The Surprising Power of Tree Planting: More Than Offsetting your Carbon Guilt

I have recently been working on a number of projects that focus on Tree Planting, both as a tool to offset carbon emissions as part of a global climate change strategy, but also as a way of encouraging community development and retaining culture. It's a fascinating subject. Tree planting has incredible benefits, more than one would immediately assume.

Tree Planting for Education, Community and Global Change

There are around 3 trillion trees worldwide. Around 15 billion of these are cut down every year and in the past 12,000 years humans have destroyed 46 per cent of the Earth’s forests. On a global scale, reforestation in developing countries is considered an important means of climate change mitigation, clean water availability and increases in biodiversity, with an estimated 300 million to 1 billion hectares of land available for reforestation in the humid tropics.

A growing body of research and experience also revolves around the beneficial and connected relationships among nature, social settings, and social processes; Including the importance of the links between nature, community and educational development.

This research argues that the natural environment is a critical component of personal and community pride and well-being and a stimulus for collaborative action.

Furthermore, it argues that empowering people to become involved in the process of tree planting and maintenance increases social interaction, builds community capacity, and supports both development of community and community.

Tree plantings and other civic environmental projects can be used to promote both healthy environments and healthy social structure even in the most deteriorated communities. As such, participatory environmental projects are strong tools of community development.

Trees and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established by the United Nations are part of a plan to target the most extreme poverty and tyranny through development, all while taking our planet into greater consideration. These SDGs represent benchmarks for a better world and environment for everyone.

SDG6: Clean Water and Sanitation

In 2015, 29% of the world's population lacked safe drinking water, and more than 60% lacked adequate sanitation services (World Health Organisation, 2017). The targets for this SDG include achieving universal and equitable access to safe drinking water. Though other measures are needed to safely manage water supplies around the world, trees are a vital part of making clean drinking water accessible to everyone around the world. 

Research conducted by Bargues et al (2019) has shown that in dry landscapes, trees increase the availability of water, by assisting with groundwater recharge. Landscapes they studied house some of the world’s poorest people, where, as the study notes, limited water not only constrains food production, nutrition and health, but also reduces opportunities for education, work and improved livelihoods.

The finding that increased tree cover in tropical dry regions could increase people’s access to water could therefore have a major impact on their lives.

SDG13: Climate Action

While global agreements on climate change have been made, action has lacked (One Tree Planted website). Global temperatures continue to rise as greenhouse gas emissions break records year over year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) noted that reforestation and ecosystem restoration are currently the only truly effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions already in the atmosphere.

The idea of carbon offset plantings, originally proposed by Dyson (1977), is now being implemented worldwide under the Kyoto Protocol or even without regard to this agreement. 

According to United Nations figures (2010) deforestation causes 12-18 percent of the world’s carbon emission, almost equal to all the CO2 emissions from the global transport sector. Each year more than 13 million hectares of forests are lost, an area roughly the size of England.

Recognising the importance of our forests and finding ways to decrease deforestation has been at the forefront of climate change negotiations for the last few years. Among negotiators, government leaders and observers, it is clear that combating climate change without slowing deforestation and/or reforestation is not an option.

Forests and forestry are intricately entwined with climate change (Schoene and Netto, 2005). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol also acknowledge this link. International treaties seek to protect forests against the effects of global climate change and to harness their unique powers for mitigating it and safeguarding human societies, to be able to reach the UN Millennium Development Goals.

SDG15: Life on Land

Trees provide habitat to over 80% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity (WWF). As global forest coverage and vegetation continue to shrink due to industry, the world is losing considerable biodiversity. Tree loss also impacts humans directly; forests provide people employment, food, medicine and shelter. Eliminating deforestation, and increasing conservation and reforestation efforts are key to promoting sustainable ecosystems.

