Automobile Access

Bike Lane Access

Traffic Volume

Transportation

Diesel Particulate Matter

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Ozone

Clean Environment

Park Access

Tree Canopy

Neighborhood

Above Poverty

Employed

Per Capita Income

Economic

Census Response

Voting

Social

Insured Adults

Healthcare Access

Homeownership

Housing Habitability

Severely Cost Burdened Low-Income Homeowners

Severely Cost Burdened Low-Income Renters

Uncrowded Housing

Housing

Bachelor's Education

High School Enrollment

Preschool Enrollment

Education

Outdoor Workers

Supermarket Access

Two Parent Households

Library Access

Safe Drinking Water

Public Transit Access

Decision Support

Everybody should have trees and other plant life near their home. Trees are beneficial for mental and physical health in many ways. They can provide shade and cool surrounding areas, reduce stress, and promote health, wellness and physical activity.

 Trees are essential to mitigate the effects of climate change, especially extreme heat events. They can also promote physical activity by providing shade and a pleasant environment for walking and bicycling. Expanding the tree canopy in areas without a lot of trees, especially low-income communities and communities of color, can promote healthier communities. Less tree canopy can contribute to poorer health outcomes and vulnerability to climate change. Many cities have conducted tree canopy inventories and discovered major differences in tree canopy between neighborhoods.

 A 2021 report, for instance, examined tree cover and temperature disparity in US urbanized areas and found over 90% of low-income urbanized blocks have over 15% less tree coverage than high-income blocks resulting in higher temperatures.

This indicator measures the percentage of land with tree canopy (weighted by number of people per acre).

Raynault, E., & Christopher, E. (2013). How does transportation affect public health? United States Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/mayjune-2013/how-does-transportation-affect-public-health

Djurhuus, S., Hansen, H. S., Aadahl, M., & Glümer, C. (2014). The association between access to public transportation and self-reported active commuting. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(12), 12632–12651. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111212632

Nahlik, M. J., & Chester, M. V. (2014). Transit-oriented smart growth can reduce life-cycle environmental impacts and household costs in Los Angeles. Transport Policy, 35, 21-30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.004

University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. (2022). Green space & parks. The County Health Rankings & Roadmaps. Retrieved from https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/take-action-to-improve-health/what-works-for-health/strategies/green-space-parks

Jennings, V., & Bamkole, O. (2019). The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030452

Knight, T., Price, S., Bowler, D., Hookway, A., King, S., Konno, K., & Richter, R. L. (2021). How effective is ‘greening’ of urban areas in reducing human exposure to ground-level ozone concentrations, UV exposure and the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect’? An updated systematic review. Environmental Evidence, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-021-00226-y

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2018, August). Estimating the environmental effects of green roofs: A case study in Kansas City, Missouri. EPA. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/estimating-environmental-effects-green-roofs-case-study-kansas-city-missouri

Jiang, B., Li, D., Larsen, L., & Sullivan, W. C. (2014). A dose-response curve describing the relationship between urban tree cover density and self-reported stress recovery. Environment and Behavior, 48(4), 607–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514552321 

Kardan, O., Gozdyra, P., Misic, B., Moola, F., Palmer, L. J., Paus, T., & Berman, M. G. (2015). Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Scientific Reports, 5, 11610. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11610

The Nature Conservancy. (2017, September 23). Funding trees for health: An analysis of finance and policy actions to enable tree planting for public health. Nature. Retrieved from https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/funding-trees-for-health/

Schwarz, K., Fragkias, M., Boone, C.G., Zhou, W., McHale, M., Grove, J.M., et al. (2015). Trees Grow on Money: Urban Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Justice. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0122051. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122051

McDonald, R. I., Biswas, T., Sachar, C., Housman, I., Boucher, T. M., Balk, D., Nowak, D., Spotswood, E., Stanley, C. K., & Leyk, S. (2021). The tree cover and temperature disparity in US urbanized areas: Quantifying the association with income across 5,723 communities. PloS One, 16(4), e0249715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249715

Charles River Watershed Association. (2009, March). Stormwater, trees, and the urban environment: A comparative analysis of conventional street tree pits and stormwater tree pits for stormwater management in ultra urban environments. CRWA. Retrieved from https://www.crwa.org/uploads/1/2/6/7/126781580/crwa_stormwater_trees_urban_environment.pdf

Improving tree canopies requires many strategies to integrate trees, urban forests and plants in populated areas, as well as policies to set aside areas for parks and greenspace. 

