recent research in

Switzerland examining “network bonus schemes” – a form of agglomeration bonus that was introduced for farmers that participate in the establishment of “networks of ecological Rai 27 compensation areas” with their neighbours – has found strong positive preliminary results in regards to ecological and cost-effectiveness (Krämer & Wätzold, 2018). Such a system serves to promote a norm of conservation among private property owners, as neighbours recruit neighbours to partake in efforts that would benefit all, and combat fragmentation.

Despite not being explained within my questionnaire, participants did display a significant positive response to “tax incentives which increase depending on the number of property owners in [their] community participating in stewardship activities” (see Figure 5).

Thus, implementing this type of incentive system could prove successful, particularly within

Toronto’s environmentally significant areas. This would increase the efficiency of stewardship efforts made by the City and help to overcome the challenges that exist due to the boundaries between public and private property.

Recommendation 5: Local people, local guides

For information to be viewed as credible, expertise and trustworthiness in the conveyor of this information is essential (Fiske & Dupree, 2014). There is a fact that has been left unmentioned throughout this study until now; many individuals – for various reasons – may lack faith in public authorities’ intent and capability. Attempting to recruit private property owners to align their own stewardship efforts with that of the City of Toronto and the TRCA will not come without challenges. Fortunately, Toronto is filled with a number of community organizations such as resident associations that are active throughout the city (Meslin & Love, 2019). These groups can be partnered with to disseminate information. For example, the City could provide critical technical information such as “best management practices” guides produced by the

Ontario Invasive Plant Council (2019) that these organizations may explain to their neighbours. Rai 28

Literature Cited Bartoshuk, L.M., Duffy, V.B., Chapo, A.K., Fast, K., Yiess, J.H., Hoffman, H.J… & Snyder, D.J. (2004). From psychophysics to the clinic: Missteps and advances. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 617-632. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.05.007 Beninde, J., Veith, M. & Hochkirch, A. (2015). Biodiversity in cities needs space: A meta- analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecology Letters, 18, 518-592. doi: 10.1111/ele.12427 Benn, C. (2006). The : An 11,000 year journey. City of Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/explore-enjoy/history-art-culture/museums/virtual- exhibits/history-of-toronto/ Bilton, C. (2004). Storm warning: Hurricane Hazel and the evolution of flood control in Toronto. In Reeves, W. & Palassio, C. (eds.), HTO: Toronto's water from Lake Iroquois to lost rivers to low-flow toilets (pp.82-91). Toronto, ON: Coach House Books. Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economies, 29, 293-301. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0 Carifio, J. & Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Education, 42, 1150-1152. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03172.x City of Toronto. (2017). Toronto ravine strategy. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/9183-TorontoRavineStrategy.pdf City of Toronto. (2019). Toronto City Council and committees: By-laws and Municipal Code. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/lawhome.htm City of Toronto. (n.d.). A property owner’s guide to healthy ravines. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/data/parks/pdf/property-owners-guide-to-healthy-ravines.pdf City of Toronto, Municipal Code Ch. 608, Parks (10 February, 2018). Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_608.pdf City of Toronto, Municipal Code Ch. 658, Ravine and natural feature protection (4 February, 2016). Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_658.pdf City of Toronto, Municipal Code Ch. 813, Trees (10 December, 2015). Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_813.pdf City of Toronto. Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division. (2013). Sustaining and expanding the urban forest: Toronto’s strategic forest management plan. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/8e0e-Strategic-Forest-Management- Plan-2012_22.pdf Davies, E., Dong, A., Berka, C., Scrivener, P., Taylor, D. & Smith, S.M. (2018). The Toronto ravines study: 1977-2017: Long-term changes in the biodiversity and ecological integrity of Toronto’s ravines. Retrieved from https://torontoravinesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/toronto-ravines-study-1977-to- 2017-with-component-studies.pdf Rai 29

