by Emma Jones for URP 5343 History and Theory of Urban and Regional Planning, in the School of Architecture + Planning at UTSA
The city of Portland, Oregon, published their first Urban Forestry Management Plan (UFMP) in 1995. Portland's nearly thirty years of experience implementing and updating their UFMP positions the city as a leader in environmental planning, and their practice can serve as a valuable case study for other metros. This case study will examine the most recent version of Portland’s UFMP, which was published in 2004, and the city’s Urban Forest Action Plan (UFAP), which was originally developed in 2007 and has since been followed up with yearly implementation updates. In examining these documents and contributing evidence, a critical evaluation of Portland’s UFMP & UFAP will determine which elements of their plan succeeded and which perhaps failed and should serve as tales of warning for cities looking to update or draft their own plans. The two main points of evaluating the plan's success will concern resilience and equity and pose the question: has Portland enhanced the resiliency of their urban forest in the face of climate change equitably by increasing appropriate green infrastructure across the city, not just in peripheral or privileged areas?
The City of Portland’s UFMP could be considered a success in the sense that, over time, canopy has increased in the metro overall (DiSalvo et al., 2022). However, in recent years, Portland has begun to experience a possible decline or stagnation that may be a result of several shortcomings.
First, low-income, low-canopy areas are outlined to be targeted by tree planting efforts, but how to positively engage these neighborhoods, increase community buy-in, and ensure that systemic issues of oppression are not reinforced by the policies of the powerful is not discussed (Watson, 2014). The low-income, often minority populated areas are most susceptible to environmental disasters and injustice. Overlooking part of the community in the urban forestry plan not only raises serious equity issues, but also compromises the resilience of the entire urban ecosystem.
Second, in its reports and literature, the plan does not adequately address how climate change might affect the urban forest’s success. Although important to discuss the merits of trees and inherent value of the urban forest, no true surveys nor scientific details concerning the quality of the ecosystem are presented for evaluation of climate resiliency in the UFMP. The UFAP provides some more concrete action items to emphasize the collection of data and implementation of regular analysis to track progress, and according to a recent report, it seems the City of Portland has done well in establishing a baseline of scientific information on its urban forest since the UFMP was published (DiSalvo et al., 2022; Portland Parks & Recreation [PPR], 2007). However, the lack of useful graphics and data in the plan makes it difficult to surmise the specific intentions and progress the city is making in regards to their urban forest.
Third, years of inter-bureau disagreements and lack of political leadership has resulted in ineffective implementation of the plan (Dixon Kavanaugh, 2022; Ehrlich, 2022). Numerous stakeholders with different goals and perspectives are wonderful and necessary, but make for complicated communication and coordination. An article published by Oregon Public Broadcasting blames the recent failings of coordination between Portland’s bureaus for the unravelling of key elements of the UFMP, including its partnership with Friends Of Trees (Ehrlich, 2022). Friends Of Trees recently lost their tree-planting contract with the city even though they have been a key partner for decades and have been particularly successful working in low-income, low-canopy areas (Ehrlich, 2022; PPR, 2021). The recent shift in partnerships and power leaves lingering questions as to who will be the entities actualizing key elements of the plan into the future.
Portland has not updated its UFMP since 2004, and it seems prescient that the city has plans to do so in the coming years as recent environmental disasters have underscored the importance of equitable green infrastructure in the metro area (DiSalvo et al., 2022; Eisenman, 2013; Lieberknecht, 2022).
First, an alternative community liaison to replace Friends Of Trees needs to be put forward to bridge the gap between government and communities. If Portland is moving away from tree-planting NGOs, pivoting support to bolster community-based volunteer tree stewards could be key not only for planting, but also for undertaking tree maintenance, fostering community, and educating people on the benefits of the urban forest (Watson, 2014). Grassroots community partners are critical in engaging and educating the public because they serve as honest representatives for elevating the voices of low-income, low-canopy neighborhoods (Eisenman, 2013; Talen, 2015; Watson, 2014). Effective contracts and doubling down on the city’s stakeholder relationships will be needed in order to assure the public that Portland is committed to implementing its plan and improving the health and resiliency of its urban forest.
Second, Portland needs to conduct a full analysis on how climate change will affect the urban forest. Outside contractors who specialize in climate modeling and environmental planning may be useful in this process by offering models and other useful data that might help predict different scenarios for the future of the urban forest (Brooks, 2017). Saplings planted today are the trees of the future, and the careful selection of the species and equitable placement will be critical to the vitality of Portland’s green infrastructure and maximizing the urban forest’s ecosystem services (Eisenman, 2013). The data will also provide a foundation of theory that can be referenced when field surveys on the health and change of the urban forest are conducted. Benchmarks and other goals can be set and monitored based on theory and actual collected data for the purpose of tracking progress.
