Get documents about "Boston's Urban Tree Canopy _UTC_
Document Sample
Environmental Justice and Urban
Forestry
To plant trees is to give body and life to
one's dreams of a better world.
~ Russell
Presented by: Charlie Lord, The Urban Ecology Institute
“We must cease seeing the City as a problem. We must
see the City as the solution. For the City is our home. It
is what we make it to be. It is where we live.”
– Charter of Calcutta
Cities should be part of the solution!
UEI Theory of Change
Social and environmental well-being are
inextricably linked
EJ Theory Suggests Communities of
Color have:
• More environmental disamenities
• Fewer environmental amenities
• Less access to decision-making processes
MA Study by Faber & Kreig
• Communities of color average more than 4
x’s the number of hazardous waste sites
• Exposed to nearly 5 x’s as many lbs. of
chemicals
MA Study by Faber and Kreig
• Low income communities exposed to
nearly 7 x’s as many lbs. of chemicals
• Low income communities average nearly
2.5 x’s more waste sites and 4 x’s as many
waste sites per square mile
EJ and Forestry: The Third Wave
• Media Focus
• Environmental Justice: Social Justice
Critique
• Just Sustainability
– Integrating environmental and social justice
outcomes
Urban Forestry and Justice in Boston
What is Boston’s Urban Tree Canopy?
The Urban Tree Canopy (UTC)
of Boston refers to the area
of the City covered by trees
– street trees in sidewalks
– park trees
– trees in back and front yards
– and on commercial and
institutional grounds.
UTC Project Goals
Monetary value for the services the urban
forest is providing Boston
Assess which areas are most in need of more
green/less gray infrastructure
Develop implementation strategy with the City
Target key opportunity zones
Public and private properties
Determining Boston’s current and
potential UTC through remote sensing
• UTC data was collected
using high resolution .5m
remote sensing imagery
• Imagery was then classified
in a land cover data set as:
canopy cover, plantable
space, water and marsh
land, or impervious
surfaces.
Forest Opportunity Spectrum: first analysis
current and possible canopy cover Additional acers needed to reach 50% of total UTC in each
Current Canopy Cover Rates in Acres neighborhood
Existing 8767 600
Possible 12207 500
482
Not Suitable 8820 400 363
Not Suitable areas include transportation networks and 300
220 217
buildings
200 163
140
Not 115
Suitable 77
30% Existing 100 39
28
29% 3 0 0 0 0 0
0
e
e
r
n
l
ac ter
Ro pan
n
Ba or c ry
Ro d
ca k
on
n
ra
on
ry
te
ll
ow
al
or
r
ai
En
to
Hi
Pa
u
bu
nt
s
es
ht
nd
st
Pl
rth enm
xb
lst Bo s
he
ta
st
Ce
on
ig
h
nw Bo
ox
ch
sli
de
at
le
ut
Br
tR
or
ar
K
M
So
h
Hy
ai
st
ut
on
D
D
Be
Ch
ay
m
Ea
es
Possible
So
h
Ja
W
y
Ba out
41%
Al
No
Fe
S
ck
Existing and Possible UTC by Land Use
Boston
8000
7000
6000
3657
5000
4000
3000 2757
1587
2000 1280 3446
983 Potential UTC
1000 1280 1368 1606 321
572 605 Existing UTC
0
Cityof Boston Commonwealth Other Exempt Commercial Residential Industrial
MA Land
street tree
Number of
10
people per 15
20
25
30
0
5
Allston/Brighton
Roxbury
Mattapan
Jamaica Plain
North
Dorchester
Hyde Park
Fenway
South
Dorchester
East Boston
Neighborhood Roslindale
Central
South Boston
Back Bay
Charlestown
South End
Average number of people per street tree, by neighborhood
West Roxbury
A comparison of UTC across Boston
1) This area has the lowest
canopy cover. It also
lacks plantable (yellow
spaces). The majority of 3) This area has a high
land is impermeable. rate of canopy cover-
above the goal. Although
there are plantable
spaces, it’s need for trees
is not as high as the
second area.
