Photo Credit: Don Burges
Trees are the answer. You may have heard that and thought trees could be the answer, but there are so many other things that demand attention in parks. Utilities, fields, walking paths, playgrounds, and tree canopy all fight for a place in parks and open spaces. How do we decide which is most critical? Which should be in a park?
Most of the dedicated park land in the city of Frederick, Md., is unbuildable floodplain—land that cannot be used for much of anything else. Yet, from an environmental perspective, it is some of the most valuable land. The city is surrounded by rural farmland and generous open spaces that are blank slates when it comes to development, including the waterways running through them. Fifty feet on each side of the stream is for tree plantings to protect the banks from erosion. In some cases, the city has been able to complete stream restorations on the site as well. This addition of canopy and protected stream banks means improved water quality, healthier fisheries, and less sedimentation, but they can offer much more.
Trees are often afterthoughts on a plan, crammed into a corner of the property to fulfill a forest-conservation requirement or placed in regular formation on the edges of a path. Per square foot, trees provide the most inexpensive option to clean the air and water, save energy, and provide habitat and food. What if trees were considered a utility, critical infrastructure for parks, homes, and streets?