Dunn, R.R., Gavin, M.C., Sanchez, M.C. & Solomon, J.N. (2006). The pigeon paradox: Dependence of global conservation on urban nature. Conservation Biology, 20(6), 1814- 1816. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00533. Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2015). Hurricane Hazel. Retrieved from https://www.ec.gc.ca/ouragans-hurricanes/default.asp?lang=En&n=4343267B-1 Evans, P. (1996). Introduction: Development strategies across the public-private divide. World Development, 24(6), 1033-1037. Retrieved from http://resolver.scholarsportal.info/resolve/0305750x/v24i0006/1033_idsatpd Fiske, S.T. & Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(4), 13593-13597. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317505111 Goddard, M.A., Dougill, A.J. & Benton, T.G. (2013). Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes. Ecological Economics, 86, 258-273. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.016 Government of Ontario. (2019). e-Laws. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/laws Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38, 1212-1218. doi: j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x Krämer, J.E. & Wätzold, F. (2018). The agglomeration bonus in practice – An exploratory assessment of the Swiss network bonus. Journal for Nature Conservation, 43, 126-135. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2018.03.002 Meijerink, S. & Dicke, W. (2008). Shifts in the public-private divide in flood management. Water Resources Development, 24(4), 499-512. doi: 10.1080/07900620801921363 Meslin, D. & Love, R. (2019). TANGO: Toronto Atlas of Neighbourhood Groups and Organisations. Retrieved from http://tango.to/ Miller, J.R. (2008). Conserving biodiversity in metropolitan landscapes: A matter of scale (but which scale?). Landscape Journal, 27(1), 114-126. doi: 10.3368/lj.27.1.114 Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.27 (6 June, 2019a). Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27 Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Invasive Species Act, 2015, S.O. 2015, c.22 (1 July, 2019b). Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/15i22 Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of development, interference with wetlands and alterations to shorelines and watercourses, O Reg. 166/06 (8 February, 2013). Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060166 Nebel, S., Brick, J., Lantz, V.A. & Trenholm, R. (2017). Which factors contribute to environmental behavior of landowners in southwestern Ontario, Canada?. Environmental Management, 60, 454-463. doi: 10.1007/s00267-017-0849-9 Rai 30

Ontario Invasive Plant Council. (2019). Best Management Practices. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/resources/best-management-practices/ Paxton Ramsdell, C., Sorice, M.G. & Dwyer, A.M. (2016). Using financial incentives to motivate conservation of an at-risk species on private lands. Environmental Conservation, 43(1), 34-44. doi: 10.1017/S0376892915000302 Racine, V. (2017). Human | Wildlife, Stitching the fabric: Connectivity strategies for identified gaps in Toronto's ravines (Master’s research project). Retrieved from https://digital.library.ryerson.ca/islandora/object/RULA%3A6426 Ramsay-Brown, J. (2015). Toronto’s ravines and urban forests: Their natural heritage and local history. Toronto, ON: James Lorimer & Company Ltd. Sandoval-Almazán, R. (2015). Open government success factors in government websites: The Mexican experience. In Information Resources Management Association, Open Source Technology: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp.1619-1635). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-7230-7 Smith, R.B.W. & Shogren, J.F. (2001). Protecting species on private land. In J.F. Shogren & J. Tschirhart, Protecting Endangered Species in the United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices (pp.326-342). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2014). The Living City policies: For planning and development in the watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxjqkzmOuaaRYWxqSGdUaHp5UE0/view Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2016a). The Living City Report Card 2016: A progress report on environmental sustainability in the Toronto region. Retrieved from https://trca.ca/app/uploads/2017/02/3058-LCRC-2016-Final-WEB.pdf Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2016b). Toronto – A city of rivers. Retrieved from http://camaps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=348944d100a34124b e2a4d126390a121# Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2018). Toronto and Region Watersheds: Report Card 2018. Retrieved from https://reportcard.trca.ca/app/uploads/2018/03/TRCA_WRC- 2018_Jurisdiction_FINAL.pdf Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (2019). History. Retrieved from https://trca.ca/conservation/flood-risk-management/history/ United Nations. (2018). 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world- urbanization-prospects.html Wilson, E.O. (2016). Half-Earth: Our planet’s fight for life. , NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation. Rai 31

