Theories of care help explain a peri‐urban tree diversity paradox

Abstract Since diversity is often a management objective for peri‐urban tree communities on public land, one might expect to find greater diversity there than on private land, where such objectives are less common. However, this expectation rests on an assumption that people control diversity towards objectives, overlooking the role of relationships between people and trees. Theories of care offer a novel lens for exploring how such relationships relate to tree diversity. We quantitatively assessed tree diversity and qualitatively explored tree care across a peri‐urban landscape in Canada. We surveyed trees on private and public land in forest and non‐forest patches using 121 tree plots to compare diversity (species richness, evenness and size distribution). Through thematic analysis of 31 interviews associated with some of these plots, we explored expressions of tree care, including care about, taking care of, caregiving and care‐receiving. We asked how care varied and related to measurable differences in tree diversity. In forested patches, species diversity was high and there were no significant differences between private and public lands, suggesting landscape drivers are a primary force dictating tree diversity. In non‐forested patches, private plots had greater tree species richness than public lands and the only very large trees (>100 cm DBH). These diversity differences may reflect differences in non‐forest tree care, in addition to landscape drivers. Our findings reveal a paradox in which public land managers described tree diversity as an objective, yet non‐forested private lands, where no such objective existed, had greater diversity than public lands by most measures. Public land managers expressed care about native species and tree community resilience, while private landowners expressed care about particular trees, shaped by personal relationships, emotions and intergenerational efforts. Through explicitly considering care within a study of tree diversity, we found potential explanations for this paradox. Scale of responsibility and resources constrained some public tree care, while private tree care was emotionally satisfying and less constrained by institutional pressures. Everyday acts of personal care may therefore support diversity in ways that are difficult to replicate institutionally. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.