Closing LA Urban Forest Canopy Equity Gap
Visualizing redlining data, tree canopy data, and urban heat data for the average Angeleno.
City Plants Organization
The mission behind City Plants is to grow a greener city for future generations by inspiring Angelenos to plant, care, and advocate for trees. City Plants envisions a Los Angeles community in which people in every neighborhood have equal access to trees & their benefits – clean air, better health, cooling shade, energy efficiency, and a friendlier, more vibrant neighborhood.
About this Project
With funding provided by Tree People, Accelerate Resilience LA, City Plants worked with Dr. Vivek Shandas as LA’s first Urban Forest Equity Visiting Scholar from July 2020 – March 2021. Vivek Shandas helped regional partners examine in depth how to address the inequitable distribution of LA’s urban forest. Dr. Shandas is a renowned expert on the intersection of public health, equity and green infrastructure and examined opportunities for tree canopy expansion in low-income, heat-impacted areas. He made GIS-informed recommendations and assess policy shifts needed to achieve the Mayor’s Green New Deal goal of a 50% increase in tree canopy in disadvantaged communities by 2028. Specifically, Mayor Garcetti’s Green New Deal goal was to “increase tree canopy in areas of greatest need by at least 50% by 2028 to grow a more equitable urban forest that provides cooling, public health, habitat, energy savings, and other benefits.” Dr. Shandas contributed toward this urban forestry goal by analyzing currently available plantable space and the potential for urban canopy expansion and prioritization through a public health and equity lens.
Why are trees important?
Trees have a lot of benefits to the environment! They:
- Save energy
- Improve air quality by cleaning our air
- Save water
- Modulate the temperature by cooling our cities & protect us from extreme heat
- Create habitat
- Reduce stress
- Make the places we live feel like home
Why is the lack of trees an issue? What are the trends seen in communities with little tree coverage?
- Low-canopy communities suffer from higher rates of extreme-heat related illnesses & deaths
- Lack of access to green-space poses severe public health risks & threatens the vitality of our communities
Today, affluent neighborhoods have greater tree canopy, which is a trend not unique to LA, and rather one that is a consistent pattern across the United States.
Why do some areas have less tree equity? How are trees and redlining connected?
Many areas lack adequate tree canopy -- such as the North Eastern San Fernando Valley, South and East Los Angeles -- due to a series of consecutive policies that were championed by local authorities, and further codified through Federal actions throughout the 20th century. As the region grew rapidly in population and infrastructure during the early 1900s, decisions were made to disinvest in neighborhoods where people of color resided. These decisions were codified by the Federal government during the 30s in a series of laws that gave locally authorized segregation policies the needed legitimacy and legal authority. The federally-backed segregation policies, which are commonly referred to as ‘redlining’, divided residential neighborhoods and concentrated services, including the provision of green spaces, to wealthier and whiter neighborhoods. Communities deemed “hazardous” or “declining” were left without green spaces and other social services.
The map shows the tree canopy coverage at the census tract level as it relates to the redlined areas of Los Angeles. The places outlined in yellow and red represent areas that were deemed by the government as “definitely declining” and “hazardous” communities, respectively. These regions experienced extreme divestment, which meant that there was a lack of financial support from governments and financial institutions to invest in the well-being of these communities. As a result, there is a lack of tree canopy coverage in these communities, represented by the lighter color scheme. The map correlates the redlining data to existing tree canopy percent in Los Angeles, possible tree canopy percent in Los Angeles, along with the percent of population whose income in the last 12 months of people living below the poverty level.
How Do We Close the Gap?
The tiered model addresses urban forest inequity at the street level, where the human impacts of lack of canopy become visceral and political, while also taking into account issues of scalability. The tiers reflect types of interventions and levels of investments needed to reach a more equitably distributed tree canopy, from individual streets to council districts and larger political jurisdictions throughout Los Angeles. The tiered model presented here emerged from a necessity for scalability, and it seeks to codify new terminology for measuring levels of investment, tradeoffs, and opportunities to reach meaningful solutions to the decades long, systemic problem of urban forestry inequity.
Case Studies
Tier 1 Case Study: Welland Ave
Tier 1 Case Study: Welland Ave before (left) and after (right). Imagery from Google Maps Street View and ©2021 Stoss Landscape Urbanism
- Redlined Desirable
- 2.69% Existing Tree Canopy and 45.00 Average Heat Health Action Index
- Residential street that stands out given the plantable space on both private and public lands.
- Challenges include: Potential existing utility conflicts with streetlights, driveways limit planting space, shared maintenance, and potential conflicts with individual aesthetics
Tier 2 Case Study: Burbank Blvd
Tier 2 Case Study: Burbank Blvd before (left) and after (right). Imagery from Google Maps Street View and Austin Kronig (CAPA Strategies)
- Redlined declining
- 7.94% Existing Tree Canopy and 49.00 Average Heat Health Action Index
- Typical commercial and industrial corridor
- Challenges include: Extremely wide driveway aprons and utilities clustered at corners making it difficult to plant trees
Tier 3 Case Study: Wilmington Blvd
Tier 3 Case Study: Wilmington Blvd before (left) and after (right). Imagery from Google Maps Street View and ©2021 Stoss Landscape Urbanism
- 3.10% Existing Tree Canopy
- Commercial
- Recommendations include: Expand median strips and create tree wells
What Are Some Recommendations for LA Moving Forward?
- “We suggest that the City is well positioned to champion funding strategies -- both internally and externally -- that enable the planting and maintenance of the existing and forthcoming trees”
- Put effort into maintaining and watering trees as they require a minimum of 5 years of care and maintenance.
- Become educated about the importance of trees and the role they play in our environment.
- “Start small and grow big”
- Educate and involve the younger generations (list is taken directly from report)
- Create a youth-centered Urban Tree Corps, representative of own communities
- Enlist in door-to-door campaigns
- Engagement should feed into education and economic (job) opportunities
- Opening new career pathways
- Youth will drive approach and spread awareness
- Attach cultural significance and meaning to work
- Expand the definition of green jobs and workforce training
- Find good places to plant trees as sidewalk trees have started being removed after interfering with sidewalk concrete.
Snapshots of LA's Neighborhoods
First two photos are the main street tree canopies of Boyle Heights. Last two photos are neighborhood street tree canopies. All photos captured by Natalie. L
First two photos are the main street tree canopies of Koreatown. Last two photos are the neighborhood street tree canopies. All photos captured by Lisabeth .C
First to photos are from South Central (Normandie & Slauson) tree canopy, captured by Daria. S. Middle two photos are the neighborhood street scape from Downtown Los Angeles, captured by Lisabeth. C. Last two photos are the neighborhood street scape of Montebello, captured by Lisbeth. L