Wong, L. & Smith, S. (2018). Restoring Toronto’s ravines: A management tool for system-wide approaches. Unpublished manuscript.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank a number of people, without whom I would not have been able to complete this project. First, thank you Sandy for providing me with guidance throughout the course, and for the hands-off approach that allowed me to take this project where I wanted it to go. Thank you Catherine, for bringing me into this world of the ravines, and for the passion you display towards this critical natural system which has inspired my work. Thanks Anne, for helping get to the root of what the participants in this study were saying, as well as for emphasizing the importance of balancing competing demands. Thank you Jay, for sharing some of your newly acquired wizardry in R, which sorted out the some of the headaches I developed from reading far too many stats papers. Thanks Teri, for your feedback and support as well throughout my internship. Thank you Haleigh, for your assistance with reviewing and identifying key parts of the existing legislation and policies that needed to be looked into further, and for keeping what would have otherwise been long boring days sitting alone at a computer entertaining. Thank you Laura, for taking charge of my incoming mail; when I decided to provide participants with the opportunity to mail in their responses, I had no idea how I would actually receive them, and your assistance made things very convenient. And finally, thank you to the participants in this study. We live in a society that requires people that are willing to speak up, and your voices lend weight to this study that I could not provide with my own. Rai 32

Appendix A

Figure A1. There are around 30,000 private addresses throughout the ravines. Of these, over 24,000 are considered Low Density Residential. Additional addresses include High Density Residential (apartments), private schools and golf courses, as well as commercial and industrial locations. Rai 33

Appendix B

Ravine and Natural Feature Protection Toronto Municipal Code: Ch. 658 Summary: Within protected areas (as outlined in the document), no trees shall be injured/destroyed/removed AND the grade of the land shall not be altered, unless approved of through a permit issued by the City via the General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation. These protected areas are defined based on boundary lines which may be provided by City Surveyors. A permit to damage/remove trees is not required in a limited number of exceptions within these private areas. These exceptions include removing hazardous/dead/diseased trees, maintenance of trees for their health OR safety purposes (ex. pruning branches) OR within manicured areas of existing golf courses, and in the case of emergency work where removal of trees is the only viable option (as certified by the GM). Permits may also not be required within particular zones of Rouge Park (Agricultural Heritage Reserve + Special Management). A permit to alter the grade of the land is also not required in certain exceptions. These include the management of garden beds (as long as slopes are not altered by >10%) and existing manicured areas (with < 5m3 of soil being added), as well as work conducted in areas which do not affect the land (ex. rooftops, planters, etc.) OR in areas managed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority OR within the same particular zones of Rouge Park. Further, permits may not be required for the erection of fences within these protected areas, as long as applicable zoning/fence by-laws are adhered to AND the uphill side of the fence is kept clear of clutter. Applicants looking to either injure/destroy a tree OR place/dump “fill or refuse” (ex. soil) OR alter the grade of the land within protected areas must submit an application to the GM. They must provide their personal information, as well as an explanation of why they require a permit. Sufficient information regarding the location (ex. plant inventory, geotechnical report) must be provided, as well as plans for the entire process (ex. for tree removal: protection of other trees in the area, removal, replacement/rehabilitation; for placement of fill/refuse: existing and proposed conditions, as well as drainage). The issuance of permits is dependent on the GM. Permits may be issued when a tree poses a risk of causing damage to load-bearing structures OR when appropriate approval has been obtained under the Planning Act (through the Ontario Municipal Board, City Council or Committee of Adjustment) OR when building permits have been obtained for modification to properties OR when pruning/removal is required for the health of the tree and/or the wellbeing of the system around it OR work is to be completed in the area and removal of the tree is the only viable option for allowing access. Following the removal of a tree, replacements (in line with management plans for the area) are to be planted. If this is not possible, replacement should occur at another suitable location OR the applicant must pay for the City to replant and maintain trees elsewhere (for a 2 yr. period) plus an additional 20% of these costs.

