![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
unspeakablehorrorI thought this was an interesting article:
https://www.citylab.com/environment/2019/01/detroit-tree-planting-programs-white-environmentalism-research/579937/
I think this is a good example of the problems that not stopping to consider social issues when dealing with environmental ones can cause. In this case, the black residents in these neighborhoods turned down free tree plantings because they (very reasonably) didn't trust the city to make decisions in their best interests, not because they hated trees. The background the article gives of the ugly history of the city cutting down trees earlier during its efforts to more easily surveil black residents serve as plenty of justification by itself for them to reject the trees. Why, when they will have to shoulder the burden of caring for the trees, should they accept them when at any time the city might decide to just chop them down again anyway?
But there's more even to it than that, I suspect. The city does not adequately manage its infrastructure. And trees are infrastructure. Even if you ignore raking leaves, they may need pruning, proper planning of locations (and/or additional fortifications) with respect to pipes, sidewalks, roads, etc. or they can cause *considerable destruction of other city infrastructure*. Add this to the fact that many of these residents are probably struggling economically and living in neighborhoods where such necessary planning and maintenance is neglected and I think their response makes complete sense.
I imagine that Detroit would benefit from trees, but they need to involve the residents in the process and not place the majority of the burden of fixing the problems the city has on it's disadvantaged residents. Trees are valuable, but they are also a responsibility, and that needs to be factored in to how society goes about planting them.
https://www.citylab.com/environment/2019/01/detroit-tree-planting-programs-white-environmentalism-research/579937/
I think this is a good example of the problems that not stopping to consider social issues when dealing with environmental ones can cause. In this case, the black residents in these neighborhoods turned down free tree plantings because they (very reasonably) didn't trust the city to make decisions in their best interests, not because they hated trees. The background the article gives of the ugly history of the city cutting down trees earlier during its efforts to more easily surveil black residents serve as plenty of justification by itself for them to reject the trees. Why, when they will have to shoulder the burden of caring for the trees, should they accept them when at any time the city might decide to just chop them down again anyway?
But there's more even to it than that, I suspect. The city does not adequately manage its infrastructure. And trees are infrastructure. Even if you ignore raking leaves, they may need pruning, proper planning of locations (and/or additional fortifications) with respect to pipes, sidewalks, roads, etc. or they can cause *considerable destruction of other city infrastructure*. Add this to the fact that many of these residents are probably struggling economically and living in neighborhoods where such necessary planning and maintenance is neglected and I think their response makes complete sense.
I imagine that Detroit would benefit from trees, but they need to involve the residents in the process and not place the majority of the burden of fixing the problems the city has on it's disadvantaged residents. Trees are valuable, but they are also a responsibility, and that needs to be factored in to how society goes about planting them.