Exploring Urban Forestry's Effect on Climate Change in Chicago's Englewood Neighborhood

Exploring Urban Forestry’s Effect on Climate Change in Chicago’s Englewood Neighborhood

Terminal Project Master of Landscape Architecture University of Florida

Monica Sabato Roche 2020 October 01

Committee Chair: Dave Hulse Committee Members: Yi Luo & Kathryn Frank Table of Contents Cover page Approval page Abstract Table of Contents Figures, Tables, and Images List

01 Introduction 10

1.1 Inspiration

1.2 Project Summary Literature & Gaps

1.3 Goals & Objectives

1.4 Project Scope and Significance

1.5 Researchable Topic

1.6 Overview of Chapters

02 Methodology 29

2.1 Neighborhood and Block Selection

2.2 Process Diagram

2.3 ENVI-met Input Data Requirements

2.4 Why ENVI-met?

2.5 Materials, Trees, and Plants

2.6 Weather Data July 2019 - 2050

03 Results 41

3.1 ENVI-met 2019 Leonardo 2D Microclimate Simulation Base Model

3.2 ENVI-met 2050 Leonardo 2D Microclimate Simulation ROW Street Tree

3.3 ENVI-met 2050 Leonardo 2D Microclimate Simulation Vacant Residential

3.4 Comparison of Leonardo 2D 2050 Microclimate Models - M2/M3, M3/M2

3.5 Assessment of Outcomes

04 Block Canopy Planting Design 46

4.1 Considerations

4.2 Street Tree Selection

4.3 ROW/Street Tree Selection

4.4 Vacant Residential and Legacy Tree Planting

4.5 Community Level Outcomes and Benefits

4.6 Shadow calculation

4.7 ROW Street Tree Planting Design

4.8 Materials

4.10 Study Area Tree Siting

05 Observations and Conclusion 54

5.1 Observations

5.2 Limitations

5.3 Conclusion

06 Appendix 64

A. Splash Pad Design

B. RCP – Representative Concentrated Pathway

C. Measurement of Surface/Area Method

Figures, Tables, and Images

Figure 1.1 State of IL Cook County Figure 1.2 Chicago’s 77 neighborhoods Figure 1.3 Englewood IL Figure 1.4 Englewood Available Planting Area Figure 1.5 Chicago urban plume scale over Lake Michigan west to east Figure 1.6 Tree Failure rates West Oakland study Figure 1.7. Urban Forest Outcomes Figure 1.8 Prospective street tree planting patterns Figure 1.9 Six pattern simulations of tree size and planting space Figure 1.10 ENVI-met Microclimate cross section outcomes Figure 1.11 City of Savannah public squares Figure 1.12 Chicago Summer Nights Figure 1.13 Chicago Summer Days Figure 2.1 Study area on map of Englewood Figure 2.2 Process Diagram Figure 2.3 Month of July 2019 MDW Wind Rose Figure 2.4 ENVI-met M1: 2019 Study Area Base Block Plan Figure 2.5 Site Map Study Area Figure 2.6 ENVI-met M1: 2019 Study Area Base Block Isometric Figure 2.7 ENVI-met M2: 2050 Study Area ROW/Street Tree Block Plan Model / 45% Canopy Figure 2.8 ENVI-met M2: 2050 Study Area ROW/Street Tree Block Isometric 45% Canopy Figure 2.9 ENVI-met M3: 2050 Englewood Vacant Residential Diagonal Tree Plan≥ Model 50% Figure 2.10 ENVI-met M3: 2050 Englewood Vacant Residential Diagonal Tree Isometric≥ 50 Figure 3.1 M1: 2019 Study Area Base Microclimate Simulation 15:00 EDT, 82.35°F – 87.71°F≥ Figure 3.2 M1: 2019 Study Area Base Microclimate Simulation 3:00 am EDT, 72.88°F – 74.46°F≥ Figure 3.3 M2: 2050 ROW Street Tree Microclimate Simulation 15:00 EDT, 84.47°F – 89.42°F Figure 3.4 M2: 2050 ROW Street Tree Microclimate Simulation 3:00 am EDT, 76.35°F – 77.92°F Figure 3.5 M3: 2050 Vacant Residential Diagonal Microclimate 15:00 EDT, 84.4°F – 89.73°F Figure 3.6 M3: 2050 Vacant Residential Diagonal Microclimate 3:00 am EDT, 76.35°F – 77.97°F Figure 3.7 2050 M2/M3 15:00 EDT Figure 3.8 2050 M3/M2 15:00 EDT Figure 4.1 Study Area Canopy Tree Site Design

Table 1.1 Englewood Land Use Types classifications and land cover Table 2.1 Study Area Homes and Apartment Building Inventory Table 4.1 Selected Site Street/Parkway/Alley/ Legacy Trees Table 4.2 City of Chicago Bureau of Forestry Tree Planting Diversity Requirements

Cover Image Isometric of Englewood Study Area Image 1.1 Aerial Map of Englewood Image 1.2 North view 6100 block S. May St., Englewood Image 1.3 South view 6100 block S. Aberdeen St., Englewood Image 1.4 NASA map of Chicago Englewood Lake Michigan Image 2.1 Study area location image Image 2.3 Street View S. May St. Image 2.4 Street View S. Aberdeen St. Image 4.1 Sun Direction and Angle July 17, 2019 10:00 am EDT– Sunseeker app Image 4.2 Sun Direction and Angle July 17, 2019 3:00 pm EDT- Sunseeker app Image 4.3 Alley Power lines W 62nd/S May St. N view Image 4.4 Alley Power lines W 62nd/S Aberdeen St. N view

5 Acronyms

DBH Diameter at Breast Height UHI Urban Heat Island ROW Right of Way RCP Representative Concentration Pathway LBF Lake-Breeze Front

Abstract

Englewood is one of Chicago’s 77 neighborhoods located on the far Southwest side of

Chicago, Garfield Blvd. to the north, Racine Ave to the west, 75th Street to the south, and the

Metra, commuter rail system, Red Line tracks to the east. At its peak in 1960, Englewood was fully developed and home to over 90,000 residents. Today the population of Englewood is

25,000 and well over half of the 3.07 mi2 area is now vacant residential zoned land. A 1995

Chicago summer heat wave took the lives of over 700 residents, the majority of whom lived in

Englewood. With the existing plethora of vacant land in Englewood, over 1386 city-owned

vacant lots (data.cityofchicago.org), and climate change underway, this neighborhood provides

both the space and opportunity to research the temperature effects of increased tree canopy in

a two-block study area over a 30-year period with the intent of exploring potential summer

high temperature relief to the residents of Englewood and other similar urban spaces.

6 This study found that street trees planted ≥40% along the right of way, without spacing

between mature tree projected canopy diameter, provided similar climate mitigation as vacant

lot tree planting ≥70% in study area.

Due to time and space constraints what is not contained in this research are current socio-economic issues and any real or projected socio-economic benefits derived from the

outcome of the study.

Figure 1.1 State of IL Cook County Figure 1.2 Chicago’s 77 neighborhoods Figure 1.3 Englewood IL Study Block

Monica Sabato Roche ©

Acknowledgements

Committee Chair - David Hulse & Committee Members - Yi Luo and Kathryn Frank for your diligence and encouragement. John Mariani of LandServe LLC, Brendan Daley of Chicago Park District, and The “A” Team.