Rai 34

Appendix B (cont.)

Permits are bound to their expiry dates, established by the GM. They may also be transferred or replaced, subject to approval by the GM. Permits must be visible from at least one day prior to any work being carried out to the point of completion. If a tree exists on the boundary between two or more properties OR a neighbour applies for a permit related to a tree not on their own property, all co-owners of the tree must be provided notice of the existing application. If a tree is considered a heritage tree OR if management of a healthy tree has not been addressed in plans submitted to the GM, the City Council must approve of otherwise prohibited activities (injury/destruction of trees OR alteration of the grade of the land). Appeals may also be made within 30 days if permits are refused. Filed appeals must be passed on to pertinent community council meetings by the GM, who must also explain the reason for refusal. The City Council may decide whether the refusal should be upheld or overturned. Inspections may be carried out by City employees or officers (responsible for enforcement of this chapter; includes the GM, urban foresters + arborists and students + contractors working for Urban Forestry) to ensure prohibited activities are not being undertaken AND that permits are being complied with. Documents must be made available to inspectors, and requested information must be provided. Assessments may be made through tests, samples or photographs taken throughout the inspection process. Officers may make orders for ongoing prohibited activity to be discontinued or corrected (under section 384 and 385 of the , 2006). Orders may be delivered in-person or via mail. In the case of property residents that are not the registered owner of a property, both parties will receive notice when possible. If the registered owner cannot be found, a placard must be placed on the property to provide notice. Violators of this chapter must restore sites to their original conditions. Any violations may result in the violators being found guilty of an offence. Fines may range from $500 to $100 000 per tree OR per offence within protected areas. Any alteration of the grade of the land OR the placement/dumping of fill or refuse may be viewed as a continuing offence, and yield a fine ranging from $500 to 10 000 PER DAY, until the offence is corrected. Further, failure to meet the conditions of permit issuance may also be subject to the same PER DAY charges. Where necessary, the GM is permitted to direct the correction of offences in lieu of offenders. In this case, the City may recover incurred costs directly from the offender or through added costs to their property tax. This chapter supersedes any conflicting provisions from other by-laws of former municipalities related to ravines, alteration of the grade of the land and injury/destruction of trees.

Rai 35

Appendix B (cont.)

Bill 37: An Act respecting Invasive Species Chapter 22 | Statutes of Ontario | 2015 Relevant Sections: Notes/Opinions/Questions • 3(2): species which are not “easily distinguished” from invasive species (as defined in this Act) may be treated as an invasive “in the absence of evidence to the contrary” o GOOD: a degree of leniency when dealing with invasive species identification which suggests that those enforcing this Act do not require expertise in IDing these harmful species o BAD: may mistakenly harm non-invasive species • 7-8: There is a distinction between “prohibited” and “restricted” invasive species… Does legislation exist to ensure invasive species are prohibited within environmentally significant areas / areas at risk (such as the ravines)? • 15-23: “Inspectors” can initiate the enforcement of many preventative measures under this Act… Is it possible to broaden the range of who may act as an inspector (ex. “officer” under Ch.658)? • 44(2): For a corporation OR a wealthy individual, increasing the fees based on the perceived severity of their actions (which this Act links to the number of organisms involved rather than the amount of harm they may cause) may not be sufficient… o Increased sentences may not be the best solution, but what about mandatory enrollment in courses to educate offenders about the wide-ranging consequences of their actions? • 55 outlines the ability of the Ministry to delegate responsibilities for authorizing otherwise-prohibited actions to individuals/bodies prescribed by regulations, and introduces (7) performance agreements + (8) assessments which are to be conducted by the Ministry… o Could a similar regime be set for the delegation of power to appoint inspectors or enforcement officers at a smaller/more local level?

