Tree Equity Score: Unveiling Environmental Racism in Urban Forests
How the Tree Equity Score sheds light on tree canopy gaps, environmental justice, and the legacy of redlining in American cities.
Trees are more than simple landscape features—they are fundamental pillars supporting the environmental, economic, and physical well-being of urban communities. Yet, a disturbing truth shadows many American cities: the benefits of urban tree canopies are not shared equally. The Tree Equity Score (TES) brings this inequity into focus, revealing a legacy of discrimination embedded in the very layout of our neighborhoods.
What Is the Tree Equity Score?
The Tree Equity Score, developed by American Forests, is a data-driven tool that measures how equitably urban tree canopy cover is distributed across neighborhoods. Using a 0-100 scale, the TES combines factors like income, race, health, and environmental data to highlight which communities lack vital tree cover—and thus, miss out on the numerous benefits that trees provide.
- Score of 100: Ideal tree equity; necessary canopy exists for optimal health and ecological benefits.
- Score below 100: Indicates gaps—in some cases, profoundly low coverage—that reflect and reinforce social disparities.
The tool is publicly accessible and designed to guide city planners, community advocates, and policy-makers in identifying and addressing these inequities.
Why Tree Equity Matters
Trees bestow a multitude of tangible benefits on local populations; thus, equitable canopy coverage is critical for:
- Reducing air pollution by filtering particulates and chemicals, improving overall respiratory health.
- Lowering urban temperatures by providing shade, thus mitigating the urban heat island effect.
- Improving mental and physical health, creating peaceful environments and encouraging outdoor activity.
- Enhancing property values and neighborhood attractiveness, spurring economic opportunities.
- Sequestering carbon and managing stormwater, contributing to broader climate resilience.
Tree inequity, however, means that disadvantaged and historically marginalized communities are systematically deprived of these life-sustaining benefits, facing a daily reality shaped by fewer trees and more risks.
The Roots of Urban Tree Inequity: History and Redlining
The uneven distribution of trees across American cities is not accidental. It is a direct consequence of decades-old policies and social decisions—chief among them, redlining.
What Was Redlining?
Redlining was a racially discriminatory federal housing policy started in the 1930s by the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC). Neighborhoods received investment grades, with grade ‘D’—represented by red lines on maps—assigned to areas predominantly inhabited by racial minorities. These areas were labeled as ‘hazardous,’ restricting residents’ access to mortgages and generational wealth-buildings.
- Wealthier, whiter neighborhoods received better grades, more investment, and infrastructure—including landscaping and trees.
- Communities of color and low-income areas were largely neglected, resulting in reduced public investments and less green infrastructure.
Today, formerly redlined districts exhibit markedly less tree cover than their wealthier counterparts—sometimes by more than 15%. These areas also tend to have higher surface temperatures, increased air pollution, and greater vulnerability to heat-related illness.
What others are reading
Tree Inequity Through the Decades
The legacy of redlining is reflected in modern urban forests:
- Parks and parkways are more likely to be found in wealthier, historically white neighborhoods.
- Barren streets and fewer green spaces typify neighborhoods that were systematically divested by redlining.
- These patterns are perpetuated by ongoing disparities in municipal budgets, community advocacy, and even tree-planting initiatives.
How the Tree Equity Score Is Calculated
The Tree Equity Score integrates a diverse array of data sources to distill the complex nature of urban inequity into an actionable metric:
| Factor | How It’s Used in Tree Equity Score |
|---|---|
| Tree Canopy Cover | Measures the percentage of land covered by tree canopies in a neighborhood. |
| Surface Temperature | Assesses urban heat island effects. |
| Income | Lower-income areas tend to have lower tree equity scores. |
| Race/Ethnicity | Demographics indicate communities most affected by environmental injustice. |
| Health Factors | Rates of conditions like asthma, cardiovascular disease, and heat-related illnesses. |
| Employment | Can signal access to resources for maintenance and planting. |
Analytical tools like GIS (Geographic Information Systems) mapping and U.S. Census data allow for the visualization and analysis of canopy coverage in relation to population density, demographics, and health data.
The Real-World Impacts of Tree Disparity
The consequences of insufficient tree cover go far beyond mere aesthetics. The public health and quality of life implications are significant:
- Increased air pollution: Fewer trees means less air filtration, contributing to worsened respiratory and cardiovascular conditions.
- Higher temperatures: Heat islands are exacerbated in neighborhoods with low tree canopy, increasing risks of heatstroke and heat-related deaths, especially during heat waves.
- Economic burdens: Residents of treeless areas pay more in energy costs to cool their homes and miss out on property value gains.
- Reduced mental well-being: Lack of green spaces diminishes overall happiness, increases stress, and restricts opportunities for recreation and social interaction.
These challenges disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color, enforcing a feedback loop of vulnerability and disadvantage.
Case Study: Washington State and Urban Tree Equity
Although Washington State is often celebrated for its lush natural beauty, its urban areas reveal tree equity gaps that align with nationwide patterns:
- More than one-third of Washington’s census block groups have a TES below the target score of 75.