Finally, Portland could explore the possibility of to hiring a city manager. Portland suffers from discord between its bureaus, which could be remedied by a strong city manager whose primary duties are to moderate, coordinate, and facilitate progress between and within departments (Brooks, 2017). A multi-disciplinary sub-committee would then need to be formed to coordinate visions and efforts for each zoned land use in the urban forest (Brooks, 2017; Watson, 2014). The committee would include core representatives from different city bureaus as already outlined, but would also hold space for the input of local NGOs, developers, and other community stakeholders to facilitate co-production of ideas and efforts (PPR & TAC, 2004; Talen, 2015; Watson, 2014). This reorganization of city government would be a significant change from the current system, and would be unlikely to happen. However, it is useful to think about more extreme alternatives in order to generate conversation on how the city’s bureaus to improve their coordination and cooperation.
Portland has continued to see a decline in the urban forest due to general ineffectiveness of politicians coordinating with non-governmental organizations and citizen volunteer groups.
Stella Atwater, a local forester, had been studying the relationship between the urban forest and the urban heat island effect for twenty years when she decided to quit politics. Since walking away from the chaos, she has been one of the leading forces behind the Portlanders Against Urban Heat Island (PAUHI, colloquially referred to as pa-hoo-ey) movement, which engages in guerrilla landscaping to green desolate corners of the concrete jungle with mostly non-native trees and shrubs. “Honestly, it’s not really useful to think about ‘native plants’ in the same way that we have been thinking about them historically,” Atwater argues. She shrugs, “it’s just a really subjective term, especially when a plant from California can offer the same ecosystem services as what has traditionally been considered a ‘native’ but is actually capable of surviving the current climatic conditions.”
Portland Parks & Recreation has made public statements condemning the guerrilla efforts of PAUHI, stating that their work is ineffective piecemeal that promotes invasive species. The city bureau has even made some strides to try and remove or sabotage PAUHI’s plantings. Atwater rolls her eyes, “at least we are doing something!”
- Brooks, M. P. (2017). Planning theory for practitioners. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/ 9781351179454.
- DiSalvo, A., Ramsey, J., & Rossmiller, N. (2022, February). Tree Canopy Monitoring: Protocol and Monitoring from 2000-2020. The City of Portland, OR. Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/tree-canopy-monitoring-2020.pdf
- Dixon Kavanaugh, S. (2022, March 17). Portland tree canopy has stagnated or shrunk, harming city’s climate change aspirations. The Oregonian. Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2022/03/portland-tree-canopy-has-stagnated-or-shrunk-harming-citys-climate-change-aspirations.html.
- Ehrlich, A. (2022, July 11). Portland’s unfriendly treatment of Friends of Trees. Oregon Public Broadcasting. Retrieved October 23, 2022, from opb.org/article/2022/07/11/portland-oregon-tree-canopy-city-contract-friends-of-trees/.
- Eisenman, T. S. (2013). Frederick Law Olmsted, Green Infrastructure, and the Evolving City. Journal of Planning History, 12(4), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538513212474227
- Lieberknecht, K. (2022). Community-Centered Climate Planning: Using Local Knowledge and Communication Frames to Catalyze Climate Planning in Texas. Journal of the American Planning Association, 88(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2021.1896974
- Portland Parks & Recreation and the Urban Forestry Management Plan Technical Advisory Committee. (2004, March). Portland Urban Forestry Management Plan 2004. The City of Portland, OR.
- Portland Parks & Recreation. (2007, February). Urban Forest Action Plan. The City of Portland, OR.
- Portland Parks & Recreation. (2021, March). Urban Forest Action Plan 2020 Implementation Update. The City of Portland, OR.
- Portland Parks & Recreation. (2022, January). Tracking Portland's Tree Canopy Cover. The City of Portland, OR.
- Talen, E. (2015). Do-it-Yourself Urbanism: A History. Journal of Planning History, 14(2), 135– 148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538513214549325
- Thomas, J. M. (2012). Social Justice as Responsible Practice: Influence of Race, Ethnicity, and the Civil Rights Era. In Planning ideas that matter: Livability, territoriality, governance, and reflective practice. MIT Press.
- Watson, V. (2014). Co-production and collaboration in planning – The difference. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2013.866266.