Rai 36

Appendix B (cont.)

Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.27 s.28 – Prohibited activities • This section outlines the activities which are prohibited in lands that are under the jurisdiction of a Conservation authority: o Alteration (straightening, changing, diverting) or “interference” with existing waterways (rivers, creeks, streams) or wetlands o Development in areas which are ▪ hazardous lands ▪ wetlands ▪ rivers/stream valleys ▪ adjacent/close to the shoreline of the -St. Lawrence River System OR to an inland lake AND that may be affected by flooding/erosion/dynamic beach hazards ▪ other areas as determined in 2017, c.23, Sched. 4, s.25 • Various exceptions exist if activities are approved under the Aggregate Resources Act, the Red Tape Reduction Act OR permitted in accordance with this Act

O. Reg. 166/06: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of development, interference with wetlands and alterations to shorelines and watercourses Ontario Regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act • 2 Prohibits development in areas within the TRCA’s jurisdiction (see maps: Ontario Regulation 97/04: Regulation for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses”), unless a permit is obtained o Primary focus is placed on hydrologic function of waterways under their jurisdiction (GLSL River system, rivers + streams, wetlands, etc.) • 5 Subject to section 6 (Permissions), no person shall straighten, change, divert or interfere in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse or change or interfere in any way with a wetland o This is very open-ended… would removing a tree in a wetland be considered “interference”?

Rai 37

Appendix C This four-page questionnaire was delivered to 300 addresses throughout Toronto’s ravines. These questions were replicated within the online questionnaire that participants could answer as an alternative to filling out and returning the hard copy.

Rai 38

Appendix C (cont.)

Rai 39

Appendix C (cont.)

Rai 40

Appendix C (cont.)

Rai 41

Appendix D

This instruction sheet was included in every package delivered to private properties, to explain how participants could return their responses. A tinyurl was provided for ease of access by those that sought to complete the online survey. Overall, 21 respondents chose to make use of the online survey, 3 responded via email and 12 responded via mail (although only 9 mail-in respondents were included in analysis, as three did not include their signed consent forms). Rai 42

Appendix E

Figure E1. 300 questionnaires were delivered to private properties throughout these three ravines. Only residences that backed directly onto ravine slopes were delivered to. Requests within mail boxes such as “no drop offs” were respected. Rai 43

Appendix F

Figure F1. This stacked-column bar chart displays the predicted probabilities of answering from “highly unlikely” to “highly likely” in response to the question, “how likely do you think it is that each of the following would motivate you to participate in stewardship activities?” (n = 32 - 33). A single asterisk (*) denotes a significant influence within the logit model from which these probabilities were derived (p ≤ 0.05). A double asterisk denotes a highly significant influence (p ≤ 0.001).

The following formulas display the output of the ordinal logistic regression (logit) model from which these predicted probabilities were derived: logit(F_highly unlikely) = -2.739 - (0.879iyou + 0.540prpv + 1.097invs + 0.609tcas + 1.492txin + 0.298cost – 2.066publ) logit(F_unlikely) = -1.054 - (0.879iyou + 0.540prpv + 1.097invs + 0.609tcas + 1.492txin + 0.298cost – 2.066publ) logit(F_neutral) = -0.429 - (0.879iyou + 0.540prpv + 1.097invs + 0.609tcas + 1.492txin + 0.298cost – 2.066publ) logit(F_likely) = 1.180 - (0.879iyou + 0.540prpv + 1.097invs + 0.609tcas + 1.492txin + 0.298cost – 2.066publ)

* “Tax incentives which increase depending on the number of property owners in [their] community participating in stewardship activities” did not factor into the model. Rai 44

Appendix G

Figure G1. This stacked-column bar chart displays the predicted probabilities of answering from “highly unlikely” to “highly likely” in response to the question, “how likely are you to make use of each of the following potential programs related to stewardship on your property or in your community?” (n = 33). A single asterisk (*) denotes a significant influence within the logit model from which these probabilities were derived (p ≤ 0.05). A double asterisk denotes a highly significant influence (p ≤ 0.001).