01 Introduction

1.1 Inspiration

The death of 739 Chicago residents, the vast majority living in Englewood, during the

July 1995 Heat Wave in Chicago caught my attention and inspired me to look more critically into a)why hundreds of people succumbed to the heat and b)if the establishment of a greater tree canopy can mitigate the summer heat.

On a satellite map, Englewood appears very green with plenty of open land. Over 50% of the residential land in Englewood is vacant (Figure 1.4). The City of Chicago owns, mows, and maintains over 1300 vacant lots in Englewood. An additional 481 vacant lots have been sold to local Englewood residents since 2014, through the $1 Large Lots program, the vast majority

10 remaining vacant. As homes and multi-family residences were vacated and fell into disrepair,

the City of Chicago razed the structures, 800 in 2018 alone.

Englewood’s neighbors are few and far between with some blocks having only a few

homes remaining. Very little new construction and renovation has occurred in the Englewood

neighborhood since the 1990’s, with the exception of a renewed retail and commercial zone in

Englewood’s core. What remains is block after block of grassy vacant lots, some trees, and the

few remaining homes. The outline of many basement walls protrudes, revealing the footprint of

the former structure.

As reported by Chicago Regional Tree Initiative (chicagorti.org), Englewood has a 24.5% tree canopy coverage and 51% impervious surface overall, with more than 864 acres of available planting space (Figure 1.4, Table 1.1). Tree canopy coverage in the City of Chicago ranges from 7% to 40% (Chicagorti.org) and currently averages 19% overall (Chicago Sun Times,

2020). Englewood has great potential for planting trees and enhancing the tree canopy, providing more summer shade and keeping the streets, sidewalks, and people cooler, now and in the future.

Image 1.1 Aerial Google Map of Englewood

Image 1.2 North view 6100 block S. May St., Englewood Image 1.3 South view 6100 block S. Aberdeen St., Englewood

Figure 1.4 Englewood Available Planting Area (Chicagorti.org)

Table 1.1 Englewood Land use type classifications and land cover, (Chicagorti.org)

Chicago and its Southwest side Englewood neighborhood experience Urban Heat Island

Effect (UHI), the condition that describes higher temperatures in urban areas than surrounding rural areas. UHI is caused by covering once permeable surfaces with impermeable surfaces. In the city this includes housing, sidewalks, driveways, and streets. Indicators of UHI include higher overnight low temperatures, a result of the homes, streets, and impervious surfaces retaining daytime heat and releasing it in the evening. The location of the city core is about 9 miles northeast and with Lake Michigan 3.7 miles directly to the east of Englewood and less developed communities farther west from Chicago (Image 1.4).

Lake Michigan

Image 1.4 NASA map of Chicago, Englewood, Lake Michigan

Chicago’s summer “Prevailing Westerlies” blow from west and southwest to east, with

Lake Michigan acting as a heat sink (Figure 1.5). The winds move from rural communities across the urban area and east across the lake (Cosgrove, et al 2018).

Figure 1.5 Chicago urban plume scale over Lake Michigan west to east Source: Cosgrove, A., Berkelhammer, M.

The study area is 5.5 miles directly east of Midway Airport (MDW) weather station and 3 miles west of the shores of Lake Michigan. Lake breeze frontal movement (east to west) was examined (Keeler et al, 2012) in relationship to UHI. Lake breezes are the cooling winds that blow in from Lake Michigan during a summer heat wave. In their study 44 incidences of Lake- breeze front (LBF) on the City of Chicago and its outlying suburbs were examined for 6 months, from April – September 2005. Observed in this study was the strong relationship to reduced speed of LBF motion and the greatest intensity level of overnight UHI prior to the formation of a lake breeze. The evening magnitude of UHI before the development of a lake-breeze front slows the movement to the interior through the southwest suburbs, including Englewood, was indicated. This can account for less cooling from the lake breeze than to areas north of the city core.

1.2 Project Summary Literature & Gaps

The use of existing academic journals and related precedent projects in urban settings form a basis for this research. Urban forestry academic journals inform the design component

16 of the project. This project is an exploration of potential climate change mitigation by expanding existing tree using a 2020-2050 model canopy scenario at block extent, under future climatic assumption.

Application of the outcomes of precedent studies guide the solutions to recreate the open spaces to benefit the community and potentially reduce UHI. This is a research design project intended to test the potential as a model for future urban vacant lot usage.

Even a small increase in canopy shade can make a difference human heat tolerance.

Heat-related ambulance calls in Toronto Canada were 15 times higher in areas with 5% tree canopy cover as those neighborhoods with >70% tree canopy cover (Graham, et al, 2016). It’s suggested that even a negligible increase of urban tree canopy from <5% to >5% could make an

80% decrease in heat-related ambulance calls (Graham, et al, 2016).

1.2.1 Community Street and Lot Trees

Long term canopy expansion planning must include mortality rates for urban trees. Tree population half-life is a better utilization of canopy management (Roman, 2014). When half of the planted trees are expected to die, the population has reached its half-life. With a street tree mortality rate of 3.5- 5.1% in 13-20 years the population is at half-life. Another way to understand this is in 13-20 years, 50 of 100 planted street trees will have expired. For research looking 30 years into the future, the replacement of trees planted in 2020 are a definite factor to include. Smaller diameter of trees planted, Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), significantly contribute to tree failure. In West Oakland CA study (Roman, 2011) trees planted with a DBH of

≤ 3” failed 4 times more than all other DBH size classes (Figure 1.8), trees with the lowest failure rates are 18” DBH.

Figure 1.6 Tree Failure rates West Oakland study (Roman 2006)

In addition to standard urban street tree mortality, the larvae of the emerald ash borer

are expected to kill all 16 Midwestern native ash tree species. Ash trees comprise 18% of

Chicago’s current street trees (mortonarb.org).

Best management practices leading to a high survival rate of urban tree planting through the execution of an urban tree planting program are offered in a case study of stewardship in new tree planting (Roman et al., 2015). In the Powelton neighborhood, about

2.6 miles west of downtown Philadelphia, 94 street trees were planted in October 2005, primarily in sidewalk cut-outs, randomly around the neighborhood. Predominate species include Malus spp. (Crabapple) 28.7%, Fraxinus pennsylvanica ‘Patmore’(Green Ash) 10.6%,

Gleditsia triacanthos ‘Halka’ (Honey locust) 10.6%, Amelanchier x grandiflora ‘Autumn

Brilliance” (Serviceberry) 8.5%, plus 9 other street tree species.

It took the effort of 364 volunteers donating 1160 hours to plant 94 street trees, 88 volunteers donating 214 hours between 2007-2011 to maintain the street tree plantings and an

18 additional 43 interns donating 183 hours to maintenance. Actions taken toward stewardship

include watering, mulching and site care, staking, and pruning. The trees were provided

through a Pennsylvania public-private partnership, TreeVitalize (TreeVitalize Grants Program,

2020), and funding for maintenance through regional and local private foundations. Annual

survival rate of the Powelton street tree plantings was an impressive 95.4%!

Lessons learned in this study include a) some mortality is to be expected; b) smaller scale, neighborhood areas are best suited for stewardship; c) monitoring systems to track location, maintenance, and growth are important; d) tree care as a priority in time and funding are critical to the long-term success of tree survival and eventual achievement of ecosystem services contributing to the neighborhood (Roman et al., 2015).