The first step to improving tree canopies is to 

 by assessing current tree canopy conditions and creating a vision for the future. These planning efforts are often referred to as urban forestry—recognizing that forests exist, and should exist, throughout cities and towns. Urban forestry planning should begin by surveying current conditions to understand strengths, gaps, and opportunities. Depending on available budget and needs, planners may conduct a tree census (inventorying individual trees), use technology like LIDAR to assess canopy, or use existing tools like the 

. These assessments should carefully consider equity—looking at canopy by neighborhood, race, income, education, and other factors, as well as conditions such as 

 where trees can help protect health. Plans should also provide guidance about the types of trees that meet a jurisdiction’s needs. Trees have very different requirements, and also different benefits and potential liabilities, such as water needs/uptake, allergen and ozone precursor emission, shading, and root interactions with pavement. Tools such as Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute’s 

 can help jurisdictions choose trees that are right for their context. Planning efforts should also identify funding requirements and mechanisms to ensure that a jurisdiction can plant new trees, and sustain forests in perpetuity.

With plans in place to guide their efforts, jurisdictions should pursue strategies to 

. Planting strategies may be led by the public sector, required as part of development, and/or take place in partnership with non-profits, utilities and the private sector. Jurisdictions should look for opportunities to maximize health benefits in addition to tree canopy, utilizing cross-cutting strategies like green infrastructure, green roofs, vegetative buffers, and green schools. While planting new trees is important, it's crucial to 

, and ensure that tools and standards are in place to ensure proper maintenance of trees and forests.

In addition to their tree canopy, jurisdictions should assess and improve greenspaces more broadly. Parks and open spaces can be ideal locations for trees, but they can also offer other benefits such as access to nature and opportunities for physical activity. See 

 for more information. Jurisdictions seeking to improve green space access should first 

. Planning efforts should typically start with an assessment of current park and open space conditions, tree coverage, community needs, health conditions and gaps. In addition to the park access indicator in the Healthy Places Index, planners should consider use or burden measures such as park space per person within service areas, as well as historic capital and operations expenditures by park, neighborhood and user—with an eye to improving access and conditions in communities that have been historically left behind. A variety of tools exist to assess park access and conditions, such as the Trust for Public Land’s 

, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 

Parks and Trails Health Impact Assessment Toolkit

Because neighborhood residents are experts about their community needs, jurisdictions should ensure that greenspace planning, design and programming incorporates residents’ ideas. Especially in places with high 

 before initiating larger scale park construction or rehabilitation to ensure that people are not displaced, if improvements spark increased rents. In addition to planning, jurisdictions should 

 to ensure that they maximize health benefits. Parks should be designed with active uses and safety in mind, and coupled with programming to maximize use, ensure safety, and increase physical activity. Jurisdictions should also ensure that existing parks are well maintained, and that communities know about the parks and activities open to them.

Improving greenspace access and quality can be expensive, but there are several funding tools available to local jurisdictions and park districts. In addition to traditional funding mechanisms like taxes and developer fees, this guide suggests partnering with non-profit hospitals’ community benefit programs to fund park improvements. Jurisdictions can also approach their local public health department for assistance in navigating health funding. Jurisdictions should carefully evaluate the distribution of their existing resources and expenditures, for instance assessing their Capital Improvement Plans and budgets to ensure equity in greenspace funding. As part of these processes, jurisdictions should consider auditing existing park facilities and conditions (with community input and participation), assessing the relative equity of past/planned funding allocations, and investing in areas that are park poor, or with overburdened facilities. Budgeting processes should be transparent and open to the public.

Assess current tree canopy conditions and create a vision for the future, while proactively addressing inequities by neighborhood.

Best Practice

Urban Forestry Funding Mechanisms

General Plans

Food Access

Sufficient Evidence

Community Gardens and Urban Agriculture Friendly Zoning Codes

Pollution

Physical Activity

Climate

Forestry Management Plans

Create tools and set standards to preserve and maintain existing trees and forests.

Promising

Preservation Ordinances

Equity

Community Engagement and Connection

Community Land Trusts

Management Program and Standards

Develop tools and programs to plant trees and other vegetation.

Emerging

Green Paid Job Training and Placement Programs for Groups that Face Barriers to Employment 

Green Schools

Healthy Neighborhoods

Strong Evidence

Green Infrastructure

Green Roofs

Urban Forestry Planting Initiatives

Street Tree Ordinances 

Vegetative Buffers

Ensure that greenspaces encourage health through thoughtful design, programs, and outreach.

Park Programming

Education and Outreach

Existing Green Space Rehabilitation and Upkeep

Activity Programs for Older Adults

Violence Prevention and Safety

Park Design

Assess current greenspace conditions and shape policies to encourage equitable access.

Policy Guide

Tree Canopy

References