OVERVIEW
MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE
POSSIBILITIES
CAPITALS
ACTIVITIES
ACTORS
BURGESS
Urban Planning | ||
|
Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess | ||
|
Original article:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/30/opinion/environmental-inequity-trees-critical-infrastructure.html
Since When Have Trees Existed Only for Rich Americans? Birmingham, Alabama. Median household income: $37,976. NORTH PHILADELPHIA EASTWEST PHILADELPHIANORTHWEST PHILADELPHIAMANAYUNKCHESTNUT HILLWissahickon Valley ParkA-graded areasD-graded areas Across the nation, the wealthier and whiter your neighborhood is, the greener the view from your window is likely to be. This map shows a healthy tree canopy in Philadelphia, based on analysis by EarthDefine. Chestnut Hill is one of the most prestigious areas in the city. This corner of it with a median household income of about $133,000 enjoys lush greenery and cooling shade, with more than 60 percent of the surface covered in trees. Just five miles away, in a part of Nicetown-Tioga, where the median household income is roughly $37,000, trees cover only 6 percent of the area. The average temperature is more than 10 degrees higher. Decades ago, this area was “redlined” and classified as “D” by the federal government limiting investments and economic growth because of its racial makeup. Such discriminatory practices still shape our cities and, along with income inequality, define who can enjoy a healthy tree canopy and who is surrounded by concrete. 286 By Ian Leahy and Yaryna Serkez Ian Leahy is the vice president of urban forestry at American Forests. Yaryna Serkez is a writer and a graphics editor for Opinion. Access to clean air and outdoor activities seems like a basic right. But in cities across the country, lower-income communities and communities of color more often live in neighborhoods with a higher share of concrete surfaces such as roads, buildings and parking lots, and a very limited number of trees and parks. Rich Americans enjoy almost 50 percent more greenery in their environment compared with lower-income communities. Median share of tree canopy, by income $100k-$250k 32.5% $60k-$100k 27.3 $45k-$60k 24.9 $30k-$45k 23.3 0-$30k 22.2 Source: American Forests Neighborhoods with a majority of people in poverty have 25 percent less tree canopy on average than those with a minority of people in poverty, according to American Forests’ Tree Equity Score tool that analyzes income, employment, age, ethnicity, health and surface temperature with tree canopy data in 486 metro areas. In the most extreme cases, wealthy areas have 65 percent more tree canopy than communities where nine out of 10 people live below the poverty line. Baltimore Median income: $31K Tree canopy: 3% Median income: $154K Tree canopy: 74% Boston Median income: $50K Tree canopy: 13% Median income: $190K Tree canopy: 54% Austin, Texas Median income: $59K Tree canopy: 15% Median income: $185K Tree canopy: 66% Portland, Ore. Median income: $39K Tree canopy: 3% Median income: $161K Tree canopy: 57% Columbus, Ohio Median income: $38K Tree canopy: 8% Median income: $150K Tree canopy: 64% Denver Median income: $47K Tree canopy: 12% Median income: $198K Tree canopy: 44% Rich Americans enjoy more greenery in their environment compared with people in lower-income communities. This trend is present in cities across the country. In certain areas the difference can be particularly striking. Communities with too few trees are feeling the consequences this week, as a heat wave sweeps through much of the Pacific Northwest. The average temperature can vary to up to 10 degrees between places with trees and those without. And where there is more heat, there is more death: Heat kills more people in the United States than any other kind of extreme weather. We can expect up to a tenfold increase in heat-related deaths in the eastern United States by the latter half of the 2050s and at least a 70 percent increase in the largest cities nationwide by 2050. Trees today prevent approximately 1,200 more heat-related deaths annually in American cities. Being in the vicinity of this living infrastructure provides many other benefits: Healthy trees trap air pollutants, which helps avoid 670,000 incidences of acute respiratory symptoms each year. Being in the presence of trees has also been found to improve youth educational performance, mental health, physical health and social connections. A well-maintained tree canopy may even reduce several types of crime and create economic opportunities, including careers that cannot be outsourced to plant and maintain those trees. So if there is no question that trees are important, why doesn’t everyone have access to them? There is an emerging body of research from the U.S. Forest Service and others that has found a direct relationship between tree canopy today and discriminatory policies of the past. In predominantly white areas, trees cover one-third of the surface. In communities of color, barely one-fifth. Median share of tree canopy, by share of nonwhite population 0-10% 34.1% 10-20% 31.6 20-30% 28.7 30-40% 26.8 40-50% 24.9 50-60% 23.4 60-70% 22.0 70-80% 21.1 80-90% 19.7 90-100% 19.2 Source: American Forests For example, from the 1930s to the 1960s and even the 1970s, a practice of discriminatory lending now known as “redlining” was carried out in cities across the country, from Los Angeles to Baltimore. Color-coded maps dissuaded not only mortgage but also health care and infrastructure investments based on where people lived. The red lines that were drawn around neighborhoods — predominantly Black as well as Catholic, Jewish and immigrant — now often line up very closely with maps showing a lack of tree canopy today. Denver Portland, Ore. Baltimore Share of tree canopy Share of tree canopy Share of tree canopy 1% 37 2% 81 1% 83 3 miles 3 miles 3 miles D-graded areas Atlanta Charlotte, N.C. Buffalo, N.Y. Share of tree canopy Share of tree canopy Share of tree canopy 7% 81 4% 80 4% 54 3 miles 3 miles 3 miles Sources: American Forests (share of tree canopy), Mapping Inequality (redlining boundaries). Areas that were given an “A” grade at the time were characterized by U.S.