Planting Trees as an Educational Tool

Children of all backgrounds are passionate, and often highly knowledgeable, about climate change and the main causes of it. (Bond, 2019). Through the appropriate education, children are also engaged by projects that can make a difference to their community’s carbon footprint. Planting trees is an easy, and long-lasting, way to involve pupils and to have a positive impact on the climate (Woodland Trust, 2019). Tree planting schemes also offer teachers the opportunity to discuss biodiversity and give pupils the chance to engage with a tangible example.

There is interest, particularly within Scandinavian countries, in links between nature and learning, with research examining the potential for engaging with nature within an educational setting (e.g. Sigsgaard, 2005; Hyllested, 2006).

Forest Schools in Sweden have been reviewed by Robertson (2008) and Miklitz (2001); and Kollner and Leinert (1998) discuss the Forest Kindergarten. Fjorft (2001) relates how there has been a drive towards kindergarten aged children spending more time outdoors within this setting.

The importance of the links between nature and children’s educational development has also been recognised in Spain (Rodriguez Jimenez, 2002) but there is some evidence that the Scandinavian model in particular is being transferred to other countries (Doyle, 2005). This is accompanied by a focus on environmental education for pre-primary school age children (Medek and Robertson, 2005).

The Natural Environment Boosts Pupils' Wellbeing

As well as being a learning tool, being outdoors and learning/playing in the natural environment can also have a positive impact on children’s mental health. One in four people in the UK will experience mental health issues at some point in their lives and one in 10 children aged 5-16 have a diagnosable mental health condition, according to The Children’s Society (2016).

Mental health is a complex issue with many causal factors and no simple solutions. However, according to the Mental Health Foundation (2018), the opportunity to play and learn in outdoor environments has been quoted in research studies as a significant positive influence.

There is an emerging research and policy interest in the health and wellbeing outcomes associated with use of outdoor spaces (Sustainable Development Commission, 2008). There has been interest in a conceptualisation of health that links to not only physical abilities/ impairments but also mental health and wider notions of wellbeing including behavioural and social health problems (Maller et. al., 2005).

It has been suggested that those with access to natural outdoor areas, have higher levels of physical activity (Bird, 2007) and that physical activity is associated with general levels of good health (Martin et. al., 2006). Therefore, existing studies (e.g. Gass, 1993) suggest that natural environments are salutogenic and that promoting and facilitating their use could be an important component in the fight for enhanced public health and reduced health inequalities.

It has been suggested that this may be particularly important for young people from deprived backgrounds (Ward Thompson et. al., 2006). Those with access to a garden, for example, have been shown to generally have fewer mental health problems (Pretty, et. al., 2007).

Research has found use of, and access to, outdoor spaces can also increase social interaction and that this too can have a positive effect on health and wellbeing (Cohen and Finch, 2008).

The Role of Nature in Community Development

In community development, the quality of social interaction, or the comprehensive network of collaboration and actions among people, institutions, and the physical and natural environments, is important. Those interested in the development of community are interested in the quality of relationships among residents, institutions, and environments of a locality.

Community development focuses on places, economics, people, programmes, and environments together. It is all of these and a well-woven, integrated social fabric resulting from adequate planning and integration of activities that meet peoples’ day-to-day needs (Kaufman and Wilkinson 1967).

There are varying ideas about the relationship of nature to social settings and processes (Wilkinson 1979, 1991; Nowak et al. 2001); it is not accurate or appropriate to treat the environment as though it was somehow separate from the social life it supports.

An active interdependency characterises the relationship between the day to day lives of people and their surroundings. Wilkinson (1991) described the potential for increasing both human and community capacity as growing from an intimate relationship of trust of both self and society.

Social ecologists and other authors argue that healthy and accessible natural environments provide opportunities for people to interact and generalise across interest lines. These opportunities help develop community, places characterised by shared spatial experiences and concern (Wilkinson 1991).

An active interdependence, of technology and economy, the interaction of people, and healthy environmental surroundings characterises the relationship between productive community life and healthy and accessible environmental surroundings (Ahern and Fabel 1988).

