A Framework For Resilient Communities Built on Local Insights and Data

October 10, 2026  |  Written by Alec Sabatini and Chris Peiffer

Ask most city budget committees whether trees count as infrastructure, and you’ll get a version of “sort of.” Roads get a capital improvement line. Water systems get bond funding. Parks and urban forests usually get a maintenance budget and hope that this year’s storm season is quiet.

Green infrastructure does much of the same work as gray infrastructure. It manages stormwater, moderates heat, protects public health, and supports property values. However, green assets are rarely planned, funded, or defended the way gray assets are.

Closing this gap takes three things:

1. Data that makes the case
2. Community support that backs it up
3. A framework that turns both into funded, defensible decisions.

What counts as infrastructure

Infrastructure is the set of physical and organizational systems that allow a community to function. For example, utility networks, transportation corridors, and emergency response have long been deemed necessary to a successful society and are planned, funded, and maintained as such.

Much of our built environment was designed by removing natural systems, and then nature was added back later as the budget allowed. The urban forestry community has been building towards a shift in thinking for decades now that accurately weighs the infrastructural value of nature. Momentum is growing, but in most communities there is still a huge opportunity to better plan green and gray infrastructure together, from the start.

As urban forestry researcher James Clark observed: “sustainable urban forests are not born; they are made”. A mature canopy takes decades of protection and maintenance. Unlike gray infrastructure, treating nature as a long-term community asset allows green assets, like trees, to appreciate over time. The time and money spent on a young tree is paid back when the canopy thrives and multiples the environmental benefits created by a once small tree.

Most communities are managing their urban forest without current data

The main obstacle to advancing urban forestry goals is usually capacity, not values or public support. In an August 2026 poll of urban forestry, planning, and parks professionals, respondents were asked to rank their biggest barriers to their urban green goals:

The same poll showed a significant data gap:

That means roughly half of communities polled are managing their urban forest without current data on what they have. Without it, it is very hard to prioritize limited maintenance dollars or make a credible funding case.

Plan for the climate ahead​

Data-driven planning doesn’t stop at historical trends and current conditions. It should also plan for the conditions a community forest must survive in 30 to 60 years.

One useful tool is a climate analog, or “sister city” analysis. It projects a community’s future climate and identifies a place that has those conditions today. For Camas, Washington, the analog is Lincoln, California, near Sacramento, where winters are roughly 6.6°F warmer and 13.6% drier than current Portland-area winters. The comparison turns an abstract projection into a practical, testable question: would the species we’re planting today survive Lincoln’s winters?

The same forward-looking approach applies to storm risk. After a severe ice storm in February 2021, Wilsonville, Oregon used its tree inventory data to identify which species had the most damage. It then used those findings to shape its Winter Weather Response Plan and future planting lists. Reactive tree work means emergency removals, storm cleanup, and replacing trees that were never suited to the site. Proactive planning means building a canopy designed for the conditions ahead.

Wildfire risk adds another layer, especially where canopy goals meet defensible-space requirements such as California’s Zone Zero.

Urban forestry practitioners recommend three steps:

• Build the defensible-space perimeter into the canopy goal from the start, instead of setting a goal and running into the conflict later.
• Revise species lists to reflect local fire risk.
• Treat the wildland-urban interface as a zone that may need more active management than a typical neighborhood.

Communities already updating their development codes can fold firewise landscaping standards into that work. Species substitutions and setback rules can address canopy and fire safety at the same time.

Data builds credibility; stories build support

Good data earns credibility, but it doesn’t automatically win funding. The strongest urban forest management plans weave quantitative data with community values and concerns, as well as existing political momentum.

Lexington, Kentucky shows how to build on momentum that already exists instead of creating it from scratch. The city already ran a stormwater and water quality grant program. After completing a tree canopy assessment, Lexington began requiring applicants to document the water quality benefits of trees, which built canopy into a program people already supported. The city also turned its canopy data into letter-graded report cards for each council district. That format is instantly understood, and it gave council members a clear way to talk with constituents about where canopy needed to be improved.

Community science is doing similar work at the neighborhood level. Heat Watch, a program run by CAPA Strategies, equips volunteers with sensors to map air temperature block by block. Volunteers who feel the temperature difference between a shaded park and a treeless block often become advocates, and some have gone on to ask their city councils directly for more planting and maintenance funding.

“It has been an overwhelmingly compelling experience to see how little bits of granular data can get folks charged and activated to bring more green space into cities.” -Vivek Shandas, Professor, Portland State University

A structured framework makes trade-offs defensible

The hardest part of an urban forest plan is often weighing goals that don’t point in the same direction. A decision-making framework developed with Camas, Washington turns those trade-offs into structured questions.

Each proposed goal or strategy is evaluated against five categories:

1. Financial and resource allocation: Does the strategy open new funding pathways?
2. Asset protection and public safety: Does it reduce liability?
3. Outreach and education: Does it build long-term stewardship?
4. Natural character: Does it honor community identity?
5. Equitable access: Does it close real service gaps?

Each category also has a “status quo” column and a “roadblocks” column, so decision-makers can see what happens if they do nothing and what stands in the way.

Other communities have applied the same logic through code and mapping tools:

Ontario, Oregon: a scoring tool for grant-funded planting.

Candidate planting sites are ranked by public survey data, urban heat island severity, existing canopy, floodplain exposure, and demographic vulnerability. The result is a transparent, ranked list that documents why one site takes priority over another in each funding round.

Key takeaways

The communities making the most progress follow a consistent sequence:

• Start with data. Use green asset and vulnerability data to identify the real gaps.
• Find the story. Connect that data to community values and existing political momentum.
• Apply a framework. Run both through a documented decision-making process before setting goals or requesting a budget.

Skip the data, and the plan is guesswork. Skip the story, and even good data won’t survive a budget hearing. Skip the framework, and every trade-off becomes a new argument instead of a repeatable process. Bring them all together to give your community’s green assets the best chance of being seen as essential infrastructure.

This article draws on case studies and discussion from Nature as Infrastructure: Building Resilient Communities, a 2026 webinar presented by PlanIT Geo and GreenWorks.