When talking to Arbor Day Foundation CEO Dan
Lambe about the potential for
using trees as a direct pathway to post-wildfire and climate resiliency, the
conversation always leads back to one thing: Health.
“Forests help to pull carbon from the air, reduce negative impacts of our
climate; and in turn, create healthier, more climate-resilient forests,” he told
Sustainable Brands®.
Of course, you’d expect the leader of the preeminent tree-planting advocacy
group in the US (maybe the world) to say that. Arbor Day Foundation is on a
mission to plant 500 million trees by 2027, focusing on areas where greenery and
nature are needed most: areas recovering from
wildfire;
and traditionally underrepresented urban
neighborhoods
with lower socioeconomic standings, which often suffer from inequitable access
to
nature.
Trees play a crucial role in human health; and science is now
confirming the notion
that people who live in areas with more greenery are generally healthier.
Arbor Day Foundation is working to understand how it can effectively direct
resources to those areas around the country identified as nature deficient. Its
Forest Priority Index
(FPI) — a complex
data collection tool that uses climate,
biodiversity
and Indigenous/community land data to understand
areas where trees are needed most — focuses on rural areas; while a separate
tool, developed by Oregon-based tech firm
NatureQuant, pinpoints need in urban
areas.
According to NatureQuant CEO and co-founder Jared
Hanley, the
NatureScore tool collects from more
than 5,000 air-quality sensors across the country on an hourly basis, but that
information is aggregated monthly for the most practical use.
The mechanics of the Index
Across the US, Arbor Day Foundation uses the FPI to understand at a deeper level
where trees are — and aren’t — making an impact in traditional forest lands.
This becomes especially important in wildfire-prone areas, as air quality is one
measurement used to decide where tree need is greatest.
“While trees aren’t the only part of it, it’s a guide for us to focus where we
can make the biggest impact,” Lambe adds. “It doesn’t mean we stop planting in
tree-rich neighborhoods.”
In one example, in the aftermath of 2021’s Dixie
Fire in northern
California, a burn scar of more than 963,000 acres in Lassen National
Forest required significant reforestation. The project was designated as a 7
(high priority) through the FPI. Lambe says Arbor Day’s project with planting
partner Aloma Land & Forest LLC
helped to plant more than 646,000 seedlings to help to reestablish native
conifer forest cover, restore important wildlife habitat, and improve the water
quality in nearby Lake Almanor.
Image credit: NatureQuant
Meanwhile, NatureQuant’s NatureScore tool helps groups such as Arbor Day gather
a high-level look at the level of nature within a given urban area (based on
Census information) weighted against the potential health risks relative to that
score. That overall score is one of several tools Arbor Day uses to help
identify where trees need to be planted.
Responsible planting and wildfire management
Using data to inform effective tree planting could take on increased importance,
as forest thinning gains steam across the US — the practice carries plenty of
upsides;
but trees also play a critical role in filtering the air from pollutants,
including wildfire smoke.
“Trees aren’t a silver bullet; but they do help remove pollutants and advance
climate resilience,” Lambe says.
“It’s not causal, but association is very strong,” Hanley adds. “The more nature
in a given area, the better the air
quality.”
Planting trees in the right areas after a wildfire gives forests a head start in
regeneration by helping to protect animal diversity and revitalize damaged
watersheds; replanting has also proven
vital
in areas stricken by hurricanes and tornadoes.
It all comes back to health
There’s a delicate balance to strike here: Obviously, it’s important
to replant where trees have been decimated (either by nature or otherwise — as
is the goal of a tool such as the FPI); but it’s also important to direct
resources to nature-deprived urban areas, which is where NatureScore comes in.
Both Lambe and Hanley drive home the value of trees to human health. One of the
most recent sources of evidence comes from a 2022
study,
in which more than five million northern California
Kaiser Permanente subscribers looked at their regular exposure to nature. Among other findings, it was clear that those living near the
greenest spaces spent, on average, $374 less per person per year on
healthcare-related expenses than those living in nature-deficient areas.
“This could save society trillions of dollars; but in America’s insurance
system, it’s tough,” Hanley says.
Unsurprisingly, the greenest neighborhoods (and therefore, healthiest — in terms
of air quality) also tend to be some of the wealthiest — adding yet another
disadvantage for those living in lower socioeconomic areas — which is why we must invest to spread health-boosting
tree wealth to the communities that need it most.
Get the latest insights, trends, and innovations to help position yourself at the forefront of sustainable business leadership—delivered straight to your inbox.
Geoff is a freelance journalist and copywriter focused on making the world a better place through compelling copy. He covers everything from apparel to travel while helping brands worldwide craft their messaging. In addition to Sustainable Brands, he's currently a contributor at Penta, AskMen.com, Field Mag and many others. You can check out more of his work at geoffnudelman.com.
Published Jul 17, 2023 2pm EDT / 11am PDT / 7pm BST / 8pm CEST