-born white populations in newer houses. Today, these same neighborhoods have nearly twice as much tree coverage than communities of color that were “redlined” by receiving the “D” grade, according to a recent paper analyzing 37 metro areas. These disinvestments have a tangible impact on social equity issues. A University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign study of 98 Chicago public housing buildings with residents of similar socioeconomic situations found that when controlling for a number of other factors, more vegetation near a building contributed to 52 percent fewer crimes overall and 56 percent fewer violent crimes. With temperatures rising and economic disparities widening, trees are indispensable infrastructure. However, ensuring the right tree is planted in the right place is no easy feat. It requires expertise in selecting the most resilient and beneficial species. Planners must prepare for warming climates, allow existing trees to thrive and integrate new trees with competing infrastructure. Political will and financing from the public and private sectors are needed long before a tree is planted. Despite these challenges, opportunities can be found everywhere. Birmingham, Alabama. Median household income: $37,976. NORTH ENDEASTERN MARKETPETOSKY-OTSEGOBAGLEY For example, Detroit’s post-industrial landscape has the potential to become a national model for equitable green cities. Almost half of the city’s census block groups have a Tree Equity Score below 80 out of the 100 necessary to achieve an equitable balance of greenery. It would take about 400,000 more trees just to reach that minimal threshold. By starting in areas the city has already targeted for inclusionary growth, such as diverse, immigrant-rich Campau/Banglatown, the narrative can change from trees being expendable to their becoming a critical infrastructure capable of improving child well-being, public health and employment. Tree Equity Score shows it will take 522 million more trees to achieve an equitable balance of greenery in every neighborhood in metro areas with 50,000 people or more in the continental United States. Getting there requires a lot more funding to both plant new and maintain existing trees. Some promising tools have emerged to help boost investment, including social impact bonds (which pay investors based on such outcomes as reduced prison recidivism) and voluntary carbon markets like City Forest Credits (a registry that issues tree planting and protection credits that can be purchased by companies to offset emissions). But an ambitious goal like 522 million new trees cannot be achieved without the public sector. There are numerous opportunities to begin addressing tree equity in cities, such as through the infrastructure legislation working through Congress, substantially increasing support for the Urban and Community Forestry program and proposals to create programs at federal agencies focused on housing, energy and transportation. Reaching these ambitious targets would have an outsize impact on life-saving health outcomes, quality of life and slowing climate change, all while supporting over three million jobs, especially in neighborhoods that now lack greenery. Sources: EarthDefine and American Forests (tree canopy), American Community Survey (median household income), Mapping Inequality (redlining boundaries). READ 286 COMMENTS More in Opinion Bethany Mollenkof for The New York Times ‘What’s So Bad About Having Fewer or No Children?’ June 29 Damon Winter/The New York Times Paul Krugman What Underlies the G.O.P. Commitment to Ignorance? June 29 Continue reading the main story Kathryn Elsesser/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Michael E. Mann and Susan Joy Hassol That Heat Dome? Yeah, It’s Climate Change. June 29 Clodagh Kilcoyne/Reuters Susan McKay Northern Ireland Is Coming to an End June 30 Stephen M. Dowell/Orlando Sentinel, via Associated Press Gail Collins and Bret Stephens The Mike Pence Saga Tells Us More Than We Want to Know June 28 Editors’ Picks An online petition is asking James Corden to change the food options on his “Spill Your Guts or Fill Your Guts” segment on “The Late Late Show.” CBS Funny or Racist? A Food Bit on James Corden’s Late Show Draws Ire. June 29 Gracia Lam The Secrets of ‘Cognitive Super-Agers’ June 21 ‘He Was Smiling and Went Straight to the Booth’ June 27 Most Popular When the Truth, and My Groom-to-Be, Stood Naked Before Me Why Can’t Americans Go to Canada? What Should I Do With My Grandfather’s Cringey Canvases? Delta Variant in N.Y.C.: What to Know How to Undress Someone Quickly Inside Betsey Johnson’s Malibu Dream House After Serena Williams Is Injured, Wimbledon Defends Court Conditions Kim Jong-un Lost Weight. No One Knows How or Why. Sleeping in the Outdoors ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story Site Index Site Information Navigation © 2021 The New York Times Company NYTCoContact UsAccessibilityWork with usAdvertiseT Brand StudioYour Ad ChoicesPrivacy PolicyTerms of ServiceTerms of SaleSite MapHelpSubscriptions
| The text being discussed is available at | https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/30/opinion/environmental-inequity-trees-critical-infrastructure.html and |