A1 • Mapping Wicked Problems — Deforestation in the Appalachian Region
By: A. Sánchez
Tags: Systems Thinking, Transition Design, Wicked Problem, Deforestation, Pittsburgh

Forested lands in Pennsylvania are also sites for fracking and drilling for shale gas. Over the past decade, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) has leased more than 100,000 acres of state forest to gas companies, bringing in tens of millions of dollars to the state economy (Frazier 2018). Most of this money, which is a part of the Oil and Gas Lease Fund, has gone towards efforts in conservation, flood control, and recreation (Detrow 2011). This reveals the value of the gas industry in stimulating the local economy and financing local infrastructures. However, developing these well pads, pipelines, and compressor stations on forested land has destroyed habitat for native species and allowed invasive species to thrive in its place (Frazier 2018), further damaging forest health. From an economic standpoint, damages from forest pests constitute a loss of $30 million to the state every year (DCNR).

There have been efforts to mitigate the damages caused by fracking and biomass burners. However, practices such as reforestation require long-term commitment with high costs in labor and time, making it difficult to successfully implement these programs (Robertson 2012). Due to the significant investment needed for managing forest health, existing policies are unable to ensure that ecosystems can regenerate the level of biodiversity and natural resources that once existed.

The forestry industry greatly contributes to Pennsylvania’s economy, generating significant revenue and funding local infrastructures. Forest products and resources are also inherently valuable to consumers. Combined, these perceptions reflect a prevalent attitude that treats forested lands as a natural resource for human use; forests are framed as a long-term economic asset that is meant to be extracted for human consumption in the form of products and revenue (Amacher et al 2009). In order to begin untangling deforestation as a wicked problem, it will be necessary to consider how forests are contextualized as assets to the forestry industry and the resulting implications for forest health.

Thread #2: Current forestry land management practices and policies are fragmented

Private real estate investment trusts and industry concerns undoubtedly own massive amounts of land — for example, Weyerhaeuser owns 2.3% of commercially available timber in the contiguous United States, or 12.4 million acres, an area “nearly the size of West Virginia” (Merrill and Leatherby 2018). However, it is worth nothing that ownership of forests in the US and Pennsylvania is also highly fragmented. For instance, the Penn’s Woods report in 1995 estimated that around 70% of the state’s 2.1M acre woodland is privately owned by some 500K distinct landowners (DCNR). This legal fragmentation and lack of an integrated system for management, accompanied by stakeholders’ diverse interests and goals, resists movement in concert toward any one objective (consider, for instance, different interpretations of what constitutes sustainable use) especially if there is “a fundamental tradeoff between ecosystem function and the volume of wood extracted” (Hutton 2019).

As ongoing forestry management efforts push forward, the defects of existing management systems become apparent as well — there is little to no coordination between the various groups which took an active role in the management of city trees (Kelley 2019). The legal concern also exists — It proved some existing ordinances and regulations for forestry practices are unnecessary or destructive. For example, the diameter-limit cutting can be harmful to forest’s recovery ability and the seed sourcing of more adaptable tree species (Forest Management and Timber Harvesting in PA). Additionally, the lack of a solid monitoring and evaluation system increases the difficulty of evaluating effectiveness of soft targets like public outreach and planning activities (Kelley 2019).

Due to the profitability of timber and other forest products, private landowners can view their forested land, and the accompanying practice of timber harvesting, as an important source of income. But despite the financial motivation, the lack of proper public guidance on forest management has resulted in mismanagement by some private landowners. Without the necessary skills, resources, or knowledge, these landowners risk damaging the health of their forested lands. And when such damages do occur, landowners no longer see value in their property. Compounded with excessive government regulations on forestry practices, these private landowners end up selling their property for development instead (Forest Management and Timber Harvesting in PA). This causes yet another chain reaction of further exploiting forest resources through industrial means, leading to a more vulnerable forestry biosystem.

Not dealt with here, and incredibly important, is the history and evolution of the property ownership system and its impact on deforestation (we will seek to better understand this in assignment 3).

