Trees Grow on Money: Urban Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Justice

Abstract

This study examines the distributional equity of urban tree canopy (UTC) cover for Baltimore, MD, Los Angeles, CA, New York, NY, Philadelphia, PA, Raleigh, NC, Sacramento, CA, and Washington, D.C. using high spatial resolution land cover data and census data. Data are analyzed at the Census Block Group levels using Spearman’s correlation, ordinary least squares regression (OLS), and a spatial autoregressive model (SAR). Across all cities there is a strong positive correlation between UTC cover and median household income. Negative correlations between race and UTC cover exist in bivariate models for some cities, but they are generally not observed using multivariate regressions that include additional variables on income, education, and housing age. SAR models result in higher r-square values compared to the OLS models across all cities, suggesting that spatial autocorrelation is an important feature of our data. Similarities among cities can be found based on shared characteristics of climate, race/ethnicity, and size. Our findings suggest that a suite of variables, including income, contribute to the distribution of UTC cover. These findings can help target simultaneous strategies for UTC goals and environmental justice concerns.

Abandonment, Ecological Assembly and Public Health Risks in Counter-Urbanizing Cities

“…For example, tree canopy cover-which is widely viewed as an amenity or source of ecosystem services [46,47]-can be unevenly distributed within cities according to the balance of pervious and impervious surfaces, parcel size, and population density [48][49][50][51][52]. A vegetation survey in New York City (NY, US) found, for instance, that public rights of way and residential areas had a higher percentage of tree canopy cover than vacant lands [35].…”

“…Abandonment is also associated with population density (Figure 2), which suggests that it affects a disproportionate number of inhabitants in counter-urbanizing cities. By intensifying existing socioecological asymmetries (e.g., differences in tree canopy cover) [29,[47][48][49]177,178], counter-urbanization can result in landscapes of escalating deficits in services like infrastructure delivery and environmental management. Absent of interventions intended to mitigate distributional inequalities, counter-urbanization can further marginalize affected areas and residents [49].…”

Citizen Science for Urban Forest Management? Predicting the Data Density and Richness of Urban Forest Volunteered Geographic Information

“…Environmental justice researchers, arguing that access to amenities such as urban forests is an integral component of environmental justice along with earlier foci on hazards and disamenities, have documented the relationships between affluence, whiteness and increased urban tree canopy coverage for many years [37,38,[45][46][47]. A recent study of seven major U.S. cities (including Philadelphia) [48] found a positive relationship between income and urban tree canopy in each city. Such results suggest that less affluent neighborhoods have fewer trees both on the ground and in VGI representations.…”

The Biodiversity of Urban and Peri-Urban Forests and the Diverse Ecosystem Services They Provide as Socio-Ecological Systems

“…It is now widely recognised that there can be considerable inequity within urban society as to access to green space or urban forests and tree cover itself [5]. In this Special Issue, Nesbitt and Meitner [6] assess the correlation between urban vegetation cover in Portland, Oregon, and socio-economic variables collected in the census of the United States.…”