Key Lessons Learned in the Quest to Re-green Chicago
Who will you meet?
Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.
Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.
When we celebrated the kickoff of the Chicago Region Trees Initiative (CRTI) in July of 2014, we had already spent a year gathering partners and ideas on how best to overcome challenges to the trees in this region. A study done by the US Forest Service and The Morton Arboretum found that all of the trees in the Chicago Region- collectively referred to as our ‘urban forest’- were being threatened by invasive species, limited species diversity, and poor regeneration of our natural oak woodlands. A plan was laid out with dozens of partners, including the formation of work groups, to tackle the key issues- tree stewardship and planting, trees and green infrastructure, forest composition, tree risk assessment and management, and marketing and communications. In addition, an Advisory Council of executives from leading green oriented organizations across the Chicago Region were selected as lead partners to steer the Initiative.
We’re now coming to the end of our first five years. As we live by our tagline- Science to Action, we’ve become proficient in learning from our experiences and recalibrating our direction. Below are a handful of the lessons we’ve learned.
Strength in Numbers
The CRTI has developed valuable resources, planted many trees, and reached new audiences in the past five years, all of which has been made possible through our partnerships. Though The Morton Arboretum has a key role in leading CRTI, most of the goal setting and solution generation comes from the dozens of people who participate in our work groups. Outside of the work groups, our workshops and trainings rely on hosts, speakers, and trainers who volunteer their time to help us. Beyond the ‘active’ partners, we have ‘passive’ partners who have shared their data, either as tree inventories or by filling out surveys about their operational capacity. In a region with 284 municipalities and many more unincorporated areas, we would not have the bandwidth to operate effectively without our partners (you can see a list of our partners here).
One of our important lessons in retaining this network has been to make sure our partners are recognized for their efforts. This recognition comes many forms, from our annual Urban Forestry Awards to promoting partner events and resources on our website and in social media, to including partners in any press we receive. We also include partner logos on resources that are created. It is fundamental to our collaboration that those partnerships that support our shared mission should be celebrated and promoted.
Furthermore, supporting strong partnerships has helped us in the promotion of our own initiatives. For example, in our state, oak ecosystems are in a state of decline. In an effort to spread awareness about the problem, we were able to get our governor to proclaim October each year as OAKtober– Oak Awareness Month. By sending the word through our network and partners, we were able to get 44 letters of support for our proclamation and saw 77 events hosted across the state in the first year. Truly, our partners are the foundation for our success.
Think Regionally, Act Locally
As previously mentioned, having so many partners means we are able to gather a lot of data about what is happening in this region. Because public land managers have been so willing to share their inventories, LiDAR data, and survey answers with us, we now have what is likely the biggest urban forest database in the country and a solid understanding of the needs and struggles of our urban foresters.
The data we have gathered about trees in this region are powerful, but are mostly meaningful because they are in fine enough in detail to be applicable at a local scale. We spent our first few years gathering data so we could identify solutions based on need and not speculation. But we also learned an important lesson along the way: in order to apply the solutions, we need to be able to tell landmangers about specifics on their land.
In the past two years, we’ve generated Canopy Summary Packets for all 284 municipalities and for the 16 community areas in Chicago and have made them publicly accessible on our website. The summaries provide detail about how much canopy cover a community has and how it’s distributed by land use. They also report on the value of those trees based on iTree calculations (iTree is free, peer-reviewed software suite from the USDA Forest Service that provides urban and rural forestry analysis and benefits assessment tools). Where available, we offer information on species diversity and make recommendations for diversification. We’ve also been able to use this information to identify communities in need and offer School Tree Planting Grants and technical assistance in those targeted communities.
Along a similar vein, we have mapped all of the oak ecosystems in the region, identified core areas, and connecting corridors for prioritized outreach. Once again, having fine scaled data has allowed us to zoom into core areas and identify private landowners to work with. Our Oak Ecosystem Restoration efforts are stronger for being able to speak about the history and interconnectedness of each site specifically.
Communication is Key
Like many urban re-greening collaboratives, one of the major goals of CRTI is to increase the size of our canopy cover. Bigger trees provide more services than smaller trees. For example, they provide more flood mitigation, air pollution removal, heat island reduction, and energy cost reduction. Similarly, areas with more canopy coverage benefit more from those services than areas with less canopy coverage. It would seem that the obvious answer here is to plant more trees.
Unfortunately, a solution utilized in other areas of the country to expand canopy is to plant lots of little trees in the ground and walk away. Without proper care and protect this results in a lot of little dead trees.
One of the lessons we were fortunate to learn from our partners (rather than from direct experience) is that our biggest challenge is not in getting millions of trees into the ground, but rather changing a culture to make trees valued and understood. The best way to grow canopy is to promote smart planting practices, teach proper care of trees, and to inspire residents to appreciate and care for the trees they have.
To this end, we’ve developed several resources and ongoing programs that bolster tree selection, planting, and care efforts and that reach wide and deep into our region’s communities. For example, each year we run two, two day Urban Forestry Basic Trainings to teach non-arborists basic skills and safety in planting, pruning, plant health care, and chainsaw operation. We also organize quarterly Community Tree Network workshops to connect professional and nonprofessional staff who have some type of interaction with trees for peer-to-peer mentoring. We also have a bilingual door hanger that addresses how to properly mulch and water trees so community partners have a trusted reference in hand when reaching out to neighbors about fixing small mistakes- like the volcano of mulch piled two feet high around their tree’s trunk. Many of our direct outreach efforts are also supported by other tools we have developed, such as our online Tree Selector Tool and Tree Ordinance Templates.
Communication is two way, and we’ve also spent a lot of time listening. In preparing our Master Plan (due out this winter), we met with stakeholders in each of our seven counties to get direct input on reasonable and aspirational goals for canopy cover and oak ecosystem preservation. The differences among counties was stark and made a strong impact in the final framing of our plan.
With a region as broad as ours and with goals as lofty as ours, we expect to continue to learn with every passing year. We are very fortunate to have the support of partners willing to share their knowledge and expertise as well as learn and grow with us.bridging the gap between scientists and forestry practitioners in her role as coordinator of CRTI.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
People seem frequently to assume that the terms “sustainability” and “resilience” are synonyms, an impression reinforced by the frequent use of the term “climate resilience”, which seems to enmesh both concepts firmly. In fact, while they frequently overlap, and indeed with good policy and planning reinforce one another, they are not the same. This article picks them apart to understand where one ends and the other begins, and where the “sweet spot” lies in achieving mutual reinforcement to the benefit of disaster risk reduction (DRR).
As extreme weather conditions become the new normal—from floods in Baton Rouge and Venice to wildfires in California, we need to clean and save stormwater for future use while protecting communities from flooding and exposure to contaminated water. Changing how we manage stormwater has the potential to preserve access to water for future generations; prevent unnecessary illnesses, injuries, and damage to communities; and increase investments in green, climate-resilient infrastructure, with a focus on communities where these kinds of investments are most needed.
A few years ago, I worked with some ARISE-US members to carry out a survey of small businesses in post-Katrina New Orleans of disaster risk reduction (DRR) awareness. One theme stood out to me more than any other. The businesses that had lived through Katrina and survived well understood the need to be prepared and to have continuity plans. Those that were new since Katrina all tended to have the view that, to paraphrase, “well, government (city, state, federal…) will take care of things”.
While the experience after Katrina, of all disasters, should be enough to show anyone in the US that there are limits on what government can do, it does raise the question, of what could and should public and private sectors expect of one another?