The following formulas display the output of the ordinal logistic regression (logit) model from which these predicted probabilities were derived: logit(F_highly unlikely) = -2.572 - (0.965utyv + 0.723pycn + 1.767stin + 1.119sntp + 0.739tvls + 0.411tyfr + 0.411sstp) logit(F_unlikely) = -1.190 - (0.965utyv + 0.723pycn + 1.767stin + 1.119sntp + 0.739tvls + 0.411tyfr + 0.411sstp) logit(F_neutral) = 0.027 - (0.965utyv + 0.723pycn + 1.767stin + 1.119sntp + 0.739tvls + 0.411tyfr + 0.411sstp) logit(F_likely) = 1.620 - (0.965utyv + 0.723pycn + 1.767stin + 1.119sntp + 0.739tvls + 0.411tyfr + 0.411sstp)

* “Community cost sharing programs” did not factor into the model. Rai 45

Appendix H

https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/building-construction/tree-ravine-protection-permits/ 1. The interface for a citizen that is looking to learn about the appropriate process for removing a tree on their property within the ravines may very well begin here on the City of Toronto’s website, specifically designed to direct individuals towards the appropriate information and forms. While the blue box identifies the appropriate link through which an individual may find the information they were looking for, as well as the “Ravine and Natural Feature Permit Application Form,” the yellow box provides an alternative link that may be followed by an individual, as there is no clear indication here that trees on private property within ravines are protected under a unique by-law.

Rai 46

Appendix H (cont.)

https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/building-construction/tree-ravine-protection- permits/permit-to-undertake-work-in-ravines/ 2. If a citizen were to turn to the wrong link, there is a link provided on this page for the appropriate by-law. However, there is no indication that there is an alternative permit process specifically for trees on private property within the ravines. Further, there is the inclusion of “any vegetation” under the definition of protected trees on this webpage. This could lead an individual to believe that a permit is required for the removal of invasive herbaceous plants in addition to trees within the ravines.

Rai 47

Appendix H (cont.)

3. Carrying on through this same webpage, a single link is provided to an application for injuring or removing trees. Again, there is no indication that there is an alternative form specifically for trees on ravine property.

Rai 48

Appendix H (cont.)

http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/clerks/fit.nsf/0/26b67dd76bcda05d852583d1006004c5/$File/Applicati on%2Bto%2BInjure%2Bor%2BDestroy%2BTrees%2BApril%2B2019%2B.pdf 4. This application does provide a link to another webpage for those that read closely enough, with a brief explanation that a permit application is required under Ch.658 and that “forms and information are available online.” However, it does not clearly express that these forms are separate from this application, with its associated fees.

Rai 49

Appendix H (cont.)

http://www.toronto.ca/trees 5. To wrap things up nicely, this is the link provided within the permit application in the previous page for those that wish to ensure they have the proper form for the removal of trees on private property within the ravines. The link in the green box directs to the page presented in Appendix H #1, while the link in the yellow box directs to the page presented in Appendix H #2… Maybe a citizen will guess appropriately this second go around, or maybe not. The lack of clarity may lead to individuals submitting the incorrect forms, wasting the City’s and their own time. It may also dissuade individuals from bothering upon incorrectly being led to fees which do not actually apply to the application they are seeking. At best, it is a giant waste of an individual’s time as they seek to follow the appropriate protocols put in place by the City. Note. Concerns about these flaws were raised with City staff prior to the completion of this report, however, changes have yet to be made.

Rai 50

Appendix I

Figure I1. This map displays the density of addresses throughout Ravine and Natural Feature Protection Areas, as well as all existing TRCA-owned property in and around the City of Toronto. Targeted public awareness campaigns may be conducted in those areas where density is high and the TRCA is not overseeing the land. Emphasis can also be placed on promoting connectivity between privately owned and TRCA property.