Urban street tree planting is most successful when the values of the stakeholders are considered and respected (Carmichael & McDonough, 2018). The Greening of Detroit (TGD)

(The Greening of Detroit, 2019), a non-profit organization, was founded to provide renewed forestation to the City of Detroit after generations of urban forest deterioration. In 2018, TGD had 5000 volunteers and a combined staff and advisors of 65. The volunteers were part of tree planting activities but not supplemental education or maintenance, with the exception of summer watering. Between 2011 and 2014 Detroit residents pushed back and TGD received

25% no-tree requests (NTR) for planting of trees in the right of way in front of their home.

The Carmichael & McDonough (2018) study found that nearly a quarter of the residents choosing to not have a tree planted in the right of way indicated they were concerned with

“long-term management of city trees to avoid negative financial, safety, and aesthetic consequences for their neighborhood and properties”. Most importantly, they determined that

19 residents felt disempowered and conveyed that community engagement creates a sense of satisfaction, including a feeling they are a part of the process from tree selection to future tree maintenance. While the TGD administration’s goal of increased forestation was achieved, it left the stakeholders out of the majority of the process with many of the residents of the Detroit

TGD project to feel like the program is something “done to them, instead of for them”

(Carmichael & McDonough, 2018).

Vogt & Fisher (2014) considered systems, interactions, and outcomes in the life of a

newly planted urban tree including a) community interaction with the trees, b) biophysical -

light availability, water stress, existing soil nutrients, pollution, salt exposure, and other

stressful growing conditions, c) tree characteristics – nursery stock quality, healthy planting protocols, tree size and health, appropriate tree selection for the site, d) management and maintenance - “maintenance type, intensity, frequency, duration, and extent”(Vogt and Fisher,

2014). The community, biophysical environment, maintenance and communication intersect with the tree to determine the extent to which the outcomes contribute to the community

(Figure 1.7).

Figure 1.7 Urban Forest Outcomes. (Vogt & Fisher, 2014).

Neighborhood residents in the City of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada were interviewed about decisions made in the selection and planting of urban residential lot trees by the private property owners and found that the tree planting mostly occurs in the first 5 years of residency and often at “first landscaping”, the time at which an owner moves into a newly constructed home (Conway, 2016). Conway (2016) identified opportunities for community greening groups and U.S. and Canadian county extension services a window of time by which many property owners will be considering a new tree planting. Armed with this information, they can reach out and provide information or classes to supply the homeowner working data to make the

21 decision on which species to plant and what location is best, to increase tree health and

longevity and owner’s enjoyment.

1.2.2 Tools to Determine Outcomes

The iTree Suite of Tools provided by the United States EPA is an excellent tool to

quantify the benefits of trees in terms of stormwater, energy, air quality, and CO2 sequestration

over time but cannot model an urban mesoscale microclimate (US EPA). UWG - Urban Weather

Generator from MIT had been an alternate program used to model Urban Heat Island and

requires several outside steps and data sets to run. Evidenced from the website there isn’t support readily available in case of questions and challenges. ENVI-met appears widely in microclimate modeling academic studies and is frequently used to model mesoscale microclimates.

1.2.3 Street Tree Planting for UHI

Street tree planting configuration for maximum UHI mitigation is explored

(Wang & Akbari, 2016) using comparisons on canopy street trees planted with space and

without space. The result showed the tallest trees with largest canopy provided the best UHI

mitigation when planted without space between (Figure 1.9, 1.10, 1.11).

Figure 1.8 Prospective street tree planting patterns (Wang & Akbari, 2016)

Figure 1.9 Six pattern simulations of tree size and planting space (Wang & Akbari, 2016)

Figure 1.10 ENVI-met Microclimate cross section outcomes (Wang & Akbari, 2016)

Shallow street canyons, like those found in the study area, require more canopy because

the “sun penetrates the pedestrian level (1.4 m) earlier”, 10:00 am in contrast to a deep canyon

sun penetration time of 12:00 noon (Morikinyo & Lam, 2016). Benefit of the shallow canyon,

and asymmetrical shallow canyon, is the ability of stored daytime radiation to escape more

easily than in the deep canyon of city high rises.

City contiguity broken up by a small urban park network provide meaningful UHI mitigation (Debbage & Shepherd, 2015). A recognizable example of the City of Savannah, GA and a discontiguous city design with its 22 public squares, canopied and landscaped, providing a

contrast to contiguous urban density and sprawl and relief from UHI (Figure 1.11).

Figure 1.11 City of Savannah public squares (AATR, J Byons Co.)

1.3 Goals and Objectives

The primary goal of this project is to understand and model the summer human comfort benefit of tree canopy increase in a Chicago neighborhood urban environment. The outcome incorporates climate change while modeling the UHI temperature effect of a scale broader than

40% canopy coverage increase over 30 years.

Objectives include:

25 1 Create simulation modeling of study area using ENVI-met with existing tree canopy, turf

grass, climatic, building construction, soil type, and roads and sidewalk structure data. Initial

model conveys present day conditions of minimum and maximum temperatures over a 24-

hour period beginning at 7:00 am EDT on July 17, 2019 and ending at 6:59 am EDT on July

18, 2019. Secondary models include conditions of the year 2050 with application of a 4.5

RCP (see Appendix B) and increased tree canopy coverage ≥40%.

2 Identify tree planting opportunities in the Right of Way (ROW) and residential land of study

area for greatest human comfort impact while allowing for future construction vehicle

access and powerline safety.

3 Design that will not only be constructive to human comfort but will include aesthetic

benefit, and adventure for those living and working in the neighborhood and study area.

1.4 Project Scope and Significance

The project scope is a two square block in an established neighborhood on Chicago’s

southwest side. The majority of the existing homes were built over 100 years ago. The

Englewood neighborhood and the City of Chicago will continue to experience heat waves during the summer and higher overall nighttime temperatures. In July of 2019, Chicago reported 2 heat related deaths (Midwest Climate Watch, 2019).

This research, while carried out in a Chicago neighborhood, could provide impactful data to cities like Detroit and Cleveland, two other large legacy cities confronted with soaring numbers of vacant homes and residential lots (Florida, 2018) and with increase in expected

26 intensity and frequency of summer heat waves (Berardelli, 2019), (Collins et al, 2007) related to climate change.

With more commonality, the daily summertime highs in Chicago show sharper

increases. July 2019 climate in Chicago was marked by an average high of 86.1° F, +2° F above

normal and average low temperature of 76.2 °F, + 4° F above normal (Figure 1.12). July average

temperature of 77.1 °F was +3.1° F above normal. On July 19, 2019 a record minimum

temperature of 81 °F was set (Midwest Regional Climate Center, 2019). Summer evenings in

Chicago aren’t cooling as much as the rest of the U.S. and since 1993, it’s rare the evenings are

cooler than average by -1o F. Chicago trendline is higher than U.S. with overnight lows rising

(Figure 1.13).

Normal weather is data observed over 30 years (1981-2010). NOAA will calculate normal in 2021 and will include average/normal weather from 1991-2020 (Speciale, 2015).

Figure 1.12 Chicago Summer Nights Source: Midwestern Regional Climate Center, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information

Figure 1.13 Chicago Summer Days Source: Midwestern Regional Climate Center, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information

1.5 Researchable Topic: The focus of this research, using the ENVI-met modeling software, explores if planting tree canopy on an Englewood city block and expanding it from the average

28 of 24.5% to over 40% coverage, can significantly impact the July summer average temperature and human comfort in the next 30+ years.

1.6 Overview of Chapters

Chapter 1 Introduction: This chapter explains how Englewood became the subject of the research and why it’s a good candidate for the study.

Chapter 2 Methodology: Introduces the data necessary to conduct the simulation modeling in

ENVI-met. The reasons ENVI-met was chosen and some of the software limitations.

