1. Introduction

Djurgården and Stockholm, Epping Forest and London, Grunewald and Berlin, Bois de Boulogne and Paris, the Amsterdamse Bos and Amsterdam, Forest Park and Portland, Oregon, Stanley Park and Vancouver – these examples all show that over time, close relations between cities and forests have developed. ‘City forest’ is a term that exists in many different languages. Stadtwald (German), stadsbos (Dutch) and byskov or bynær skov (Danish) are only some examples of this. Traditionally, a city forest has been defined as a forest owned and/or managed by a certain city. Gradually the scope of the city forest concept has been broadened, now referring to a forest situated in or adjacent to a city, regardless of ownership. Perhaps more characteristic, however, are the close links between a forest and the local urban society (Konijnendijk 1999). Today, city forests are often treated as part of a larger urban and peri-urban green structure. The term ‘urban forest’ has come into wider use, for example, to refer to the planning and management of all tree-dominated green resources, both publicly and privately owned, in and near an urban area (Randrup et al. 2005; Konijnendijk et al. 2006; Konijnendijk van den Bosch et al. 2017). Like trees along streets and in parks and gardens, city forests are one element of this wider ‘urban forest’. In many cities, woodland plays a very important role, not in the least from a social and cultural perspective, within the overall urban forest and urban landscape.