• CCSI Home
• Initiatives
• Application
• Contact
• More sustainability@claremont

2008 Initiatives

• Claremont Colleges Tree Canopy:
  • Introduction
  • Findings and Recommendations
  • Final Reports
  • Web Maps
  • GIS Data
  • Resources
  • Team Members
• Solar Technologies for the Claremont Colleges
• Scripps College Food and Sustainability Community Project

2007 Initiatives

• Greening the Office Supply Stream
• Urban Ecosystem Analysis Using GIS
• 5-College Environmental Audit

Campus Trees

Findings and Recommendations

Analysis of the Claremont Colleges Tree Canopy

Conduct an UEA of the Claremont Colleges Campuses

• Results from analysis indicate that the current tree canopy coverage for the Claremont Colleges Campuses is (23.6%).  When compared to similar urban settings, this value would fall near the median and when compared to American Forests suggested (35%) coverage for this region, there is evidently much room for improvement.  These deficiencies strengthen the argument in favor of increasing the tree canopy.

Develop a GIS-based methodology to identify potential tree planting locations

• Results from analysis indicate that an ambitious tree-planting program would only increase the Tree Canopy coverage to (28.1%), not the suggested (35%).  Existing site conditions - buildings, parking areas, landscape, and hardscape - are impacting the ability to substantially increase the tree canopy.  Hence, any effort to increase the tree canopy would require broad changes in current land use polices, in particular as it relates to open grassy areas and parking lots.
• Results from analysis indicate that tree orientation, distance to building, and canopy size all impact the cooling and heating loads of buildings.  In particular, large trees, along the east and west azimuth (slightly less so for those along the south), located within a tree-to-building distance of 15 to 50 feet, have the maximum impact on energy use.  Therefore, any future tree-planting program should look to include these parameters when selecting locations for trees.
• Results from analysis indicate that the NDVI process to create a single-band dataset that can help to identify areas that may be suitable to heat island mitigation strategies such as the use of lighter-colored, reflective surfaces on new developments, the replacement of existing dark-colored surfaces with lighter reflective surfaces, and the strategic planting of trees.  Again, any future tree-planting program should look to include these parameters when selecting locations for trees.

Investigate potential tree planting types

• The two basic activities and costs associated with a tree-planting project include planting and maintenance.  Further, these activities and costs may be cyclical, varying from year to year, or they may transpire only when a particular event occurs.  This information places the one time cost for planting a tree in 2008 at about $125 while the estimated annual maintenance cost for a tree in 2008 is about $50.
• Tree characteristics must be matched with conditions at the tree-planting site to maximize the potential benefits to the community, to mitigate any conflicts with the local infrastructure, and to reduce any corresponding cost.  To that end, a list of 75 tree species suitable for planting in Inland Empire Communities has been compiled for use in the selection of appropriate tree species.
• Results from analysis indicate that a large number of campus-stakeholders would like to see more native trees, plants, shrubs, and drought resistant vegetation.  A similar number would also like to see more outdoor areas for study, relaxation, and socialization though this does not indicate a desire for large grassy fields.  It was also suggested that the campuses should be more pedestrian friendly, and that there should be less pavement and concrete.  These preferences should be considered when devising any future landscape plans and tree selections.

Analysis, recommendations, and funding a tree planting initiative

• Should the CUC move forward in adopting a sustainable land use policy, it should be aware that its goals will be dictated internally by its member colleges, and externally by the increasingly stringent City of Claremont and State of California regulations governing energy usage, water conservation, and carbon emissions.  In addition, several influential groups have set standards (City of Claremont) or have initiated guidelines (American Forests) regarding sustainable land use practices.
• The costs and benefits associated with adopting a CUC land use policy requiring the implementation and maintenance of an urban forest at (35%) canopy cover for the Claremont Colleges Campuses are many.  However, costs can be mitigated through the innovative use of funding partnerships.
• The adoption of a sustainable land use policy will require CUC members to change their land use practices in ways that will affect many stakeholders.  In the short-term the benefits include substantial cost-avoidance in fines and delayed environmental impact evaluations while in the long-term cost savings due to a healthier campus environment, will allow CUC members to compete in the more sustainable economy of the 21st century.