The significance of nature in reinforcing a sense of locality or place plays an influential role in community development (Hester 1990). Trees and other natural features help to create and maintain a sense of place; that is a feeling of identification and belonging that is important to people’s enjoyment and well-being and to the process of community.

Trees and the Urban Environment

The significance of the shade provided by trees cannot be understated.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the shade from trees, in combination with the water vapor they release, can reduce peak temperatures by as much as 11–25°C compared to unshaded areas; the shade from a single tree can save the same amount of energy it takes to power 10 room-sized air conditioners for 20 hours a day.

Trees provide windbreaks around urban areas to reduce heat loss by as much as 50% (New York City State University, 2019) lowering energy consumption. This reduction in energy goes a long way when it to reducing carbon footprints, as 40% of global CO2 emissions are emitted from electricity generation through the combustion of fossil fuels to generate heat needed to power steam turbines (Abdallah and El-Shennawy, 2013).

On average, a mature tree in a city can absorb up to 1,000 gallons of rainfall every year that would otherwise need to be pumped and filtered, requiring additional energy. As an example, In New York City, urban trees help retain nearly 900 million gallons of rainwater annually, saving the city more than $35 million dollars in stormwater management costs (Centre for Urban Forest Research, 2007).

Using Trees to Build Community Capacity

Community capacity is simply defined as the strengths and assets of community members both individually and collectively brought to a cause.

Building the ability of the people of a place to work together toward common goals, is one critical stepping stone in community. As people’s public activity and experience increase, so do the levels of community capacity (Wilkinson 1979; Cottrell 1983; Ayers and Potter 1989). Whether they realise it or not, arborists and urban foresters find themselves involved in building community capacity, especially when they are working with participatory and educational programs and projects.

The degree to which community members identify with and enjoy nature and interact in the planning, maintenance, and use of trees and public landscapes is one of the interrelated factors important in building community capacity.

Highly participatory environmental projects can promote social structure and organisation even in the most deteriorated neighbourhoods by building interaction and capacity through youth clubs, neighbourhood organisations, church groups, and public and private partnerships (McDonough et al. 1991).

The degree to which people are educated and involved in the environmental and human benefits of urban tree planting projects, and other environmental volunteer and educational work can increase positive identification with a locale; increases the quality of relationships among people and between organisations; increases public knowledge, networking, and experience; increases community capacity; and helps the development of community to occur (Rudel 1989; Lipkis and Lipkis 1990; Maslin et al. 1999).

Tree planting fosters community spirit and pride, bringing people together for meaningful purpose that can build the bridges and promote the understandings that bring the neighbourhood together (Schrieber and Vallery, 1987).

The initial efforts of the tree planters compound themselves as others find in the trees a deeper appreciation of the community as well as natural beauty. It is the beginning of the formation of new values that is the foundation for city-wide transformation. The newly organised group can further push for bike paths, improvements in public transportation, and changes to make the area less congested, less polluted, and more livable (Lipkis and Lipkis 1990, p. viii).

Schrieber and Vallery (1987) also echo the sentiment that planning and completing tree planting inspires neighbourhood and community groups to change the environment of their streets, giving a new understanding of and character to their neighbourhood and to the city as a whole.

The simple act of planting a tree, along with the more complicated projects of civic environmental restoration, has positive effects on the economic, social, and environmental elements of community.

The Importance of Trees and Nature for the Individual

Easy access to green outdoor environments from workplaces has also been found to significantly reduce worker stress (Lottrup 2013). Overall, academic institutions and hospitals have found that natural settings and trees result in measurably positive impacts on students and patients (Wolf et al. 2014).

In addition to health (Ulrich 1983; Kuo and Sullivan 2001), economic (Irwin 2002; Lutzenhiser and Nolusil 2002), educational (Nowak et al. 2001), youth (Taylor et al. 1998; Kuo 2003), and community (Kuo 2003) values, the natural environment plays a significant role in the healthy and successful lives of people by providing shared and structured symbols.

