Perceptions of trade-offs between urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: A case study of Canberra, Australia.

Urban greening initiatives are increasingly integrated into urban planning and climate change strategies, offering multiple benefits to residents. Despite growing advocacy for incorporating diverse stakeholder preferences and concerns into policy-making processes, there remains a knowledge gap about differences in perceptions between decision-makers and other stakeholders. Using Canberra, Australia, as a case study, this research explores the perceptions of policymakers and key stakeholder groups regarding urban forest ecosystem services (ESs), ecosystem disservices (EDs), and associated trade-offs through analysing legislative instruments, policy documents, and stakeholder submissions. The findings reveal that while legislation exhibits a high level of cohesiveness, policy documents and stakeholder submissions prioritise ESs variably. Notwithstanding generally shared acknowledgement of the urban forest's importance, perceptions of key stakeholder groups about ESs, EDs and trade-offs differed, and from those of policymakers, in some key respects. The disparities are mainly attributed to the different scales at which urban forests are perceived, and divergent value orientations among stakeholders. Results suggest that policymakers can draw from the differing perceptions to inform decisions at both city-wide and neighbourhood levels. However, making informed choices about trade-offs requires careful consideration of multiple policy objectives and the diverse values of stakeholders. More proactive engagement with key stakeholders in the policy-making process could foster a consistent and comprehensive understanding of, and response to, these diverse perceptions. These results from Canberra underscore the benefits of more inclusive approaches to the development of urban greening strategies, to achieve more socially-sustainable outcomes. • Policymakers and stakeholders view urban forest ESs and EDs at different scales. • Perceived trade-offs stem from biophysical interactions between ESs and EDs. • Divergent beliefs and prioritised values lead to implicit trade-offs. • Proactive engagement with stakeholders helps achieve multiple policy objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]