/

How cities can lead the�ght against climatechange using urbanforestry and trees(commentary)

Commentary by Chad Papa and Lauren Cooper on 27 November 2019

Comprehensive urban forestryplanning can influence the everydaylives of citydwellers by reducingstorm water runoff, decreasingwildfire risk and severity, reducingurban heat islands, decreasing utilitycosts, increasing economic growth,and providing clean drinking water.

Urban trees also have the ability tosequester atmospheric carbondioxide (CO2) and serve as long-termcarbon sinks. However, cities seem

/

After the United States pulled out of the 2016

Paris Climate Agreement

(https://news.mongabay.com/2017/06/trump-

withdraws-u-s-from-paris-climate-accord-

scientists-respond/), combating climate

change at local scales in the U.S. has become

increasingly important to meet greenhouse gas

(GHG) emission reduction goals.

Luckily, cities and local municipalities are beginning to recognize the

important linkages between urban resiliency, human well-being, and climate

change mitigation and adaptation

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204614000310)

activities. They have important opportunities to leverage their urban forests

to fight climate change

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S161886671500103X).

There are plenty of examples of cities leading

the way on climate by joining activities such

as the C40 Cities for Climate Leadership

Groups (https://www.c40.org/), US Climate

Mayors (http://climatemayors.org/), ICLEI

Local Governments for Sustainability

(https://www.iclei.org/), Carbon Climate

Registry (https://carbonn.org/), and the

Under2 Coalition

(https://www.under2coalition.org/). Cities and

to be lacking in language andplanning to link together variousmitigation and adaptation strategiesspecifically to sequester and storeCO2 within urban trees.

While there are examples of citiesincorporating forest carbon storageand sequestration policies into theirplanning, these are limited, and oftenonly in our largest cities. Many citieshave excellent programming toencourage tree plantings and greenspace but are not quite comfortabletaking a leap into climate mitigationclaims and calculations. Here’s alook at what cities are doing.

This post is a commentary. Theviews expressed are those of theauthor, not necessarily Mongabay.

/

municipalities already focus on GHG emission

reductions, increasing green spaces, green

building certification, green infrastructure

development, the reduction of transportation

emissions, increased energy efficiencies,

energy saving initiatives, and smart city

planning, and even carbon taxes in some

cases. Using these tools, local governments

and city planners can create resilient urban

areas that can counteract the negative effects

of climate change.

Another area where cities are increasingly enacting policies is by

managing urban forests for climate. Comprehensive urban forestry

planning can influence the everyday lives of citydwellers by reducing

storm water runoff

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749111000327),

decreasing wildfire risk and severity, reducing urban heat islands,

decreasing utility costs, increasing economic growth, and providing

clean drinking water

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343515000433).

Urban trees also have the ability to sequester

atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and serve

as long-term carbon sinks

(https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/5521).

However, cities seem to be lacking in

language and planning to link together various

mitigation and adaptation strategies

specifically to sequester and store CO2 within

urban trees.

Urban trees. Photo Credit: MSU Forestry Department.

/

So, why aren’t more cities explicitly linking the

CO2 sequestration benefits with their urban

forests?

With varying city size and capacity, the answer

is not simple. While there are examples of

cities incorporating forest carbon storage and

sequestration policies into their planning,

these are limited, and often only in our largest

cities. Many cities have excellent

programming to encourage tree plantings and

green space but are not quite comfortable

taking a leap into climate mitigation claims

and calculations.

There is no one size fits all strategy for cities to undertake climate mitigation

activities. Local policy makers must identify and create specific local strategies that

fit within a regional context, but expertise to do this can be lacking in terms of

climate mitigation and adaptation. Studies have shown that organizing and

coordinating between various stakeholders is quite difficult, especially when urban

forests span multiple jurisdictions

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1618866714001289).

Additionally, finding the political support

(https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6c59/b9bfc7a08897a96e85447f45746b26d1682a.pdf)

to pass ordinances remains elusive even in places where public support for urban

tree management is strong.

Insufficient funding (http://www.uvm.edu/~cfcm/AAG_presentation.pdf) and professional knowledge are probably

preventing cities from accomplishing such a task. Upfront costs of training professional staff and establishing a net

assessing urban forest health can quickly surpass the capabilities of local governments. Sustainable funding for ma

tree care remains a formidable obstacle, as well. Diversifying and securing stable sources of funding is needed to i

(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285817542_Community_forestry_in_Missouri_US_Attitudes_and_know

in areas without proactive approaches to urban forest management.

Now, let’s look at what cities are doing:

Looking at urban forestry plans across the

country, there are three main examples of

ways cities use urban forestry to store more

carbon: 1) tree plantings; 2) percent canopy

cover targets; and 3) urban forest management

strategies.

/

Tree plantings are the most common local policy that provides carbon

storage. Cities across the US have programs to provide free trees,

request plantings, access educational materials, and receive tree

maintenance. Cities can see benefits such as being a part of programs

through the U.S. Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forest

Program (https://www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/urban-forests/ucf) or

the Arbor Day Foundation’s Tree City USA

(https://www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa/). Examples of

government-funded tree planting initiatives are Seattle, Washington

(https://www.seattle.gov/trees/planting-and-care/trees-for-

neighborhoods); Sarasota, Florida

(https://www.sarasotafl.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1308/16);

and San Jose, California (http://www.ourcityforest.org/plant-trees).