Chapter 3 Results: Microclimate simulation models: M1 Existing, M2 ROW Street Tree, M3

Vacant Residential Diagonal, both plan view and isometric, including simulation model results

with comparison M1/M2, M1/M3, M2/M3 and an assessment of the results.

Chapter 4 Block Planting Design: New tree canopy placement along ROW.

Chapter 5 Observation and Conclusion: A discussion of my findings, ideas, and project

limitations.

29 02 Methodology

2.1 Neighborhood and Block Selection

Study area is in the Chicago neighborhood of Englewood (44.7753° N, 87.6416° W). This

2 square block, W. 61st St to the north, W. 62nd St to the south, S. May St to the west and S.

Aberdeen St to the east (including both alleys), is located within the boundaries of Englewood

and is representative of the median of blocks within Englewood in relation to single family and multi-family home density, canopy coverage, and impervious surface. The majority of the homes in Englewood were built on an east-west aspect, including study area block, with the exception of five homes on W. 61st St. and an apartment building on W. 62nd St. Based on the

Köppers-Geiger Climate Map, Chicago is classified as Hot Summer Continental climate (Dfa).

Other cities with like climates are Beijing, China, Nagano and Sapporo, Japan, Lowell MA, and

the east and west coast of South Korea. Residents in Dfa, Humid Continental Climate,

experience seasonal temperature contrasts with cold winters and hot summers.

Run ENVI-met Model for years 2019 with existing trees and other existing July 2019 data

and July 2050, at RCP 4.5, which I consider the middle ground of RCP’s (see Appendix). with

added street and landscape trees planted to reach or exceed 50% tree canopy coverage.

Compare the heat mitigation year to year, factoring in climate change. The results I expect will

be that increasing tree canopy to over 40% will mitigate the summer heat waves in Englewood,

mitigate UHI and provide a safer and more comfortable microclimate.

Image 2.1 Study area location image Figure 2.1 Study area on map of Englewood

Image 2.2 Street View S. May St. Englewood, IL

Image 2.3 Street View S. Aberdeen St. Englewood, IL

32 2.2 Process Diagram

Figure 2.2 Process Diagram

33 2.3 ENVI-met Input Data Requirements

ENVI-met Simulation Model Existing Data input includes: Latitude and Longitude 44.7753° N, 87.6416° W Date- July 17, 2019 Duration – 24 hours Horizontal Wind Speed 9 mph or 4 meters/sec Roughness Length (sourced from Manning’s Roughness Coefficient) 0.01 Air Temperature 86.1°F (July 2019 average) 91.1°F (July 2050) Relative Humidity 69%, 3:00 am EDT and 82% and 15:00 EDT 54% Soil - (IL031) Urban land-Orthents, loamy, and well-drained soil - Clay Loam (USDA, 2019).

2.4 Why ENVI-met?

ENVI-met offers holistic microclimate modeling to understand thermal performance at a

block or neighborhood level assessing all elemental and architectural factors (envi-met.com,

2020).

Europe and Asia make up about 70% of the distribution of ENVI-met studies from 1998 to

2017, with the USA share at 5.4%. Koppen climate zone ENVI-met studies most common are

Humid Subtropical (Cfa) at 25.3%, Warm Mediterranean (Csa) at 19.8%, and Marine West Coast

(Cfb) at 17.1%. Studies of the Hot Summer Continental Climate (Dfa), of which this climate study

Is undertaking, accounts for only 1.6% of overall ENVI-met studies (S. Tsoka, et al. 2018). Since

this study of Chicago in July of 2019 represents the hottest month of the year (and not overall

annual climate), the Asian and Southern European climates share like temperature and humidity

reading present. If projections for 2050 prove true, the Koppen climate for Chicago will have

migrated from Dfa to Cfa (Humid Sub-Tropical) in the next 30 years.

By 2018, almost 2000 registered users around the world have use ENVI-met. Within the

Scopus database In March of 2018 over ¾ of the total academic studies occurred from 2012 –

2017 and combined microclimate current studies with UHI comparisons. Over 90% of the studies

34 were for summer microclimate conditions, with 48 of 52 studies showing accuracy of daytime

temperature profile (Tsoka, et al, 2018).

The Tsoka study outlines four ENVI-met simulation limitations occurred 1.) Operator error

inputting inaccurate building materials, trees, grasses, and scaling the geometry. 2.) Forcing the

Relative humidity (RH) and air temperature (Tair) with local meteorological data may not

accurately convey conditions inside the model. 3.) Heat released by buses, trains, cars, and air

conditioners aren’t considered in the model and may result in a lower daytime air temperature.

4.) The cooling effect of a sea breeze or lake effect front can’t be taken into account with the model and higher air temperature outputs will result (Tsoka, et al, 2018).

Operator error can occur with any human keyed process and that weakness is global. The bus runs a block away and auto ownership for this area is at about 50%. For the most part the air conditioners are mini-splits or window units, based on the lack of heat pumps/condensers installed outside of the homes on google maps images.

Figure 2.3 Month of July 2019 MDW Wind Rose

2.4 Materials, Trees, and Plants

To determine the albedo of the building materials research of homes older than 100 years

was undertaken. Masonry homes were built of solid brick. The brick home was constructed with double-wythe brick and 1” of interior plaster (Leslie 2010). Rough wall layer thicknesses are 3 ½”

+ 3 ½” + 1”. Window materials are wood frame and single pane glass. The frame homes with brick veneer built over 120 years were built with a single brick wall, wood lathe and plaster with width

dimension: 3 ½” x 1/4” x 7/8”.

36 Homes in the two square block study area were researched via the City of Chicago

Property Appraiser website (cookcountyassessor.com) to determine square footage, age,

building materials, and for use classification (Table 2.1). Utilizing the google maps elevation tool, all houses were measured from base of house at front yard to rooftop and modeled in ENVI-met at those heights, after conversion from feet to meters.

Additionally, the canopy cover of the study area was duplicated from google maps (2020) from a base map and integrated into the model. Tree heights were measured with the like method as the houses. When trees are located away from google maps street view routes (alleys and yards) heights are estimated using nearby existing building heights. Tree shapes and crowns were identified using google maps street view and satellite view and entered into ENVI-met. Sidewalk materials are concrete 5” deep and road material is Asphalt, 66 ft wide with a 16’ wide curb less alley (Municipal Reference Guy 2014) through the center of each block.