2) This area has tree cover
below the canopy goal. It
also has many plantable Legend
(yellow spaces). This is a street trees
good site to add trees. empty street tree pit
non plantable zone
tree cover
plantable space
GROW BOSTON GREENER
What is GROW BOSTON GREENER?
GROW BOSTON GREENER is a collaborative
effort of the City of Boston and its
partners in Boston’s Urban Forest
Coalition (BUFC) to plant 100,000
new trees in the City by 2020.
Tree canopy, EJ, and Violence
in the Inner City:
Understanding the connections
Case Study: Ida B. Wells housing development
Chicago, IL
Chosen by Univ. of IL
because:
• Building had similar amount of
common space, but differing levels
of vegetation
• The vegetation did not block
views
•Residents are randomly assigned
to the buildings
• Residents have similar personal
characteristics
Case Study: Ida B. Wells housing development
Chicago, IL
Methods:
•Collected police reports from
98 buildings
• Assigned vegetation common
area rating to each building
(low, medium, high)
• Analyzed relationship between
quantity of vegetation and crime
rates
Case Study: Ida B. Wells housing development
Chicago, IL
8
7
6
# of crimes 5
overall 4
3
2
1
0
Low Medium High
Findings:
•Buildings with more vegetation had fewer violent crimes and
fewer property crimes
Social Ecological Complexity
Variables
• % Canopy Cover Cluster Variable
• Social Capital (count)
•(neighborhood
collective Canopy Capital Volunteer Move
action)
• Willingness to
Volunteer 1(533) 38% 75% 51% 27%
• Move Away
2(560) 15% 66% 50% 52%
3(111) 30% 82% 45% 21%
4(354) 1% 54% 58% 57%
5(311) 5% 56% 41% 55%
Neighborhood Stability
• Neighborhood
Crime Rate
– “Neighbors’
Willingness to Act”
for each other
– Neighborhood
gardens
– Community
Forestry
• Mental Health
– Fatigue and
Aggression
– Concentration
Chicago Heat Wave of 1995
“According to emergency workers, the
task was equivalent to handling one
fatal jetliner crash per day for three
consecutive days.”
Klinenberg, 2002, Heat Wave: a social
autopsy of disaster in Chicago.
Heat Wave:
a social autopsy of
disaster in Chicago
High income Low income High income
High Social Capital Low social capital
Age: Children and Seniors
Parks and Property Values
• Homes within 1,500 feet of a natural area show significant
property premiums: an average of $10,648!
• Each large front yard tree adds 1% to sales price. Large
trees can add 10% or more.
Parks, crime and property values
• Well designed and maintained parks can deter crime
• A study in Baltimore looked at over 25,000 homes,
their proximity to parks and the rate of robbery in or
near parks
• The results showed a positive relationship between
parks and home values in low-crime neighborhoods,
but the opposite was true in high-crime
neighborhoods
EJ and violence: Understanding the links
• Greenery has a
calming effect.
• Green spaces are
places where
residents can
gather and build
community.
• Green spaces give
neighborhoods the
appearance of
being cared for.
To plant trees is to give body and life
to one's dreams of a better world.
~ Russell Page
References
• Luttik. 2000. “The Value of Trees, Water and Open Space as Reflected by
House Prices in the Netherlands.” Landscape and Urban Planning 48:161-
167.
• Nicholls, S. and J. Crompton. 2005. “The Impact of Greenways on Property
Values: Evidence from Austin, Texas.” Journal of Leisure Research 37:321-
341.
• Troy, Austin and Morgan Grove. 2006. “Property Values, Parks, and Crime:
A hedonic analysis in Baltimore, MD.” Working paper.
• Tyrvainen, L., and A. Miettinen. 2000. “Property Prices and Urban Forest
Amenities.” Journal of Economics and Environmental Management 39:205-
223.
• Anderson, L.M.; Cordell, H.K. “Residential Property Values Improve by
Landscaping With Trees.” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 9 (1988):
162-166.
Contacts and more information:
Charlie Lord
Executive Director
Urban Ecology Institute
(617) 552-0928
lordca@bc.edu
Urban Ecology Institute:
www.urbaneco.org