These symbols, such as trees, help ground people in their everyday lives, and as change occurs, they provide residents with a consistent sense of place and comfort (Appleyard 1979; Hester 1990). Trees and landscapes can be shared and structured symbols, caring and supportive symbols that become part of the identity and features of a place that invoke pride, attract outside attention, and stimulate economic activity (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002). Alexander et al. (1977) pointed out that trees do in fact have a very deep and crucial meaning to human beings.

Trees, parks, and other components of the natural environment become powerful social symbols when they are perceived as being part and representative of a social group (such as a youth centre, school or neighbourhood), especially when nature plays an influential role in relationship to social functions such as family, home, play, love, health, and equality (Appleyard 1979).

Nature proves important because the sense of self in place is more important than simply a sense of place, and people’s relationship with their natural environment can help build a stronger connection to their place (Hester 1990).

The Importance of Tree Planting in Developing Countries

To preserve the livelihoods of rural communities in the tropics, and for global climate change mitigation, it is clear that reforestation is necessary (Iyyer, 2009). Forests and trees outside in developing countries allow communities cope with effects of climate change in numerous ways (Robledo and Forner, 2005). Plantations or naturally regenerated trees can protect watersheds against climate-change induced drought, flash floods or landslides, and they can halt or stem desertification.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimated that more than 1.6 billion people worldwide depend on forests for their livelihood, including 60 million indigenous people who are almost wholly dependent on forests and with 350 million people living within or adjacent to dense forests depended on them for subsistence and income (FAO, 2001).

In developing countries speci?cally, The World Bank estimated that forest resources directly contribute to the livelihoods of 90 percent of people living in extreme poverty and indirectly support agriculture and food supplies of nearly half the population of the developing world (World Bank, 2004).

In rural areas of the humid tropics, it is estimated that 500 million people depend on a mixture of agricultural and forest resources to maintain their livelihoods (Maginnis and Jackson, 2002). Therefore, rural communities in developing countries rely heavily on the extraction of timber and non-timber resources from forests, and often on the conversion of forests to agriculture and other uses as well. Forest ecosystem services such as water puri?cation and crop pollination (by providing a habitat for pollinating insects, birds and mammals) likewise play a key role in supporting rural livelihoods (IUCN, 2007).

The loss of tropical forest resources on which millions of rural people depend has been rapid over the past century. An estimated 350 million hectares of tropical forests have been deforested and a further 500 million hectares of secondary and primary topical forests have been degraded (ITTO, 2002).

Despite the traditional heavy dependence of rural communities on tropical forests, tree cover no longer dominates many tropical forest landscapes. In some areas, the current land-use con?guration has led to a dramatic and

detrimental decline in the availability of forest goods and services (Maginnis and Jackson, 2002).

On a global scale, reforestation in developing countries is considered an important means of climate change mitigation (Canadell and Raupach, 2008). Palm et al. (2005) estimate that 300 million to 1 billion hectares of land is available for reforestation in the humid tropics and that given the area of land available, reforestation in the humid tropics alone would sequester 27 to 90 billion tonnes of carbon.

Afforestation and reforestation are common forestry activities included in trading schemes for carbon sequestration offsets. Forest biomes store as much as 10 times more carbon in their vegetation than do non-forest biomes, usually at least for decades, and for centuries in some ecosystems (Saundry, 2009).

The Environmental Importance of Tree Planting in Developed Countries

In the UK, Forestry Commission figures (2019) show that only 13 per cent of land is now covered with trees, which is far behind the 35 per cent average across the rest of the European Union. Much of the deforestation that has occurred in the UK has been to make way for the increasing urbanisation of the countryside, new houses, roads and amenities.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) recommends 30,000 hectares of woodland should be planted annually, more than double the new trees planted last year. The CCC also said this may have to rise to 50,000 hectares if other carbon reduction targets are not achieved to hit “net zero” by 2050.

