Trees: The Miracle Municipal Asset

Article written by: Michael Rosen
R.P.F., President of Tree Canada & James Lane
R.P.F., Manager and Natural Heritage & Forestry at the Regional
Municipality of York.

Article published in: Municipal
World

For municipal asset managers, the
assumption is always made that assets will devalue with time. Sidewalks
crumble, roads pothole, and bridges need replacing. So says the asset manager
as they put forward the various arguments to their line managers for the
budget to provide for maintenance or replacement. Yet no matter which way you
look at it, trees only increase in value. Not only that, but the value they
provide – whether it be economic (e.g., property value), environmental
(e.g., CO2 capture), or health (e.g., psychological well-being) – increases
exponentially with time and size. This article will discuss the value of
trees as a municipal asset, with some measurement examples drawn from the
experience in York Region.

Historic
Context

The perception of trees has changed with time in
Canada, especially within themunicipal context. Indigenous societies lived
with trees, using them for medicine,
fuel, and shelter while
understanding their function in wildlife habitat. While treeswere cleared by
some First Nations for agricultural production, European colonizationbrought
an entirely different set of values (and scale) to the clearing of forests
and trees.Indeed, trees were frequently seen as a hindrance to
“development” and “civilization”and were frequently seen as something
to “get rid of.” In later centuries, trees wereincreasingly valued for
their timber properties and in the municipal context, trees werefelled to
make way for “progress.” In the case of the famous “Cary Fir” in the
early partof the 20th century in North Vancouver, British Columbia, municipal
officials andcitizens celebrated with great enthusiasm as the huge mammoth
Douglas fir was felledto make way for “civilization.” Such reactions
would be inconceivable today.

Indeed, it was not until
later in the 20th century that municipalities sought to “manage” the
trees within their jurisdiction. As the industrial revolution made possible
the concept of “leisure time,” citizens began to demand that their parks
(and trees) provide them with recreational opportunities and beauty as a
respite from their hard- working lives. Cities complied. Most of the great
iconic Canadian urban parks (from Stanley Park in Vancouver to High Park in
Toronto to Mount Royal in Montreal) were created in that 40-year period
(1880-1920).

This led to the first
“street side plantings” – a new concept in post-industrial Canada.
Trees were frequently trans- planted from the nearby natural forest or from
hastily constructed tree nurseries to supply the burgeoning municipalities.
In time, these trees all had to be “managed” by the municipality. The
question soon arose as to who would be responsible
for managing
these new “green assets.” Trees were treated like other infrastructure
and their management was handed to those responsible for such things as
roads, signs, and parking meters. When “asset management” developed into
an entity onto its own, it was commonly associated with “grey
infrastructure” (i.e., roads, signs, sewers), whereas trees and other
“green infrastructure” were mostly overlooked as things that were just
sim- ply there to provide “some beauty” to the municipality. However,
with recent municipal trends of greater cost account- ing, the trend has
returned to looking at trees once more as pieces of “infrastructure,”
albeit “green” infrastructure.

Value of Trees to
People

As Canada continued to urbanize (greater than 80
percent at present), trees increasingly rose in importance with greater
emphasis on planting and maintenance to keep them on the landscape. Most of
us are aware of the benefits of trees – they provide shade from the sun’s
rays, they offer shelter and habitat for wildlife, they purify the air we
breathe by taking in carbon dioxide and expel- ling oxygen, and so on. Less
well-known is the fact that trees actually make us healthier, both physically
and mentally. Trees block out unattractive views and noise while adding
beauty to urban land- scapes. Trees reduce heating and cooling costs by
providing shade to homes in the summer and by buffering wind, ice, andsnow in
the winter.

Lately, the urban forest has been seen by many
as a possible vehicle through which to reduce some of the impacts of climate
change. The impact of the urban heat island on human health is currently
receiving considerable attention in larger Canadian centres. For example, the
City of Toronto passed a Shade Policy to ensure shade is now present after
any new development or re-development in the city as protection against
ultraviolet radiation and to mitigate the heat island effect – this
includes natural shade (i.e., trees). The role of urban forests in reducing
the effects of the urban heat island is well recognized. In its Climate
Change Action Plan, the Quebec Ministry of Health recognized this role and
announced a program of grants to help communities counter the heat island
effect through re-vegetation.

Furthermore, other illnesses
caused or aggravated by air pollution – notably respiratory illness,
cardiac disease, and neurological pathologies (dementia, autism) – have
negatively impacted Canadian populations. The Ontario Medical Association
estimates more than 5,800 premature deaths per year can be directly
attributable to air pollution. Trees and greens paces are widely seen as a
way to mitigate this pollution.

Trees help combat
Nature-Deficit Disorder, a condition that is becoming more and more prevalent
among children today. Finally, the presence of urban trees and green spaces
can contribute to the reduction of the prevalence and severity of several
mental illnesses such as anxiety, depression, stress, attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder in children, and improve general well-being by
providing opportunities for exercise and social interactions. Indeed, the
entire practiceof “forest bathing,” widely developed inJapan to counter
stress and other mentalproblems, is receiving greater
acceptanceelsewhere.

Many vulnerable populations live in
districts deprived of trees and greens- paces. Based on available economic
studies by TD Bank, it was shown that greener cities are saving billions of
dollars per year in environmental costs through tree cover.