Property Address Lot Exterior A/C Age Bldg. Stories Use Bldg. Elev. ft2 Const ft2 Meter 6123 S. May St 3125 Masonry Y 130 880 1 Single Fam 8 6131 S. May St 3125 Frame/Ins Y 47 969 1.5 Single Fam 5 6135 S. May St 3125 Frame Y 121 1882 2 Multi Fam 8 6137 S. May St 3125 Frame/Ins Y 46 1088 2 Single Fam 5 6110 S. Aberdeen St 6737 Frame Y 130 848 1 Single Fam 8 6130 S. Aberdeen St 3125 Masonry Y 136 1680 2 Multi Fam 9 6136 S. Aberdeen St 4637 Masonry Y 110 2702 2 Multi Fam 9 6138 S. Aberdeen St 4687 Masonry Y 120 2442 2 Multi Fam 10 6140 S. Aberdeen St 3125 Frame Y 120 2314 2 Multi Fam 9 6142 S. Aberdeen St 3125 Masonry Y 120 2348 2 Multi Fam 9

1107 W 61st St 3125 Masonry Y 101 2718 3 Multi Fam 12 1109 W 61st St 3125 Frame Y 125 1838 2 Multi Fam 8 1111 W 61st St 3612 Masonry Y 120 3826 2 Multi Fam 9 1139 W 61st St 1 2500 Masonry Y 125 1794 2 Multi Fam 10 1145 W. 61st St 2500 Masonry Y 120 1065 1 Multi Fam 6 6143 S. May St 3125 Masonry Y 99 3000 3 Multi Fam 12 6153 S. May St Apartments 8857 Masonry N 105 5768 2 Multi Fam 8 6126 S. May 3125 Frame Y 125 2034 2 Multi Fam 10 6130 S. May St 3125 Masonry Y 125 2706 2 Multi Fam 9 6134 S. May St 3125 Frame Y 125 1962 2 Multi Fam 9 6146 S. May St 3125 Frame Y 125 2944 2 Multi Fam 10 6148 S. May St 3125 Masonry Y 114 2943 2 Multi Fam 9

6129 S. Aberdeen St 3125 Masonry Y 105 2709 3 Multi Fam 12

6139 S. Aberdeen St 3125 Frame Y 130 1012 1 Single Fam 4 6159 S. Aberdeen St 6250 Masonry Y 100 3239 3 Religious 11

Table 2.1 Study Area Homes and Apartment Building Inventory (City of Chicago Property Appraiser)

2.5 Weather Data July 2019 and 2050

Air temperature data and relative and specific humidity were taken from Midway

Airport (MDW) in the Chicago area (41.7868° N, 87.7522° W). High and low air temperature during the month of July 2019 were converted from F° to ° C Tmin and ° C Tmax. Horizontal wind speed data was converted from miles per hour to meters per second. Future 2050 weather data

38 projected at a 4.5 RCP (a low-end scenario) showed a summer high temperature from 4.4 °F –

5.6 °F (32.5 ° C – 33.16 ° C) increase. Wind speed, roughness, and relative and specific humidity remain constant at 2019 data measurement.

Figure 2.4 ENVI-met M1: 2019 Study Area Base Block Plan Figure 2.5 Site Map Study Area

Figure 2.6 ENVI-met M1: 2019 Study Area Base Block Isometric Model

Figure 2.7 ENVI-met M2: 2050 Study Area ROW/Street Tree Block Plan Model / 45% Canopy Coverage

≥

Figure 2.8 ENVI-met M2: 2050 Study Area ROW/Street Tree Block Isometric Model 45% Canopy Coverage

≥

Figure 2.9 ENVI-met M3: 2050 Englewood Vacant Residential Diagonal Tree Plan Model 50%

≥

Figure 2.10 ENVI-met M3: 2050 Englewood Vacant Residential Diagonal Tree Isometric Model 50%

≥

41 03 Results 3.1 ENVI-met 2019 Leonardo 2D Microclimate Simulation Base Model Temperature attributed to each color vary model to model*

Figure 3.1 M1: 2019 Study Area Base Microclimate Simulation 15:00 EDT, 82.35°F – 87.71°F temperature range displayed in 10 segments*.

Figure 3.2 M1: 2019 Study Area Base Microclimate Simulation 3:00 am EDT,

42 72.88°F – 74.46°F temperature range displayed in 10 segments*. 3.2 ENVI-met 2050 Leonardo 2D Microclimate Simulation ROW Street Tree

Figure 3.3 M2: 2050 ROW Street Tree Microclimate Simulation 15:00 EDT, 84.47°F – 89.42°F temperature range displayed in 10 segments*. Daytime high 91.1°F/32.83°C, at 4.5 RCP 2050

43 Figure 3.4 M2: 2050 ROW Street Tree Microclimate Simulation 3:00 am EDT, 76.35°F – 77.92°F temperature range displayed in 10 segments*. 3.3 ENVI-met 2050 Leonardo 2D Microclimate Simulation Vacant Residential Diagonal

Figure 3.5 M3: 2050 Vacant Residential Diagonal Microclimate Simulation 15:00 EDT, 84.4°F – 89.73°F temperature ranges displayed in ten segments*. Daytime high 91.1°F/32.83°C, at 4.5 RCP 2050

Figure 3.6 M3: 2050 Vacant Residential Diagonal Microclimate Simulation 3:00 am EDT, 76.35°F – 77.97°F temperature range displayed in 10 segments*.

3.4 Comparison of Leonardo 2D 2050 Microclimate Models - M2/M3, M3/M2

Figure 3.7 2050 M2/M3 15:00 EDT Figure 3.8 2050 M3/M2 15:00 EDT Absolute difference -1.47K – 1.65K Absolute difference -1.68K – 1.47K

3.5 Assessment of Outcomes

For effectiveness of canopy tree planting mitigation, the daytime difference in

temperature is calculated. M1 Base year and existing tree population the daytime high (15:00

EDT) temperature range is M1: 82.35°F – 87.71°F/27.97°C – 30.95°C.

M2 2050 ROW Street Tree Planting daytime high (15:00 EDT) temperature range is

84.47°F – 89.42°F (29.12°C – 31.9°C). At RCP 4.5 (+5°F) daytime high 91.1°F/32.83°C.

Temperature mitigation result based on site high temperature of 89.42°F is 1.9°F.

Early morning comparison is based on temperature ranges of site. A broader range suggests

stored solar radiation emission. 2019 M1 Base 3:00 am EDT, 72.88°F – 74.46°F/22.71°C -23.59°C

(1.58°F range). M2 range 76.35°F – 77.92°F/24.64°C – 25.51°C (1.57°F). Higher overnight temperature compared to M1 base of 3°F suggest that in addition to adding canopy other mitigation efforts must be introduced.

45 M3 2050 Vacant Residential Diagonal Tree Planting (15:00 EDT), temperature range is

84.4°F – 89.73°F (29.11°C – 32.07°C). At RCP 4.5 (+5°F) daytime high is 91.1°F/32.83°C.

Temperature mitigation result based on site high temperature of 89.73°F is 1.37°F.

Early morning comparison is based on temperature ranges of site. A broader range suggests

stored solar radiation emission. 2019 M1 Base 3:00 am EDT, 72.88°F – 74.46°F/22.71°C –

23.59°C (1.58°F range). M2 range 76.35°F – 77.97°F/24.64°C – 25.54°C (1.62°F). Without consistent canopy over streets and other non-permeable surfaces and structures the

temperature range broadened, but almost imperceptibly.

Comparison of M2/M3 and M3/M2 resulted in essentially the same outcome in temperature mitigation. Canopy coverage of M2 ROW Street Tree is 45%. Canopy coverage in

M3 Vacant Residential is 70%. Feasibility to plant to 70% is not possible≥ or recommended. It took 35% more canopy coverage≥ for the same result in mitigation so clearly the M2 ROW Street

Tree model is the one I chose to use because of its efficacy and efficiency.

04 Block Canopy Planting Design

4.1 Considerations

City of Chicago residential setbacks and roadway construction truck and equipment

access are considered so that future development can be achieved with trees acting as an

enhancement instead of a barrier to the evolution of this community.

4.2 Street Tree Selection

Street tree planting trenches/sidewalk cutouts are available along the ROW on S. May and S. Aberdeen Streets and W. 61st and W. 62nd Streets.

City of Chicago recommended Street Trees:

Hybrid Elms, Ginkgo, Skyline Honeylocust, Chicagoland Hackberry, Chanticleer Pear, Kentucky

Coffeetree (City of Chicago, 2012).