Thread #3: Tree canopy loss impacts the urban environment

Tree canopy loss in cities is a detectable issue that is lowering the quality of living environments and urban experiences, and threatens the whole ecosystem. Pittsburgh currently “leads major US cities” with canopy coverage of 42% of the city’s area (Climate Action Plan 3.0). Even so, the city experienced a 3% decline in its canopy coverage from 2010–2015 (City of Pittsburgh) and over a similar timeframe tree coverage of the surrounding Allegheny county decreased 2%, equivalent to over 10K acres (NextPittsburgh). The loss of tree canopy is also negatively influencing the economic, social and environmental well-being in communities and cities and is further complicated by the absence of a comprehensive legal framework — planning documents such as Pittsburgh’’s Urban Forest Master Plan have never been officially adopted by the city (Kelley 2019).

Caption: Estimated ~$4.8M in annual financial impact of street trees is attributed to increased property values and air quality, and decreased costs associated with CO2 emissions, electric and natural gas energy, stormwater runoff. Source: Burgh’s Eye View

Pittsburgh currently estimates the financial impact of street trees at $4,860,922 annually, through increase in property values and air quality, and decrease of costs associated with CO2 emissions, electric and natural gas energy, stormwater runoff, etc. (Burgh’s Eye View). Considering that street trees represent only a small subset of the entire urban canopy (4.1%), it’s easy to understand how the financial benefits of the city’s entire canopy could result in financial impact 20X that amount (i-Tree Pittsburgh Analysis). Moreover, a report found that “an additional 33% (11,914 acres) of the city could theoretically be modified to accommodate tree canopy” which would result in additional millions of savings annually (Tree Canopy Report). Reduction in urban tree canopy therefore results in indirect costs to the City of Pittsburgh and its inhabitants.

Reviewing Pittsburgh’s urban canopy by neighborhood reveals that there is great inequity between neighborhoods.

Caption: Squirrel Hill North and South are two of the ten neighborhoods with the most trees.

Source: i-Tree Pittsburgh Analysis

Caption: The ten neighborhoods with the fewest trees had a combined 66 trees, that’s less than 3% of the trees in Squirrel Hill North.

Source: i-Tree Pittsburgh Analysis

The unequal access to urban trees means there is unequal access to the physical, mental, and social benefits of urban forests, thus expanding environmental injustice (Watkins and Gerrish 2018). Furthermore, the city’s maintenance of existing street trees is often driven in a large part by the existing landscape, that is, they are forced to spend money maintaining trees in neighborhoods that already have them. Any initiatives that seek to introduce more trees into neighborhoods must take into account the multitude of perceptions within communities regarding trees, governmental initiatives and philanthropy. For example, communities may view tree planting initiatives with suspicion for a variety of well-founded reasons (Carmichael), not least because while trees may offer indirect economic benefits, they can also be a cause of additional work, expense and / or liability.

Thread 4: Trees and forests have a key role in combating climate change

Currently, deforestation is seen as a key problem to overcome that will impact our ability to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis (the WWF cited forests as “key to a successful Paris agreement”) (WWF ; Stahl 2019). In its Climate Action Plan 3.0, the city of Pittsburgh states its posture toward climate change, explaining “[as] global temperatures continue to rise and the costly impact of climate change becomes more prevalent, cities are at the forefront of climate action” (Climate Action Plan 3.0). With reference to its legacy of carbon-heavy industrial history, the plan outlines a goal of pursuing a carbon neutral future. The plan cites deforestation among the leading causes of global emissions of greenhouse gases and explicitly situates Pittsburgh within the context of that problem, outlining a path to increase the city’s carbon sequestration by 100% by 2030 by increasing the urban canopy. This is to say, the city of Pittsburgh officially views itself as implicated within the problem of climate change and views its urban forest as a lever by which to address this problem. This posture has important implications across the dimensions of the STEEP framework.

Today it has been estimated that the urban canopy discussed in the above section generates an equivalent of 3,265 metric tons of reduced CO2 emissions which using the social cost of carbon estimated at $50 / metric ton is equivalent to $160K+ annually for the city due to benefits of street trees’ shading and cooling (Climate Action Plan 3.0 ; i-Tree Pittsburgh Analysis ; EDF). These street trees also “sequester approximately 13,900 metric tons of CO2 emissions” worth an estimated economic benefit of $695K annually which includes only carbon stored in trees, not the soil (Climate Action Plan 3.0 ; i-Tree Pittsburgh Analysis ; EDF). Street trees represent only a small subset of the entire urban canopy, 4.1% of Pittsburgh’s total land Area (i-Tree Pittsburgh Analysis). If we were also to consider urban land previously deforested and currently underutilized, we can see that the initiative to increase the urban canopy has the potential for significant economic and environmental benefits.