- Low-income and majority-BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities typically register the lowest scores.
To bring all census blocks up to the 75-point minimum, Washington would need to plant over 2.6 million trees—boosting state-wide urban canopy by almost 3%. These efforts would also yield notable benefits:
- Increase carbon sequestration and decrease stormwater runoff.
- Create close to 20,000 new urban forestry jobs, highlighting the economic upsides of green equity.
Major cities in the state, such as Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and Bellevue, scored above the minimum threshold—yet smaller communities and certain urban districts remain critically underserved.
Environmental Racism: The Larger Context
The story of tree equity is a story of environmental racism. This term describes policies, practices, and social patterns that inflict a disproportionate share of environmental harms on communities of color while withholding benefits.
- Tree canopies are more likely to thrive in historically white, affluent neighborhoods than in communities of color.
- Legacies of exclusion and disinvestment—in housing, planning, and park funding—continue to shape the landscapes and lived realities of marginalized residents today.
- The health and economic costs of this inequality persist across generations, hampering opportunities for upward mobility and social cohesion.
The Tree Equity Score confronts environmental racism with transparency—making the invisible visible and offering a practical blueprint for redress.
Efforts to Close the Gap: Solutions and Actions
Achieving tree equity demands coordinated action from all sectors—government, community organizations, businesses, and residents. Key approaches include:
- Prioritizing investment in neighborhoods identified as most in need by TES and similar tools.
- Planting and maintaining trees with community involvement—ensuring residents’ voices drive planning and stewardship, not just external agencies.
- Redesigning urban spaces to integrate green infrastructure wherever possible, from streets to schools to housing developments.
- Supporting education and outreach, helping residents understand the health, economic, and social value of trees.
- Connecting programs to employment pipelines, so tree equity strategies double as local job generators.
- Adapting successful models internationally: Efforts like bringing TES to the United Kingdom reveal how this framework can guide global urban equity initiatives.
Accountability is also crucial. The Tree Equity Score makes it possible to track progress over time, ensuring that rhetoric leads to measurable change.
Collaborative Campaigns: Who’s Leading the Way?
American Forests leads a broad coalition of partners seeking to remedy urban tree inequity, working with:
- Municipal governments and urban foresters.
- Neighborhood-based nonprofits and community organizations.
- Civic leaders and academic institutions conducting research and public education.
- Corporate sponsors funding tree plantings and green jobs programs.
At all levels, building trust and centering community knowledge are essential for lasting impact.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the main goal of the Tree Equity Score?
The main goal is to ensure equitable distribution of trees for all neighborhoods, so every resident can enjoy the full spectrum of benefits—from cleaner air to enhanced climate resilience.
How does redlining continue to affect tree canopy today?
Historical redlining resulted in chronically underfunded communities with less green infrastructure. The pattern of fewer trees remains in many neighborhoods mapped as ‘hazardous’ generations ago, perpetuating environmental injustice.
Can increasing tree canopy directly improve health?
Yes. Expanding urban tree cover reduces respiratory illnesses, lowers heat-related risks, supports mental health, and even reduces crime rates by fostering stronger communities.
What are barriers to achieving tree equity?
Barriers include limited city budgets, lack of community engagement, mistrust due to historical neglect, and insufficient policy coordination among agencies responsible for urban planning, health, and environmental management.
How can individuals contribute to urban tree equity?
- Advocate for city investment in greening underserved areas.
- Volunteer with local tree-planting and maintenance programs.
- Educate neighbors about the benefits and importance of urban trees.
- Engage in policymaking by participating in public hearings or planning sessions.
Looking Ahead: Building Cities for Everyone
As cities face mounting climate and public health challenges, achieving tree equity is no longer optional—it’s essential. The Tree Equity Score offers a powerful lens for addressing the intertwined legacies of environmental racism and urban neglect. By recognizing and redressing these disparities, communities can create healthier, safer, and more vibrant cities for all residents.
Trees do not simply grow anywhere—they flourish where communities and decision-makers choose to invest. The future of urban forestry, justice, and well-being depends on confronting historical inequities and planting the seeds of equality today.
References
- https://english.umd.edu/research-innovation/journals/interpolations/fall-2022/problem-tree-inequity-redlining-and-its
- https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/07/20/in-order-to-achieve-tree-equity-the-u-s-must-plant-522-million-trees-in-urban-areas/
- https://www.americanforests.org/tools-research-reports-and-guides/tree-equity-score/
- https://www.treeequityscore.org
- https://journalistsresource.org/home/tree-health-equity/
- https://usnature4climate.org/toolbox/tree-equity-score/
- https://www.clf.org/blog/the-truth-about-tree-equity/
- https://theecologist.org/2021/sep/03/tree-equity
- https://www.ecowatch.com/environmental-racism-trees-access-2653591150.html
Similar Articles
Read full bio of medha deb