Chicago Botanical Garden suggestions for street trees:

Illinois natives Shingle Oak, Northern Catalpa, Swamp White Oak, Baldcypress, Kentucky

Coffeetree, Hackberry, and native hybrids resistant to the Dutch Elm disease the Accolade Elm and Valley Forge xAmerican Elm. These trees are appropriate for smaller size planting sites including sidewalk cutouts/trenches and the ability to adapt to global warming through 2050

(Chicago Botanical Garden, 2020).

47 Cross referencing the Chicago Botanical Garden recommended street trees with the City

of Chicago Urban Tree Planting List stressing the following for street trees - native to Illinois (or hybrid native), transplantable, salt tolerant, hardiness, good availability, medium to low

maintenance, and shade canopy ≥30’ (9.14 m) wide at maturity resulted in the following street tree selections: Accolade Elm, Swamp White Oak, Kentucky coffeetree, Hackberry, Chicagoland

Hackberry, and Skyline Honeylocust (Table 4.1).

4.3 ROW Street Tree Selection

Parkway planting next to city alleys and city owned residential lots. Because of the necessity of salt tolerance, the same trees selected for street trees are selected for parkway/alley planting, with the addition of Valley Forge XAmerican Elm and Princeton

American elm.

4.4 Vacant Residential and Legacy Tree Planting

Of the trees considered Legacy by Chicago Botanical Garden, lifespan of more than 60

years; retained 50 percent or more climate suitability in models for the decade 2080. Several of

the Legacy trees recommended by Chicago Botanical Garden have tap roots that are

undesirable in urban areas. Legacy trees chosen for Residential yard and vacant lot planting

include Valley Forge xAmerican Elm, Eastern Red Cedar, Accolade Elm. Street tree species

constituting >15% of the population of trees, with further specificity that maple trees, with the

exception of Hedge Maple and Amur Maple, not represent >5% of trees in a street tree project.

Note: Hedge Maple and Amur Maple are on the Not recommended Morton Arboretum list

because of traits of invasiveness, (mortonarb.org 2020) the very traits that make them a good

48 tree for under powerlines and tolerant to salt spray. The system requires that no particular tree species constitute > 20-25% of a segment of the block. This is due to the decimation of the Elm tree population to the Dutch Elm Disease and the restriction on the planting of Ash trees because of the threat of the Emerald Ash Borer.

Table 4.1 Selected Site Street/Parkway/Alley/ Legacy Trees

Systematic Diversity based on # trees and diversity required includes group boundaries defined as lot size, existing trees, and the span between light poles (City of Chicago, 2013).

Number of Trees Required and Number of Tree Variety/Types

100+ 10.00

50-100 7.00

25-50 5.00

15-25 3.00

5-15 2.00

1-5 1.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00

Table 4.2 City of Chicago Bureau of Forestry Tree Planting Diversity Requirements

4.5 Community Level Outcomes and Benefits

During the day it’s most important to keep the temperatures from rising on the sidewalks, streets, alley, and homes. These are the non-permeable surfaces/structures that retain the most heat and then release it in the evening. Priority should then be placed on shading the non- permeable surfaces completely (roads and structures) with tree canopy and then to planting trees to provide canopy in the vacant lots. Provision of public areas of respite to the summer heat or a heat wave are integral to design considerations.

Image 4.1 Sun Direction and Sun Shadow Angle 10:00 am EDT July 17, 2019

Image 4.2 Sun Direction and Sun Shadow Angle 3:00 pm EDT July 17, 2019

4.6 Shadow calculation

Average canopy tree height 55’, Sun at +57° (15:00 EDT) TAN = 1.54

55/1.54 = 35.714’ tree shadow length.

4.7 ROW Street Tree Planting Design

Street Tree Plantings on the south and west side of the study area will provide the most important canopy coverage as it relates to shade, lower non-permeable surface temperatures, and heat retention. From roughly 11:00 am until 6:00 pm W. 61st Street and W. 62nd Street tree

canopy (east to west) and tree plantings in the west on S. Aberdeen and S. May, including the

alleys can provide the greatest protection from non-permeable surface warming (Image 4.1, 4.2).

4.8 Materials Expense

Mulch, at no charge, (when available) at City of Chicago Bureau of Forestry Department of

52 Street and Sanitation, nearest locations: 900 E 103rd St (8.6 mi./15 min. drive), 2342 S. Ashland

Ave. (5.8 mi./18 min. drive).

Parkway trees: Are available free of charge to property owners and planted by the City of

Chicago Division of Forestry upon request by calling 311 or requesting online. Tree diversity

determined by City of Chicago.

Alley trees: Alley tree planting is not allowed by the City of Chicago because of overhead power

lines that run from the alley to residential homes (Image 4.3, 4.4). It’s recommended that canopy trees be planted in the backyard of residential lots and not directly along the edge of

the alley. The canopy alley trees, in combination with a permeable, high albedo alley surface,

can help mitigate summer temperatures and the UHI. Backyard alley tree count is included in overall tree count.

Image 4.3 Alley Power lines W 62nd/S May St. N view Image 4.4 Alley Power lines W 62nd/S Aberdeen St. N view

4.9 Study Area Tree Siting

The City of Chicago will provide property owners with a street tree, free of charge, with the

agreement that the homeowner or property owner will maintain the tree for the first 5 years.

The street trees in the plan on the north/south and east/west aspect (85 total) can provide

53 relief from UHI. Since the alley trees must be planted in the backyard of the property owner

they are not considered street trees and must be purchased and planted with driveway, home, and yard access.

54 Splash Pad (see Appendix A)

Existing Trees

New Street Trees

New Residential Trees

H A t t d Ch h

Figure 4.1 Study Area Canopy Tree Site Design 05 Observations and Conclusions

5.1 Observations

This study relates to urban forestry and human comfort. Urban forestry cannot stand on

its own and is part of variety of global warming mitigation solutions. Tsonka found that the

majority of ENVI-met microclimate models run are related to “urban greening” with an increased mitigation potential combining urban greening with other solutions (Tsonka, et al,

2018). This study bears those results, as well. The City of Chicago began a program of Green

Alleys in 2001 and installed high albedo, permeable surfaces on 300 alleys through 2007 (City of

Chicago, 2020), as an additional solution to UHI.

Striking a balance between providing canopy to non-permeable surfaces and allowing

for the wind to come through the block is important. Overplanting can also reduce the release

of solar radiation and keep it trapped within the lot or block increasing the likelihood of UHI.

The connection between increased tree canopy, physical and mental health, and wealth

runs as a thread through the literature reviews and articles. By offering to plant street trees in

the ROW in front of city homes, the City of Chicago is sponsoring and important program for

the betterment of the neighborhood. With some encouragement and conscious input,

residents of Englewood can reap those long-term benefits.

5.2 Limitations

The most important limitation for running these simulation models for the study area has

to do with wind speed, duration, and direction. The horizontal wind speed is keyed into the

program at a static 230° W and 9 mph, because the majority of the breezes source from the

56 southwest. There is no variation within the program for the occasional northeast lake breeze

which would provide cooler temperatures to the study area. Temperature results may run slightly

cooler in the hours with east and northeast breezes than microclimate model outcomes.

As explained in the ENVI-met users forum online, the results from microclimate modeling from the first hour of the process into and up to 3 hours into the process aren’t considered accurate and it’s recommended that those outcomes not be used. Technically, only

21 hours of accurate data results are available when running a 24-hour duration microclimate

model. Results used for this study are for the hours of 3:00 pm EST and 3:00 am EST. With a starting time of 7:00 am EST for this 24-hour microclimate simulation model outcomes are not affected by this limitation.