With this in mind, trees in parks and on reclaimed land are now recognised as more than just pleasant features with associated maintenance costs; they are the backbone of urban forests and ecosystems, which are becoming bigger contributors to national tree numbers (Susca, et al. 2011).

In addition to providing clear benefits to humans, trees provide essential habitat and food sources for wildlife in a landscape increasingly fragmented by urban development. Even small urban parks provide significant habitat for local and migrating birds (Rega et al. 2015).

The environmental benefits of trees in urban landscapes are numerous and well established in urban forestry literature. Urban trees improve air quality, cool local air temperatures, filter and retain storm water, sequester carbon, and contribute to healthier and more beautiful cities (Nowak et al. 2002; Nowak et al. 2008; McPherson et al. 2003).

Researchers and public officials are increasingly calling for the implementation of green infrastructure within and around urban areas, including tree planting campaigns, to help mitigate the environmental effects of urbanisation (Young 2013). People living and working near trees and parks experience a host of positive health and living standard benefits such as relief from environmental stresses of cities caused by factors like population density and air pollution.

The benefits of trees within and surrounding urban areas are not only well recognised by the academic community, but by municipalities and institutions around the country and the world (Seamans 2013). City “greening campaigns” like the UK Big Tree Plant are evidence of both governmental and public support for increased urban canopy (Forestry Commission England, 2015).

Conclusion

Environmental projects are increasingly being completed for social objectives and the language of empowerment is often used by practitioners to describe the benefits provided from them (Westphal 2003).

Other authors argue that collective actions and experiences by groups of people working toward common goals fundamentally increase community capacity (Wilkinson 1979).

There are concepts that should be considered to better integrate environmental projects into the process of community. Wilkinson (1998)

pointed out the necessity of a high quality and accessible natural environment for community and these community development concepts can be supported by tree planting initiatives.

Tree planting and other collaboratively planned and completed environmental projects are some of the simplest, most rewarding, and most celebrated actions that can be used to build and maintain community. This is especially true in deteriorating and disenfranchised neighbourhoods. It is clear that accessible high-quality environments and place-oriented environmental projects help increase the overall quality of a place’s interaction and capacity. (Kuo, 2003).

The link between trees and a healthy social system turns out to be surprisingly simple to explain, Kuo continues; in residential areas, barren, treeless spaces become no man’s land, which discourages residential interaction and invites crime; the presence of trees and maintained landscapes can transform these no man’s lands into pleasant, welcoming, well used spaces that serve to both strengthen ties among residents and deter crime.

By their ability to provide for both healthier environments and community capacity, tree plantings and other environmental projects can be powerful community development tools.

At a time where climate change and global warming is accompanied by increasing a lack of clean drinking water, species and habitat reduction, urbanisation and deteriorating communities; mass reforestation and local level tree planting schemes alike can make a huge difference in promoting global change and development. 

Bibliography

Ahern and Fabel (1988) Linking the global with the local: Landscape ecology, carrying capacity, and the sustainable development paradigm, In Proceedings of the Landscape/Land Use Planning Committee of the American Society of Landscape Architecture. American Society of Landscape Architecture, Washington, DC.

Alexander, Ishikawa and Silverstein (1977) A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, New York.

Appleyard (1979) The environment as a social symbol within a theory of environmental action and perception. American Planning Association Journal.

Ayers and Potter (1989) Attitudes toward community change: A comparison between rural leaders and residents. Journal of the Community Development Society

Bargués, Hasselquist, Roméo, Bayala, Laudon and HjalmarIlstedt (2019) Trees in African drylands can promote deep soil and groundwater recharge in a future climate with more intense rainfall. Land Degradation and Development.

Bender (1978) Community and Social Change in the United States. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

Bond (2019) The Big Climate Fightback. Woodland Trust.

Canadell and Raupach (2008) Managing Forests for Climate Change Mitigation. Science

Centre for Urban Forest Research (2007) Municipal Forest Resource Analysis, New York.

