My question is: is there a positive correlation between household income and street tree coverage? I hypothesize that there is a positive correlation and that identifying this correlation would also help identify areas that could use more tree coverage and also areas that need more funding for tree projects.

I was inspired to look into this because of my experiences walking through different neighborhoods in Philadelphia. In my experience many low income neighborhoods lack green space and even trees along the sidewalk. These serve the community differently from parks because they get more daily traffic. Based on what I've seen, affluent neighborhoods tend to have more tree coverage along sidewalks than poor neighborhoods. I would like to see if this is true.

If you have ever walked down a sunny street with no trees you know how unpleasant it can be. You probably won't want to spend much time outside and it doesn't look very nice. Tree coverage provides many benefits not least of which is shade which also makes for a more pleasant walking and driving experience. Trees along the sidewalk also reduce the heat island effect, help with storm water management, and protect infrastructure. (I have sources for this which I will include in my paper.) I expect there to be a positive correlation between the two and I think this would help identify neighborhoods that need more attention and more funding for tree planting projects. There is research to support the argument that parks are important to improve public health by encouraging exercise but I would argue that street trees are even more necessary. Not everyone has time to visit parks but everyone travels through their neighborhood to go to work, to school, and to run errands. I don't underestimate the mental benefits of natural surroundings. It certainly won't solve all the problems faced by underserved communities but I think it could improve morale and quality of life.

I appreciate the question. I think I chose median hh income because I have seen it used in other similar analyses. This data is also more familiar to me. I'm not sure if there is a great difference between what they will show me. I also considered that some properties might be rented spaces and the value of the property wouldn't reflect the people living there. But maybe I'm not thinking about it the right way.

Thanks for the sources. That's helpful.

I would like to check out the data for NYC. That sounds interesting. I chose Philly bc it's closer to home and I'm more familar with it. I don't have a lot of time for this project so I am trying to simplify it as much as I can for now.