When considering the results and accuracy, the model perimeter results may not be true. Results along the perimeter don’t have an adjacent reference dataset from which to work.

In future modeling, I will include a half block buffer, outside of the study area boundary, that includes input of existing surface conditions for the microclimate results to be more relevant just inside the perimeter of the study area. Losing half a block of accurate results in a 2 square block study area dramatically decreases the area to confidently assess and with which to draw conclusions.

Student paid subscription version (non-commercial) of ENVI-met software could offer more support than an on-line forum for those in the US without knowledgeable peers experienced in the design and use of ENVI-met software. While I later found the forum helpful, the basic understanding of processes emerged after days and hours of YouTube, ENVI-met produced and private ENVI-met training videos, and through a couple of exercises available

57 online by a U.S. university offering ENVI-met courses as part of their curriculum. Until ENVI-met

becomes more widely used in the U.S. they could provide students with a network by which

work arounds, hints, and some basic know-how can be easily shared and applied.

The study area site analysis was completed using Google Earth and Google Earth Pro.

The amount of information I was able to compile was impressive, but it will never be as

comprehensive as an on-site analysis. After running the ENVI-met microclimate modeling

software and deciding on the ROW Street Tree model, I made a call to the City of Chicago,

Department of Streets and Sanitation asking them about planting along the alleys, in addition

to the streets. It was made clear to me that no tree planting along the alley was allowed due to

power service lines running parallel to the alleys. This is an important piece of information that I

missed in Google Maps and would have made the outcome of the design impossible to execute.

Accelerated tree growth due to climate change can quicken canopy expanse growth and

provide enhanced shading and cooling effects. Earlier than anticipated canopy shade from the

ROW Street Tree design could provide the impermeable surfaces less opportunity to absorb

solar radiation during the day. Unknown is the amount of growth to expect and, with a goal of

climate change mitigation, current canopy growth rates are utilized in this study.

Backyard canopy trees aren’t available free of charge or with the labor with which to plant. The expense falls on the homeowner and makes it less likely for them to be planted,

giving less tree canopy coverage to the alleys. Arbor Day nurseries offer the Swamp White Oak,

Kentucky Coffeetree, and the Hackberry for $14.00 - $15.00 each. The trees are shipped in a

“sleeping” state, having been subjected to 2-3 hard frosts and hardy enough for winter

conditions (arborday.org, 2020). The homeowner and community volunteers can team up to

58 plant the trees and set a plan for future maintenance and its’ expense.

Vacant lots in the study area and the rest of Englewood are owned by the City of

Chicago, investors and landlords, contractors, and residents. Each party has a varied level of motivation to order the street trees from the City of Chicago and then maintain them for the next 5 years. For the City of Chicago, it’s another responsibility in addition to already maintaining the vacant lot. Investors and landlords might consider the potential increased property value because of the ROW Street tree but may not be in it for the long game. A contractor may not want to order a tree until after they’ve improved the property so construction trucks and building material delivery trucks have less to navigate on the lot. In order to maximize ROW Street Trees, the community and volunteers from local Chicago universities could adopt the trees for 5 years; at which time the maintenance is turned over to the City of Chicago.

5.3 Conclusion

There will be a time in the future when the vacant lots in the study area, Englewood as a whole, and throughout Chicago will see the emergence of new development. Proximity to downtown Chicago, Lake Michigan, accessible public mass transit, and a large number of vacant lots prime for development make Englewood a candidate for re-emergence as a viable community. Considerations into how the development will affect UHI and climate change depend on current and future policy, urban planning, urban design, sustainable materials, and community input.

The examination of street tree benefits to mitigate UHI, in the study area, through mesoscale microclimate modeling produced clear direction. Street canopy trees planted at a

59 >40% canopy coverage, consistently without space in-between the projected mature canopy can

provide relief from UHI and the effects of climate change projected at 4.5 RCP and into 2050.

Tree selection for longevity, canopy coverage, and with the embrace of the community provide

the best possible outcomes with climate mitigation as the primary goal and with innumerable

long-term ecosystem services benefits and aesthetic contributions.

Urban street tree maintenance, at planting, to solid establishment, and into maturity

require time, attention, organization, and a budget to accomplish all. Cities with goals to plant a

certain number of trees or expand canopy by a given percentage must budget and schedule

maintenance well into the future in order to make the expense and effort worth it by supporting

the trees to maturity.

Community is the source of success with any urban tree planting initiative. The trees live

on their block and in the resident’s community. Linking the residents to their trees at the outset,

by providing choices of tree species, education of how the tree will thrive and grow, and realistic

maintenance schedules allow for a peaceful co-existence, exponentially increasing the

achievement of future benefits. Willing stewardship enriches these processes.

Today, corporate sponsorship and stewardship of tree planting initiatives is part of the emerging desired perception as “good corporate neighbor” and marketed as such. Corporate giants like IKEA, Dannon, Unilever, P&G, and Dell partner with forestry organizations and forestry companies providing trees and labor to plant more trees. At the very least, the identity of forestry and urban forestry as symbols of progress toward climate change awareness and action have made their mark.

References

Angel, Jim. 2010. “Climate of Chicago – Description and Normals.” State Climatologist Office for Illinois. https://www.isws.illinois.edu/statecli/general/chicago-climate-narrative.htm

Arbor Day. 2020. Nursery Trees. https://shop.arborday.org/shade-trees

Berardelli, Jeff. 2019. “Heat waves and climate change: Is there a connection?” Yale Climate Connections, June 25. https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/06/heat-waves-and- climate change-is-there-a-connection/

Carmichael, C.E., McDonough, M.H. (2018). The trouble with trees? Social and political dynamics of street tree-planting efforts in Detroit, Michigan, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11, 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.009

Chicago Botanical Garden. 2020. “Trees for 2050.” Retrieved January 29, 2020, from https://www.chicagobotanic.org/plantinfo/tree_alternatives.

Chicago Botanical Garden. 2019. “Landscaping Native Plants.” Retrieved on August 12, 2019, from https://www.chicagobotanic.org/plantinfo/landscaping_native_plants

Chicago Public Library. 2014.“Technology that Changed Chicago: Alleys.” Municipal Reference Guy. June 4. https://www.chipublib.org/blogs/post/technology-that-changed-chicago-alleys/

Chicago Regional Trees Initiative. (n.d.) “Urban Tree Canopy Analysis” Retrieved on August 12, 2019, from http://chicagorti.org/interactivemap

Chicago Sun Times Editorial Board. “Chicago fails to live up to its motto – City in a Garden – with every lost tree.” Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved September 18, 2020, from https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/6/21/21297317/chicago-trees-urban-forest-environment- neighborhoods-suntimes-editorial-openlands-urbs-in-horto

City of Chicago. 2012. “Tree Planting List. “ Retrieved January 19, 2020, from https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/streets/supp_info/Forestry/Forestry%20201 3/Chicago_Urban_Tree_Planting_list_2012.pdf

City of Chicago. 2013. “Tree Diversity Guidelines.” Retrieved on August 12, 2019, from https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/streets/supp_info/Forestry/Forestry%20201 3/BOF_Tree_Diversity_Guidelines_2013.pdf

City of Chicago, 2020. “Green Alleys.” Retrieved May 10, 2020, from https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/cdot/provdrs/street/svcs/green_alleys.html

