Greening the Gateway Cities Human-Environment Regional Observatory - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Greening the Gateway Cities Human-Environment Regional Observatory (HERO) July 11th, 2019 Novak Chen, Juliette Gale, Sadie Murray, Shannon Reault, Benjamin Ryan and Cindy Sellers

Meet the Research Team Under dergraduate aduate Research earch Cohort Novak Chen, Juliette Gale, Sadie Murray, Shannon Reault, Benjamin Ryan and Cindy Sellers Graduate aduate Mentor tors Nicholas Geron and Marc Healy Directo ectors Deborah Martin and John Rogan From left to right: Sadie, Cindy, Juliette, Ben, Novak, Shannon 2

Outline Introduction Tree Survey Interview Conclusions Response ● HERO Program ● ● ● Methods Framework Tree Survey Greening the ● ● ● ● Results Analysis Interview Gateway Cities Response 3

The HERO Program: HERO’s 20th Year Undergraduate-graduate-faculty experience researching human- environment relationships in 2014 HERO Fellow looking at an Asian 2015 HERO Fellows Working in the HERO Lab Massachusetts Longhorned Beetle Current Research Focus: Urban tree health ● Tree stewardship and ● organizational networks What We Do: Summer research ● ● Individual research projects during academic year 2017 HERO Fellows conducting field work 2018 HERO Fellows conducting an interview with Fall River community member 4

Greening the Gateway Cities Program (GGCP) The goal of the GGCP is to increase tree canopy cover in Massachusetts’ Gateway Cities to increase energy efficiency in urban residential areas. Target Areas: Low tree canopy ● ● Old Housing Stock High Wind Speeds ● Large Renter Population ● ● Environmental Justice Neighborhoods 5

What is a “Gateway City”? Industrial urban centers ● Populations between 35,00 to 250,000 ● ● Median household income and educational attainment below state average Leominster Pittsfield Google 2017 Google 2018 6 Park Square, Pittsfield Center Monument Square, Leominster Center

Characteristics of Leominster Populatio ion : 41,823 Median Househol old Income : $57,610 Massach chuset etts : $74,167 Demographic ic Distrib ibution ion: White: 83.3 % Black or African American: 5.3 % American Indian and Alaska Native: 0.1% Asian: 3% Two or more races: 3% Hispanic or Latino: 17.8% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: 71.6% Education ion : 25 years or older with BA or higher: 28.1 % Massach chuset etts : 42.1% 7 U.S. Census Bureau. (2018, July 1)

Characteristics of Pittsfield Populatio ion : 42,533 Median Household old Income : $46,871 Massach chuset etts : $74,167 Demographic ic Distrib ibution ion: White: 87.4 % Black or African American: 4.7 % American Indian and Alaska Native: 0.4% Asian: 2% Two or more races: 3.5% Hispanic or Latino: 6% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: 84.4% Education ion : 25 years or older with BA or higher: 28.1 % Massach chuset etts : 42.1% 8 U.S. Census Bureau. (2018, July 1)

Leominster Tree Planting Locations Total DCR Trees Planted ed : 1920 trees First Plantin ings : Spring 2016 Trees Surveye yed : 45.16% of planted ● Total al : 867 trees Privat ate : 436 trees ● Public lic : 431 trees ● Canop opy y Cover ● Citywid ywide : 64.22% Plantin ing Zone : 38.43% ● Impervi vious Surface ce Citywid wide : 17.09% ● Plantin ing Zone : 47.06% ● 9

Pittsfield Tree Planting Locations Total DCR Trees Planted ed : 1870 trees First Plantin ings : Spring 2016 Trees Surveye yed : 49.52% of trees planted ● Total al : 926 trees Privat ate : 577 trees ○ ○ Public lic : 349 trees Canop opy y Cover Citywid ywide : 56.80% ● Plantin ing Zone : 27.16% ● Impervi vious Surface ce Citywid wide : 13.23% ● ● Plant ntin ing Zone : 48.56% 10

Research Questions What are the biophysical factors and the social networks that influence tree health in the GGC program? How does tree health in 2019 compare to previous HERO results? Tree Survey: y: Inter ervi views: What is the survivorship of the trees How do actors communicate amongst each • • planted in Leominster and Pittsfield? other? How does tree health compare across • How is tree stewardship approached and • the two cities? implemented? By genus • What are the discourses associated with • By location • the program? By tree characteristics • 11

Outline Introduction Tree Survey Interview Conclusions Response ● HERO Program ● Methods ● ● Framework Tree Survey Greening the ● ● Results ● ● Analysis Interview Gateway Cities Response 12

Sampling Method All GGC Trees in City All Public Private Trees Trees # of Trees per Property White Fir Eastern Redbud 0 - 20% 21% - 40% 41% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100% 20 20 20 20 20 Properties Properties Properties Properties Properties 13

Example of Sampling Method 14

Data Collection Western Red Cedar Mortality Height Vigor DBH Site Type Width Japanese Tree Lilac American Elm Land Use Distance to Impervious 15 Roman. 2015 American Elm

