The Negative Impacts of Low Tree Canopy Percentages in Low Income Areas
The Negative Impacts of Low Tree Canopy Percentages in Low Income Areas
By: Maria Maclauso & Matt Shahroudi
Introduction
Urban tree canopy coverage provides important ecosystem services and environmental benefits for urban residents. Trees provide carbon sequestration, noise reduction, air and water quality improvement, stormwater reduction and energy savings in the urban landscape they help shade.[1] Urban tree canopy coverage is also an important sustainability component for any municipality because trees are an essential part of a well-functioning urban ecosystem and help mitigate natural hazards such as flooding and heat waves.[2] However, not every resident reaps the benefits of tree lined streets and urban tree canopy in their neighborhoods. Throughout the country there is an inequality in urban tree canopy coverage between high and low-income neighborhoods.[3] These inequalities have harmed marginalized and low-income communities through environmental and social injustice.
Background
Studies have shown that neighborhoods with wealthier residents, older residents, owner-occupied residents, neighborhoods with newer homes that have a higher market value and areas with higher-educated residents are far more likely to have a significantly higher urban tree canopy percentage than residents living in low-income neighborhoods.[4] Furthermore, studies have also shown that as population density increased, tree canopy coverage decreased.[5] Another study examining the demographic of high and low-income neighborhoods discovered that non-Hispanic blacks were 52% more likely, non-Hispanic Asians were 32% more likely, and Hispanics were 21% more likely to live in low-income neighborhoods with little urban tree canopy coverage compared to non-hispanic white residents.[6] These studies are important because they show the inequality of urban tree cover in low-income neighborhoods.
Issue
The effects of low tree canopy cover within low-income neighborhoods harms marginalized and low-income communities. For years, these low-income neighborhoods have not had the opportunity to see the benefits that come along with higher urban tree canopy coverage. Further, low-income communities tend to be less resilient and more susceptible to the harms that urban tree canopies mitigate.[7] For instance, low-income neighborhoods are home to communities that live in regions that have heat risk-related land cover conditions with a much smaller capacity to withstand rapid rises in the temperature and heat waves.[8] Therefore, without the inherent cooling effect of the shade from trees, these neighborhoods are far more vulnerable to health risks associated with rising temperatures such as heat exhaustion and poor air quality than higher-income neighborhoods.[9] Not only are low-income neighborhoods more vulnerable to harm because of the lack of urban tree canopy, they also do not get to experience the benefits of having high urban tree canopy coverage. Low-income neighborhoods do not get to see how urban tree canopies assist with stormwater management or flooding during storm season.[10]
Solution
The lack of urban tree cover within marginalized and low-income communities is the result of numerous physical and social obstacles. One part of the solution is to protect and develop the tree canopy percentages through state and local governance. Effective local governance will provide overall quality of life for the people who reside in their communities.[11] Thus, state and local governments across the United States should adopt comprehensive tree protection ordinances in order to obtain healthy, vigorous, and well-managed communities.[12] If state legislatures enacted legislation that “empowered” or required local governments to adopt tree protection laws, then the tree canopy percentages would substantially increase within the areas that need higher tree canopy coverage.[13] For example, Oregon has adopted a statewide plan for the “conservation of forest lands for forest uses”, which includes commercial forestry, wildlife habitat, and wetland protection.[14] Furthermore, Hawaii state law requires that each county within Hawaii enact ordinances designed to protect rare, threatened, and endangered plants.[15] These laws can be drafted even more narrowly or “with specific standards” to address the tree canopy coverage.[16] For example, Virginia’s state legislature requires larger local governments to replace trees during development projects while maintaining a specific amount of tree coverage.[17] Through specific tree-coverage protection ordinances, the tree canopies would increase because tree protecting laws and ordinances would provide the authorization and standards for proper tree management activities. However, the tree ordinances alone will not ensure that the trees in and around our communities will be improved or even maintained.
The second part of the solution is to physically maintain and protect the trees within the communities that need them the most. As mentioned previously, low-income neighborhoods have a substantially lower tree canopy coverage than the wealthier neighborhoods. It is imperative for government officials and local residents to consider the perspective of marginalized groups when fighting for environmental justice. Furthermore, proper management and tree maintenance is crucial in order for tree coverage to increase.[18] Despite the amount of trees planted in these low income areas, the tree coverage will not increase if these trees are not watered, planted, and cared for properly. Without these strategies to manage proper tree growth, the tree canopy protection ordinances will be “haphazard, inefficient, and ineffective” and the urban tree canopy coverage will suffer. [19]
Conclusion
In conclusion, trees are immensely important to the health of people and wildlife. The value provided by trees and urban forests increase exponentially with the increase of canopy cover. However, poor urban communities and marginalized neighborhoods have a substantially lower tree canopy percentage compared to wealthier communities. This is an issue because without the inherent cooling effect of the shade from trees, the low income neighborhoods are far more vulnerable to health risks such as heat exhaustion and poor air quality than higher-income neighborhoods.[20] The solution to these environmental and social injustices is to protect and develop the tree canopy percentages through state and local governance. However, it is important to consider the perspectives of these marginalized communities when making state and local ordinances and laws.
[1] Wen-Chin Chuang Et al., Tree Canopy Change and Neighborhood Stability: A Comparative Analysis of Washington D.C. and Baltimore, MD, Urban Forestry & Urban Planning (2017), available at
https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2017/nrs_2017_chuang_001.pdf
[2] Id. at 363.
[3] Id.
[4] UTC Fact Sheet, Louisville Metro Government (2015), https://louisvilleky.gov/sites/default/files/community_forestry/community_foresty_files/louisvillefactsheet.pdf
[5] Id.
[6] Emily Badger, The Inequality of Urban Tree Cover, Bloomberg (May15, 2013 4:47 PM),
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-15/the-inequality-of-urban-tree-cover
[7] Nicole Peterson, Trees: A Shared Good with Unequal Access, Deeproot Blog (Dec. 12, 2016), https://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/trees-a-shared-good-with-unequal-access
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Lena Eisenstein, The Importance of Effective and Efficient Local Governments, Diligent Insights (Mar. 6, 2019), available at https://insights.diligent.com/workload-management/the-importance-of-effective-
and-efficient-local-governments
[12] T.J Swiecki & E.A. Bernhardt, Tree Ordinance Guidelines, ISA (2001), available at https://wwv.isa-arbor.com/education/onlineresources/treeordinanceguidelines
[13] Arden H. Rathkopf, Daren A. Rathkopf, Edward H. Ziegler, Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning, § 20:18 (4th ed. 2020), Westlaw.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Swiecki, supra note 3.
[19] Id.
[20] David J. Nowak, Susan M. Stein, Pula V. Randler, Sustaining America’s Urban Tree and Forests 1, 6 (June, 2020).