However, a lack of funding and resources potentially stands to complicate the city’s ambitious plan (Public Source). Subsequent documents including an Investment Prospectus identify that additional philanthropic sources will be needed to pay for a One PGH initiative to increase the tree canopy by 100,000 trees in 12 years, essentially raising an ambitious ~400% of the current budget from outside sources, and that is but one of many initiatives (One PGH). The social costs of carbon are more difficult to offset if there is a lack of funding mechanisms and the lack of a legal framework that adequately values and protects the cost of carbon, e.g., something akin to a carbon tax (Public Source). Finally, the view of trees as a tool for carbon sequestration risks becoming a reductive view of a complex environment that can further create incentives that are problematic for dealing with the complex set of stakeholder needs within the city.

Thread 5: Treatment + Perception of non-humans has a direct impact on environmental degradation and will lead to even more zoonotic pandemics.

Pittsburgh is still experiencing many of the consequences of environmental destruction that occurred at the turn of the twentieth century, which set in action a chain of events that not only shaped the city and its culture but which continue to influence it today. As discussed above, the loss of natural forest in the Pittsburgh area and the Appalachian Plateau creates myriad problems for the city and its citizens. However, it is critical to consider how the loss of habitat extends well beyond the human sphere.

In 2010, Pittsburgh was one of the first cities to recognize the rights of non-humans — specifically trees in a case against fracking (Perkins, 2017) The autonomy of a non-human in policy, perspective, and treatment across our initial analysis of our wicked problem has shown to be important in talking about environmental degradation and habitat loss. Here we’d like to pose that one’s posture on the autonomy of a non-human can have many potential negative implications and negative entanglements — with consequences — with deforestation. Although Pittsburgh recognized the rights of trees, the realization that a forest is much much more than just trees gives us some insight that the environment (the forest) is much more than that.

In 2014, Pittsburgh cut down and replanted trees to replace infected trees — in this case, oak wilt — in local parks (Bauder, 2014). The removal of trees harmed the existing habitat but it is interesting to note that the solution to tree disease — often caused by invasive species- in this case, fungus exacerbated by beetles that feed on sap infected with oak wilt spores- is remedied by removal and replanting a different species of trees — not necessarily immune to the potentials of invasive insects or fauna. In the removal of habitat we wonder if there is any transition level aid in the species that are temporarily displaced. And also wonder if tree replacement is the best route.

Reforestation efforts can create habitat loss as much as deforestation, creating species interactions that create unbalanced interactions to arise. These unbalanced interactions — [see: How Wolves Change Yosemite] — are important to understand the weight a balanced ecosystem can have on the existing habitat. Covid-19 has shown us that zoonotic diseases and the important role that animal interactions play in public health and safety should not be ignored [Felbab-Brown, 2020]. Deforestation is directly linked to habitat loss — further pushing different species into new interactions with one another, leading to a spread of diseases. These species include the human species and our encroachment into native and untouched lands creates interactions between humans and non-humans — which have been linked to the increase and dangers of human → non-human interactions. In effect, social perceptions of wild animals have taken a negative turn[Bittel, 2020]. Eradication of bats has been popular amongst cities and urban areas [Dalton, 2020] with the wave of covid-19. which in turn have created an increase of insects. Bats are essential for insect population control and I think we all know the potential insects have for carrying and transmitting diseases [Mies, 2001] .

Habitat loss is also so intricately tied with the market. Beyond our operating budget of $7,224,000 for the PGH Forestry Division, the funds save a scarce [PGH Urban Forest Master Plan, 2020] amount for the treatment and management of biodiversity and other non-humans needed to help naturally maintain the health of forests and trees. Again this monolithic view of a forest invades our perceptions of what is needed to maintain a healthy ecosystem. One-sided views of non-humans can and will continue to hurt how we approach both deforestation and beyond. Non-humans are essential to the health and well-being of our forests, our existing infrastructure and our own health. If we continue to allow habitat loss with the slashing of forests, we can also say bye to our own habitats because we won’t be needing them after we’re completely taken by the next and looming zoonotic induced pandemic. Our entanglements with non-humans are needed and warranted but some interactions are unnatural and come with a large public health cost.

Final Wicked Problem Map