Data Collection Sheet BR NC Liriodendron tulipifera 607082 ‘ Fastigiata ’ 5/13/2017 Resident came over and Some bark damage asked how trees were Marc Healy doing 133 Fenn Street Pittsfield 999-999-9999 6/4/2019 SP SFR-D 1.2 54 3 5 4 4 1 8 2 2 11 6 16

Mortality Kentucky Coffee Kentucky Coffee Crabapple Tulip Tree Alive Standing Dead Removed Stump Unknown 17

Vigor Cornelian Cherry Dogwood River Birch Tulip Tree Ware Oak Japanese Snowbell 1 2 3 4 5 Healthy Slightly Moderately Severely Dead Unhealthy Unhealthy Unhealthy 18

Site Type European Hornbeam Ware Oak American Elm Faser Fir American Hornbeam Front Yard Back Yard Sidewalk Maintained Other Planting Strip Park Maintained 19

Land Use Tulip Tree Persian Ironwood Black Gum Japanese Tree Lilac Sargent Crabapple Single Family Multi-Family Maintained Commercial Institutional Residential Residential Park Attached/Detached 20

Genus distribution in Leominster and Pittsfield 21

Genus distribution in Leominster 22

Genus distribution in Pittsfield 23

Survivorship: All Trees <1% 3% 3% 6% Alive Cities Alive % Removed Stump Holyoke 78% Standing Dead Chelsea 86% Unknown Fall River 92% 88% Chicopee 92% 24

Survivorship: Leominster 2% 2% <1% Alive 6% Removed Alive 100% Stump (777) Standing Dead Slightly Moderately Severely Healthy Unknown unhealthy unhealthy unhealthy 1 2 3 4 90% 12.9% 79.3% 3.6% 4.2% (100) (616) (28) (33) 25

Survivorship: Pittsfield 3% 5% <1% Alive 5% Removed Alive 100% (801) Stump Standing Dead Slightly Moderately Severely Healthy unhealthy unhealthy unhealthy Unknown 1 2 3 4 87% 10.5% 80.9% 5.0% 3.6% (648) (84) (40) (29) 26

Site Type Composition 1% 1% Back Yard 16% <1% Front Yard 22% 33% <1% 27% Median Maintained Park <1% 6% Natural Area 31% Other Maintained Landscaped Area 20% 24% 19% Sidewalk Cutout Sidewalk Planting Strip Side Yard <1% <1% Leominster Pittsfield 27

Land Use Composition 3% 1% Commercial 5% 11% Institutional 9% 9% Maintained Park 10% 44% 49% Multi-Family Residential 20% 11% Single-Family Residential — Attached 13% 15% Single-Family Residential — Detached Vacant Lot Leominster Pittsfield 28

Health by Site Type Mortality Vigor 12 342 467 49 12 328 534 385 459 54 359 410 95% 95% 85% 85% 75% 75% 65% 65% 55% 55% 45% 45% 35% 35% 25% 25% 15% 15% BY FY MP OM SC SP BY FY MP OM SC SP Alive Removed Stump Standing Dead Unknown 1 2 3 4 5 29

Health by Land Use Mortality Vigor 75 175 170 254 830 278 11 70 149 159 238 752 252 11 100% 100% 95% 95% 90% 90% 85% 85% 80% 80% 75% 75% 70% 70% 65% 65% 60% 60% COMM INST MP SFR-A SFR-D MFR V COMM INST MP SFR-A SFR-D MFR V 1 2 3 4 5 Alive Removed Stump Standing Dead Unknown 30

Health by Tree Type Mortality Vigor 189 1262 342 168 1140 323 100% 100% 95% 95% 90% 90% 85% 85% 80% 80% 75% 75% 70% 70% 65% 65% 60% 60% Evergreen Shade Fruit/Ornamental Evergreen Shade Fruit/Ornamental Alive Removed Stump Standing Dead Unknown 1 2 3 4 5 p-value: 0.0028 p-value: 0.0000 31

Health by Native Status Mortality Vigor 996 780 17 894 721 16 100% 100% 95% 95% 90% 90% 85% 85% 80% 80% 75% 75% 70% 70% 65% 65% 60% 60% Native Non-native Hybrid / Unknown Native Non-Native Hybrid / Unknown Alive Removed Stump Standing Dead Unknown 1 2 3 4 5 p-value: 0 .1117 p-value: 0.0855 32

Top 10 Most Planted Genera Genus N Survivorship Mean Vigor Acer 137 89.1% 1.20 Quercus 119 89.1% 1.35 Liriodendron 97 82.5% 1.45 Carpinus 92 89.1% 1.68 Liquidambar 76 76.3% 1.98 Amelanchier 70 95.7% 1.36 Ginkgo 69 84.1% 1.32 Malus 66 95.5% 1.13 Thuja 66 81.8% 1.28 Red Maple Scarlet Oak Cercidiphyllum 65 87.7% 1.24 33

Genera with a 100% Survival Rate Birch Cherry / Plum Yellowwood Witch-hazel Dawn redwood n=53 (prunus) n=24 n=19 n=17 n=44 34

Program-Wide Trees with Lowest Survivorship Ironwood Sweetgum Tupelo Bald cypress Silverbell 76.9% 76.3% 72.9% 60.0% 22.2% n=13 n=76 n=59 n=25 n=9 35