Breaking News: Trees are Good for Us

According to Tree Ontario’s most recent report, the province could  benefit substantially by increasing its tree cover. At 22 per cent, southern Ontario’s tree coverage is below the minimum 30 per cent recommended by Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner Gordon Miller. According to the report, increased tree cover reduces the public’s risk of health problems: trees filter out airborne pollutants that increase the chances of heart disease, respiratory problems such as asthma, diabetes, and cancer. Research also shows that high quality green space promotes physical activity outdoors, which consequently combats obesity.

While the report cites the cost of treating the various health problems trees may help avoid, such as the approximate $2.1 billion cost resulting from physical inactivity in Canada, it does not attempt to measure the financial benefits of increasing tree cover. It has been known for many years that trees contribute to air quality and that better air quality will benefit human health. The report suggests that in order for southern Ontario to reach the 30 per cent tree cover milestone, 1 billion additional trees should be planted. (It is worth noting that while southern Ontario has tree coverage in the area of 22 per cent, Ontario as a whole is 66 per cent covered by forest.)

Unfortunately, the cost of planting these trees was not estimated in the report, which makes it difficult to promote discussion with government regarding its potential role in solving this problem. The report does cite a subsidy program from the 1990s that had the goal of encouraging private landowners to plant trees. The authors suggested that the program was successful because approximately 20 million trees a year were planted until the province reduced funding for the program, after which only 2 million a year were planted. Yet, the cost of this program was not addressed, which makes it difficult to determine whether value for money was achieved.

This report is intended to “initiate an interdisciplinary dialogue where the health sector, forestry industry, research community, environmental groups and government agencies can discuss and investigate the myriad of relationships between ecosystem health and human health.” However, the challenges highlighted in the report have been discussed many times by dozens of stakeholders. This report could have had a more effective impact through proposing new initiatives for governments and industry leaders to undertake. By keeping the issue limited to a discussion of the problems and not engaging in opportunities for change, the usefulness of the report is limited.