Values of “Green” Asset
Management

Asset management planning is theprocess of
making the best possible deci-sions regarding the building,
operating,maintaining, renewing, replacing, anddisposing of infrastructure
assets. Theobjective of asset management from amunicipal point of view is to
maximizebenefits, manage risk, and provide satis-factory levels of service to
the public in asustainable manner.

Traditionally, municipal
assets were based on the “built environment” (also known as “grey
infrastructure”): roads, sidewalks, sewers, stormwater ponds, arenas, etc.
The analyses applied looked at life expectancy and comparisons using various
maintenance scenarios (e.g., no maintenance versus replacement in 20 years
versus maintenance every five years, etc.).

Today, society
has evolved to look beyond “grey infrastructure” and into “green
infrastructure.” Green infrastructure is defined as the natural vegetative
systems and technologies that collectively provide society with a multitude
of economic, environmental, and social benefits. This
includes:

• urban forests and
  woodlots,
• bioswales, engineered wetlands and stormwater
  ponds,
• wetlands, ravines, waterways and riparian
  zones,
• meadows and agricultural
  lands,
• green roofs and green
  walls,
• urban agriculture,
• and parks,
  gardens and grassed areas.

It also includes
soil in volumes and qualities adequate to sustain and absorb water, as well
as technologies like porous pavements, rain barrels, and cisterns, which are
typically part of green infrastructure support systems. Green infrastructure
is a system that extends from big city centres to ruralareas. All components
of the system arevital assets to our communities – butthese assets may lack
sustained fundingand policy support from other orders
ofgovernment.

Increasingly, municipalities are being asked
to recognize and communicate the benefits provided by green infrastructure,
including trees as a key component. In many analyses, green infrastructure
has actually been proven to be a lower-cost solution to grey infrastructure
and in some cases the two work closely together. Much of the research on this
comes from the U.S. where for example, new guide- lines for parking lots in
California insist trees be integrated into the lot design to (in addition to
many other reasons) pro- long the lifecycle of the asphalt through the shade
of the trees.

In Ontario, the entire management and
accounting of municipal assets are provided for in O. Reg. 588/17: Asset
Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure – which sets out the
minimum requirements for asset management. Recently, it has actually been
changed to include green infrastructure in the scope of municipal assets. And
so, municipalities that are preparing asset management plans must include
green infrastructure (due by July 1, 2023).

Types of
Green Infrastructure and Assets

In the municipal context,
green infrastructure includes biological or living assets, such as:

• street or park trees as well as forests and
  woodlands,
• soils, and
• wetlands
  (including bioswales, engineered wetlands, and stormwater
  ponds).

In addition, it also has engineered assets,
including: soil cells (networks of below-ground grey infrastructure, which
supports sidewalks and curbs while affording trees adequate rooting space,
etc.); rain gardens, engineered wetlands, bioswales, and stormwater ponds;
and permeable paving (aggregate mixed with soil to permit trees to live).

Green Infrastructure

In evaluating and
valuing trees, onemust use the most appropriate anddefensible method to value
urban forestbiological assets. At the Region of York,for example, this
includes:

• Street trees, valued using the Council
  of Tree and Landscape Appraisers trunk formula method (as articulated by the
  International Society of Arboriculture);
• Shrubs and perennials,
  valued accord- ing to replacement cost;
• Growing media,
  valued at replacement cost;
• Ecosystem services (the many
  and varied benefits that humans freely gain from the natural environment,
  like oxygen production, CO capture, and stormwater detention), valued as
  derived from the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)
  i-Tree Eco software analysis suite; and
• Civil assets,
  valued using depreciated replacement cost.

Additionally,
the most appropriate and defensible method to value the York Regional
Forest’s biological assets came down to the following
criteria:

• forests, assigned timber value (as per
  recent timber sales in the York Regional Forest, which regularly cuts 2,400
  metres cubed of wood each year to maintain its health), current land value,
  and the re-establishment costs of a new forest (site preparation, planting
  stock, planting, etc.);
• wetlands and prairies, assigned
  current land value, re-establishment (future);
• ecosystem
  services, assessed using the USDA i-Tree Eco software;
  and
• civil assets, valued using depreciated replacement
  cost.

Defining Levels of Service and Life
Cycles

Part of asset management is identifying levels of
service to be provided by green infrastructure – which is always a
challenge. The level of service includes: community level of service;
technical level of service; and performance measure.

Defining the life cycle for each type of living asset is
another challenge. In York Region, the life cycle for street trees was
defined by their three growing environments with an estimated average
lifespan of: urban (35 years), suburban (44 years), and rural (53 years).
Since the York Regional Forest is composed of natural forest communities, it
was considered to be self perpetrating (with some maintenance) over time.

Green Infrastructure – Financial Strategy &
Planning

Asset management should be the vehicle by which
funding is appropriated and budgets are created. A funding plan puts asset
management strategies into action, requiring investment to meet service
levels.

From this, the municipality canpredict key
outcomes from its chosenfinancial strategy, its service levels, andreturn on
investment for some treat-ments, and then decide on the need toestablish a
reserve to minimize impactsof funding peaks. The asset managementplan then
has to be put into action.

By bringing “green
infrastructure”into the asset management system,
a defensible
approach to identifyinginvestment requirements is introduced -thereby
“leveling the playing field” withgrey infrastructure. This in turn may
leadto an increase in access to infrastructurefunding programs (in which
greeninfrastructure can provide a lower-costsolution than traditional grey
infrastruc-ture ever could).

Trees are the miracle
municipal asset indeed. Count them in!