Cottrell (1983) The competent community In Warren, R., and L. Lyon (Eds.). New Perspectives on the American Community. Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL.

Dwyer, Schroeder and Gobster (1991) The significance of urban forests: Towards a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture

Dwyer, McPherson, Schroder and Rountree (1992) Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture

Dwyer, Nowak, Noble and Sisinni (2000) Connecting People With Ecosystems in the 21st Century: An Assessment of our Nation’s Urban Forests. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Dyson (1977) Can we control the carbon dioxide in the air? Energy

Firey (1947) Land Use in Central Boston. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Frank and Smith (1999) The Community Development Handbook: A Tool to Guide Community Capacity. Human Resources Development Canada, Quebec, Canada.

Greider and Garkovich (1994) Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology

Hall and Porterfield (2001) Community by Deign: New Urbanism for Suburbs and Small Communities. McGraw Hill, New York.

Hester (1990) The Sacred Structure in Small Towns: A Return to Manteo, North Carolina. Small Town (January–February)

Hillery (1955) Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018) Global warming of 1.5°C Report

Irwin (2002) The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics

Iyyer (2009) Land Management: Challenges and Strategies. Global India Publications Pvt Ltd, New Delhi.

Kaufman (1959) Toward an interactional conception of community. Social Forces

Kaufman and Wilkinson (1967) Community Structure and Leadership: An Interactional Perspective in the Study of Community. Research Bulletin 13, Mississippi State University Social Science, Starkville.

Kuo (2003) The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture

Kuo and Sullivan (2001) Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behaviour

Lipkis and Lipkis (1990) The Simple Act of Planting a Tree. Jeremy Tarcher, Los Angeles.

Lottrup (2013) Workplace greenery and perceived level of stress: Benefits of access to a green outdoor environment at the workplace

Luloff and Swanson (1995) Community agency and disaffection: Lessons for enhancing collective resources

Lutzenhiser, M., and N. Nolusil. 2001. The effect of open space on a home’s sale price. Contemporary Economic Policy

Maginnis and Jackson (2002) Restoring forest landscapes

Maslin, Vu and Kidd (1999) Philadelphia Green Presents the Tree Tenders Handbook. The Pennsylvania Horticulture Society, Philadelphia, PA.

McDonough, Burch and Grove (1991) The urban resource initiative. American Forestry Association, Washington, DC.

Nisbet (1953) The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom. Oxford Press, New York.

Nowak, Noble, Sisinni and Dwyer (2001) People and trees: Assessing the United States’ urban forest resource. Journal of Forestry

Perry (1939) Housing for the Mechanical Age. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Robledo and Forner (2005) Adaptation of forest ecosystems and the forest sector to climate change. Forest and Climate Change Working Paper No. 2. FAO, Rome.

Rudel (1989) Situations and Strategies in Land Use Planning. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Seamans (2013) Mainstreaming the environmental benefits of street trees. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Schoene and Netto (2005) The Kyoto protocol: What does it mean for forests and forestry? Unasylva.

Schrieber and Vallery (1987) Philadelphia green: An outreach program. American Forestry Association, Washington, DC.

Shutkin (2000) The Land That Could Be: Environmentalism and Democracy in the Twenty-First Century. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Sirianni and Friedland (2001) Civic Innovation in America: Community Empowerment, Public Policy, and the Movement for Civic Renewal. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Taylor, Wiley, Kuo and Sullivan (1998) Growing up in the inner city: Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behaviour

The Children’s Society (2016) The Good Childhood Report

Ulrich (1984) View through a window may influence recovery after surgery. Science.

Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Community, Culture, and the Environment: A Guide to Understand Sense of Place. Washington, DC.

Warren (1972) The Community in America. Rand McNally, Chicago.

Westphal (2003) Urban greening and social benefits: A study of empowerment outcomes. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry

Wilkinson (1979) Social well-being and community. Journal of the Community Development Society

Woodland Trust (2019) Your School. (https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/support-us/act/your-school/)