Minneapolis already has a lot of trees. But compared to other major U.S. cities faced with rising populations, air pollution and summer heat waves, it would get a much greater bang for its public health buck by planting even more.
In fact, in a ranking of how much 32 different cities would benefit from more urban forest, Minneapolis was tied for second place for the greatest impacts on reducing illness caused by air pollution, and third for the reduction in deaths and health risks from heat.
"If you want healthier air, trees are part of that solution," said Rob McDonald, a scientist at the Nature Conservancy who studies urban environments. On Monday he presented his findings from a global analysis of the financial returns to cities from trees at the American Public Health Association annual meeting in Denver.
He said that along with other researchers, he conducted the study in response to the questions they were getting from health officials in cities around the world. Most recognized that as temperatures and air pollution rise, trees are increasingly viewed as a key part of the public health infrastructure. Along with water treatment, sewers, and streetlights, they play a critical role in keeping citizens healthy.
"Beautification be damned," said Don Willeke, a member of the Minneapolis Tree Advisory Commission and longtime advocate for urban forests. "They are a public utility."
They are nature's all-purpose tool. They slow runoff, hold carbon, filter air pollution — especially the microscopic particles from gasoline engines that are a major contributor to lung and heart disease — offer cooling shade to people and buildings, and take humidity out of the air.
"The questions to us are how real is this," McDonald said. "How big a slice of the problem can they solve? Which cities is it most useful for? Which neighborhoods?"
They looked at population and climactic trends for 245 cities around the world. They factored in density and availability of water and a host of other factors.