Clarke, L., J. Edmonds, H. Jacoby, H. Pitcher, J. Reilly, R. Richels, 2007. “Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations”. Sub-report 2.1A of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington, 7 DC., USA, 154 pp

Conway, T.M. (2016). Tending the urban forest: Residents’ motivations for tree planting and removal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,17, 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.008

Cosgrove, Ann., Berkelhammer, Max. 2018. “Downwind footprint of an urban heat island on air and lake temperatures.” Climate and Atmospheric Science. npj Clim Atmos Sci 1, 46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-018-0055-3

Debbage, N., Shepherd, J.M. 2016. “The urban heat island effect and city contiguity.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 54, 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.08.002

ENVI-met. 2020. “Thermal Comfort.” Retrieved August 12, 2020, from https://www.envi- met.com/cities-health/

Florida, Richard. 2018. “Vacancy: America’s Other Housing Crisis.” Bloomberg City Lab. January 27. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/07/vacancy-americas-other-housing-crisis/565901/

Graham, Drew A., Vanos, Jennifer., Kenny, Natasha., Brown, Robert. 2016. "The Relationship between Neighbourhood Tree Canopy Cover and Heat-Related Ambulance Calls during Extreme Heat Events in Toronto, Canada." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 20: 180-186. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.005.

Kaden, Derek. 2015. “Surface Temperature Differences in the Great Lakes.” The Geographic Society of Chicago. https://www.geographicsociety.org/why-is-water-warmer-on-michigans- side-of-the-lake/

Keeler, Jason., Kristovich, David. 2012. “Observations of Urban Heat Island Influence on Lake- Breeze Frontal Movement.” Journal of American Meteorological Society. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAMC-D-11-0166.1

Leslie, Thomas. 2010. "Built mostly of itself": The Chicago brick industry and the masonry skyscraper in the late 19th century. Construction History, 25, 69-84. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41613960?seq=1

Mazria, Ed. 2013. “The Global Building Sector and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report - Ed Mazria’s Analysis”. Architecture 2030. https://architecture2030.org/ipcc_analysis/

Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.-C. Zhao, 2007: Global Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

63 Change [Solomon, S.D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

Midwest Climate Watch. 2020. “Monthly Overview – July 2019.” Midwest Regional Climate Center. https://mrcc.illinois.edu/cliwatch/1907/climwatch.1907.htm

Nakano, A., Bueno, B., Norford, L.K.., Reinhart, C. Building Simulation, 2015. Urban Weather Generator – A Novel Workflow for integrating urban heat island effect within urban design process. https://urbanmicroclimate.scripts.mit.edu/files/IBPSA_2015_Nakano.pdf

National Weather Service. 2019. “July 2019 Climate Review - Chicago and Rockford Monthly Summary.” NOAA. https://www.weather.gov/lot/July2019climate

NOAA’s National Weather Service Glossary. https://forecast.weather.gov/glossary.php?letter=v

NOAA. 2017. Climate Model: Temperature Change (RCP 4.5) 2006-2100. Science on a Sphere. https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/climate-model-temperature-change-rcp-45-2006-2100/

Roman, Lara. 2014. “How Many Trees Are Enough? Tree Death and the Urban Canopy.” Scenario 04: Building the Urban Forest Spring 2014. https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2014/nrs_2014_roman_001.pdf

Roman, L. A., Walker, L. A., Martineau, C. M., Muffy, D.J., MacQueen, S. A., Harris, W. (2015). Stewardship matters: Case studies in establishment success of urban trees. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 1174-1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.11.001

Santamouris, Mat, Ban-WeissGeorge, Paul Osmond, Riccardo Paolini, Afroditi Synnefa, Constantinos Cartalis, Alberto Muscio, Michele Zinzi, MorakinyoTobi Eniolu, Edward Ng, Zheng Tan, Hideki Takebayashi, David Sailor, CrankP., Haider Taha, PiselloAnna Laura, Federico Rossi, Jiong Zhang, and Denia Kolokotsa. 2018. “Progress in Urban Greenery Mitigation Science – Assessment Methodologies Advanced Technologies and Impact on Cities”. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 24 (8), 638-71. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2018.6604.

Smithsonian Institution. 2010. "Forests are growing faster, ecologists discover; Climate change appears to be driving accelerated growth." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201171641.htm (accessed February 3, 2020).

Speciale, Christina. 2015. “What Exactly is Normal Weather?” Weather Works, Inc. https://weatherworksinc.com/news/what-exactly-is-normal-weather The Greening of Detroit. (2019, September 7). Tree Planting. Retrieved from https://www.greeningofdetroit.com/tree-planting

TreeVitalize Grants Program. (2020, March 24). 2020 TreeVitalize Grants. Retrieved from

64 https://treepennsylvania.org/treevitalize-grants-program/

Tsoka, S., Tsikaloudaki, A., & Theodosiou, T. (2018). Analyzing the ENVI-met microclimate model’s performance and assessing cool materials and urban vegetation applications–A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 43(1), 55–76. Retrieved from http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType =ip,uid&db=eoah&AN=46374496&site=pfi-live

USDA. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. Web Soil Survey Home. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

US EPA https://canopy.itreetools.org/resources/iTree_Canopy_Methodology.pdf van Vuuren, D.P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change 109, 5 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z

Vogt, Jessica M. and Fischer, Burnell C. (2014) "A Protocol for Citizen Science Monitoring of Recently-Planted Urban Trees," Cities and the Environment (CATE): Vol. 7: Iss. 2, Article 4. Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7/iss2/4

Wang, Yupeng, Akbari, Hashem. 2016. “The effects of street tree planting on Urban Heat Island mitigation in Montreal.” Sustainable Cities and Society Nov 2016, V27,122-128; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.04.013

Ziter, Carly, Pedersen, Eric., Kucharik, Christopher., Turner, Monica. 2019. “Scale-dependent interactions between tree canopy cover and impervious surfaces reduce daytime urban heat during summer.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2019, 116 (15) 7575- 7580; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1817561116

06 Appendix

65 A. Splash Pad Design

Splash pad design includes 4 covered corner hideaways, a large splash pad with giant center shower dropping water every 30 seconds, clubhouse with showers, toilets, wi-fi, and an air-conditioned lounge. It’s a contained open space where children and adults have a cool neighborhood meeting spot during the summer. Allee with red cedar trees flanking entrance and surrounded by perforated Corten steel panels and vine covered concrete supports. Oval shaped Corten steel panels rest atop the arched shaped 25’ seating at each corner.

Materials: Pavers: 8000 sf of gray pavers for Splash Pad, Est $50,000.

Concrete supports and benches: Quote

Corten Steel Perforated Panels: 7’ Height X 172’ Linear, 4 door panels 5’ linear each, Fasteners and Hinges. Est $3000.

Water: Provided by City of Chicago

B. RCP Representative Concentrated Pathway

RCP Scenario Components Source: Van Vuuren, Edmonds, Kainuma, et al, 2011

The RCP scenario shows projected future developments for land use, greenhouse gases, and air pollution. RCP’s are “consistent sets of projections of only the components of radiative forcing that are meant to serve as input for climate modeling, pattern scaling, and atmospheric chemistry modeling” (Clark, Edmonds, Jacoby, et al, 2007).

Global Temperature Projections (Mazria, 2013)

C. Measurement of Surfaces/Areas Method

67 The measurement of surfaces – tree canopy coverage, sidewalks, streets, structures were

calculated in AutoCAD by closing each area, filling each area in with basic hatch and examining properties, then subtracting the resulting area from overall site area and calculating area percentages.