The intentionality behind trees and canopy coverage in San Jose may go unnoticed to some community members, but experts say the lack of tree cover throughout the city causes socio-economic disparities and has climate change ramifications.
In 2007, the City of San Jose adopted its “Green Vision,” which is a 15-year sustainability plan that commited to plant 100,000 trees by this year.
“It was a great goal, but it did not have any funding for infrastructure and internal staffing,” said Colin Hayne, San Jose department of transportation public information officer.
Hayne said upon the plan’s 2022 deadline, the city has only planted between 15,000 to 20,000 trees.
The citywide canopy coverage has decreased from 15.3% in 2012 to 13.5% in 2018, according to a June 11 San Jose government news release.
The 1.8% gap may not seem like a significant loss, but it translates into 2.7 square miles of tree canopy cover that disappeared, according to the same news release.
Hayne said as of this year, the city’s new goal is to reach 20% of citywide canopy coverage.
“Canopy coverage is a difficult metric to see immediate improvements on,” said Rick Scott, San Jose deputy director of the department of transportation.
Scott said it takes several years to see the results of canopy coverage because “decisions that have been taken 10 years ago are being reflected now.”
In February, San Jose City Councilmembers unanimously approved the Community Forest Management Plan, which is intended to focus the city’s attention on stopping the decreasing trend of tree cover that has been affecting San Jose’s urban forest.
The Community Forest Management Plan map, which shows 2018 canopy coverage, illustrates a significant diversity of tree canopy cover among different areas throughout the city.
East and South San Jose have a lower canopy coverage compared to West San Jose, according to the 2018 map.
Cristina Rampini, San Jose State environmental studies assistant professor, said identifying the problems underlying those inequalities are complex.
“It is like a ‘chicken and egg’ situation where you do not know what came first,” Rampini said.
She said the city under-invested in certain low-income areas lacking amenities, while more “undesirable” and “polluted” areas were more affordable for “low-income” people.
“I would imagine that it is both because these are the kinds of trends that we see when there is a highly polluting industry,” Rampini said.
According to the Community Forest Management Plan, replacing lost canopy takes between 30-to-40 years and the data reports that San Jose will have to add “approximately 40,000 35-foot canopy spread trees to recover 1% of the lost canopy.”
Scott said the city is only planting 1,000 to 2,000 trees per year.
SJSU sociology professor Scott Myers-Lipton, who is also an advisory board member for the SJSU Human Rights Institute, published a study in 2021 called “Silicon Valley Pain Index,” highlighting the relationship between economic disparities and canopy coverage.
The study, which focused on racial discrimination and income wealth inequality, reported the degree difference of the average temperature between different areas of San Jose.
Myers-Lipton stated in the study that the temperature difference between the Municipal Rose Garden, a district with higher canopy cover, and East San Jose, where canopy cover deficits, is a significant inequality factor of resident health and life quality.
He stated that the Municipal Rose Garden, even if it is located six miles apart from East San Jose, has 3.5 times more tree coverage and 27% less pavement.
However, Scott said he feels the city needs more canopy cover.
“Everywhere in the city is deficient from our goal of 20% canopy cover,” Scott said.
He said there are disparities around the city, but it is hard to pinpoint the nature of the problem.
“There are different natural and climatic factors in the city,” Scott said. “To the west you have the Santa Cruz mountains, to the north you have the Bay while the east side is surrounded by Foothills.”
Colin Hayne said even if there are “leafy canopy rich areas,” those areas are still below the 20% goal.
Hayne said another important factor of canopy cover diversity in San Jose is the effective space available to plant trees.
“If you do not have a strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street there is no space to plant those trees and maintain them,” he said.
Jamsheed Mistry, an SJSU alumnus who is currently researching canopy coverage in San Jose, said the city’s housing crisis and the high levels of urbanization are affecting canopy cover.
“The level of urbanization is definitely causing the destruction of all these trees,” Mistry said. “Tech companies are hiring new employers and it is fundamental for them to have enough space for parking lots, garages and other infrastructures.”
He said building houses is critically important, but at the same time, it fails when there is “less space for green.”
Margarita Fedorova, Our City Forest nursery team volunteer coordinator and De Anza College alumna, said the city desperately needs trees. Our City Forest is a nonprofit organization focused on urban forestry and environmental education, according to its website.
“San Jose has very poor canopy coverage compared to other big cities,” Fedorova said.
The recent heat wave increased the temperature in San Jose to 109 degrees on Sept. 6, reaching a historical peak, according to a Sept. 6 article by The Washington Post.
“In an urban environment, everything is reflecting heat,” Fedorova said. “Cars, buildings and concrete trap the heat.”
Mistry said in addition to the health benefits provided by trees such as more oxygenated air, trees provide shadows that become essential during certain periods of the year that are known to have heat waves.
Hayne said planting trees is the “easy part” of the job as it is possible to find money and labor, but the real problem is to maintain those trees as the first three years of tree life are “extremely important.”
SJSU environmental studies professor Rachel O’Malley said most planted trees don’t survive and it’s “meaningless” to plant new ones if the city can’t maintain them.
O’Malley said preserving the already-existing trees should be more important than planting new ones.
“It is a vicious cycle,” she said. “We cut trees, the temperature increases, lands get more dry and it will be harder to plant new trees.”