Cities often target increasing tree canopy

cover to reduce urban heat island

temperatures (https://www.epa.gov/heat-

islands) or to reduce storm water runoff

(https://www.epa.gov/soakuptherain/soak-rain-

trees-help-reduce-runoff). However, increasing

canopy cover provides additional benefits

through carbon storage, sequestration, habitat

derivation, and biodiversity. Cities such as

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

(http://treephilly.org/about/); Columbus, Ohio

(https://www.columbus.gov/branch-out/);

Orlando, Florida

(https://www.orlando.gov/Initiatives/2018-

Urban trees. Photo Credit: MSU Forestry Department.

/

Community-Action-Plan); and Long Beach,

California have efforts underway to increase

percent tree canopy cover. Many of these

initiatives are aimed at increasing tree cover

in lower-income urban areas, as these areas

are disproportionately affected by tree loss

and generally more likely to suffer the adverse

effects of climate change.

The most progressive forest carbon policies are comprehensive urban forest management plans. San Francisco has

implemented such a plan (https://sfgov.org/sfplanningarchive/urban-forest-plan) in three phases: Phase 1 focuses o

the management of street trees to highlight their benefits (completed in 2014); Phase 2 focuses on a vision and

strategy for trees in parks and opens spaces to address policy, management, and financing of park trees; and Phase

will develop recommendations for trees on private property and guidelines for green roofs and walls. According to

annual report

(https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Street%20Tree%20SF%20Annual%20Report%20FY2017_2018_FINAL.PD

San Francisco’s urban forest stores 196,000 metric tons of carbon (MtC) and sequesters 5,200 MtC per year. Overa

the plan highlights that trees are valuable infrastructure to urban areas and necessary for ecological functions and

benefits within urban settings.

While cities of all sizes have an opportunity to

lead when it comes to combating climate

change, plenty of challenges remain. With

tight municipal budgets, funding for such

initiatives remains a crucial challenge to

achieving climate mitigation goals. Although

long-term funding, like US Forest Service or

non-profit grants, can be elusive, many

municipalities can achieve promising

outcomes with spurts of funds, for example for

tree plantings and educational initiatives.

Urban forests could receive financial support

from linkages to carbon markets and other

carbon project financing mechanisms, if they

develop.

Overall, cities remain an important piece of

the puzzle to meeting global climate change

goals. As more cities begin to link their

current climate change activities to the

benefits of carbon sequestration and storage

through the management of urban forests, the

climate benefits provided by trees will only

continue to increase.

We have an opportunity to boost

understanding of climate mitigation and

adaptation with tools and training so urban

/

planners, foresters, officials, council members,

and others are able to value and communicate

climate mitigation benefits of forests.

Programs such as Michigan State University’s

Forest Carbon and Climate Program

(https://www.canr.msu.edu/fccp/) (where the

authors work) and the Forest-Climate Working

Group

(http://forestclimateworkinggroup.org/?)

continue to educate future leaders, planners,

and managers of urban forests to work

towards climate change solutions.

CITATIONS

The Backbone Trail in the Santa Monica Mountains,California. Photo via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CCBY 2.0.

/

• Driscoll A.N., Ries, P.D., Tilt, H.J., Ganio,

L.M. (2015). Needs and barriers to expanding

urban forestry programs: An assessment of

community officials and program managers in

the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region.

14(1):48-55. doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.11.004

(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.11.004)

• Elmqvist, T., Setälä, H., Handel, S. N., Van

Der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Blignaut, J. N., … &

De Groot, R. (2015). Benefits of restoring

ecosystem services in urban areas. Current

opinion in environmental sustainability, 14, 101-

108. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.001

(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.001)

• Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T., & Wagner, J. E.

(2011). Urban forests and pollution mitigation:

Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices.

Environmental pollution, 159(8-9), 2078-2087.

doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010

(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010)

• Haaland, C., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2015).

Challenges and strategies for urban green-

space planning in cities undergoing

densification: A review. Urban forestry & urban

greening, 14(4), 760-771.

doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009

(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009)

• Nowak, D. J., & Crane, D. E. (2002). Carbon

storage and sequestration by urban trees in

the USA. Environmental pollution, 116(3), 381-

389. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00214-7

(https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/5521)

• Schadler, E., Danks, C., & McDermott, M.

(2012). Carbon Markets for US Urban Forestry:

Attracting Funds by offering local value. AAG

Meeting: February, 28th, 2019.

• Stevenson, T.R., Gerhold, H.D., & Elmendorf,

W.F., (2008). Attitudes of Municipal Officials

Toward Street Tree Programs in Pensylvania,

U.S. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(3):144-

151.

• Treiman, T., & Gartner, J., (2004) Community

forestry in Missouri, U.S.: Attitudes and

knowledge of local officials. Journal of

/

Arboriculture 30(4):205-2013.

• Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space,

public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities

‘just green enough’. Landscape and urban planning, 125, 234-244.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204614000310)

Chad Papa is a PhD student in the ForestryDepartment at Michigan State University(MSU) where he researches how environmentalfactors influence carbon cycling and carbonuptake in West African woodlands.Additionally, he serves as a research assistantfor the Forest Carbon and Climate Program atMSU, helping create learning materials forland managers and stakeholders to betterunderstand forest carbon management. He isalso an avid orchid grower.Lauren Cooper directs the Forest Carbon andClimate Program for Michigan State UniversityForestry Department and has experience inforest carbon project development and woodutilization linkages to sustainability. Hercurrent research looking at socio-ecologicalcarbon cycling, conservation incentives, andlinking development and conservation. Herexpertise is in policy implementation, impactassessment, stakeholder engagement,knowledge transfer, and forestry.FEEDBACK: Use this form

(https://form.jotform.com/70105173731143) to

send a message to the author of this post. If

you want to post a public comment, you can

do that at the bottom of the page.

Article published by Mike Gaworecki

Conversation (1)

Sort by Best Log In