top of page
Search

Who has the right to shade?

Writer: Lic. Carolina Somoza
Lic. Carolina Somoza
2 hours ago
5 min read

Collab: Carolina Somoza, B.A. in Political Science (University of Buenos Aires), holds diplomas in Environmental Law, the Rights of Migrants and Refugees, and Comprehensive Environmental Education. Teacher and serves as an advisor at the Office of the Ombudsperson (Autonomous City of Buenos Aires).


Walking along a treelined sidewalk on an extremely hot day is not the same as walking through a concrete block without a single tree. Nor is it the same to wait for the bus sheltered from the sun under the canopy of a tree. However this difference (which may seem to some merely aesthetic or a matter of "urban planning preference") conceals a structural inequality: not all neighborhoods in a given city have equal access to public trees and this unequal distribution systematically coincides with the distribution of wealth.

Argentina's low-income areas (barrios populares and informal settlements) tend to have fewer trees fewer public squares and a higher proportion of concrete and corrugated metal sheet surfaces compared to middleand upper class neighborhoods. The question posed in the title of this article, "Who has the right to shade?" is not rhetorical: it aims to frame urban trees not as decorative landscaping but as an environmental public good whose presence or absence dictates people's health thermal comfort and overall quality of life based on the neighborhood where they were born or live.


Public street trees serve functions that extend far beyond visual appeal: they regulate temperature improve air quality mitigate heavy rainfall and foster the physical and mental well being of city dwellers (Redacción UNNE, 2025). A mature tree can transpire hundreds of liters of water on a hot day cooling the surrounding air while its canopy can cool surface areas equivalent to an entire apartment (La Capital, 2022). In terms of public health tree covered green spaces also function as a "safety valve" against overcrowding in densely populated neighborhoods with precarious housing (Redacción UNNE, 2025).

When these benefits are not distributed evenly they cease to be a purely environmental issue and become a matter of environmental justice. Environmental justice stems from a simple yet uncomfortable reality: vulnerable populations are often those who contribute the least to a city's environmental problems yet they suffer their consequences most acutely while doing the most to combat them (INFOMED, 2026).

In the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires the "green gap" between neighborhoods has widened over the past decade alongside urban densification. As high rise towers are built the city loses permeable surface area capable of absorbing stormwater and mitigating heat (a loss that impacts densely built) up neighborhoods most severely (Informe Digital Metropolitano, 2026). The inequality is so stark that the interactive map published and updated by the City Government of Buenos Aires does not even map trees located within informal settlements.

The urban heat island phenomenon (higher temperatures in areas dominated by concrete and lacking vegetation compared to greener zones) recurs across other cities nationwide:

In Rosario specialists from the Environmental Observatory at the National University of Rosario highlight that the ratio of green space to built surface is uneven across neighborhoods. This disparity is further exacerbated by replacing tree lined areas with construction materials that reflect or retain heat rather than absorb it (La Capital, 2022). Furthermore a recent study on Rosario illustrates that while the waterfront and established avenues maintain more bearable summer temperatures the urban periphery (where informal settlements are paradoxically concentrated) suffers from more intense and persistent heat further compounded by "nighttime heat." The building materials used in precarious housing absorb radiation during the day and release it slowly at night preventing the ambient air from cooling down (Barrameda, 2026). The same report warns that official meteorological stations are usually located outside the most severely affected zones, causing the "real" temperatures experienced in low-income neighborhoods to be underreported in public statistics (Barrameda, 2026).
In Tucumán a recent analysis of urban forestry notes that not all neighborhoods possess equal tree cover or environmental conditions warning that losing trees is not merely losing isolated specimens but deteriorating an infrastructure that regulates temperature improves air quality and mitigates heavy rain (La Gaceta, 2026).
In smaller cities like Punta Alta and Bahía Blanca urban forestry studies using satellite imagery confirmed that temperatures beneath tree canopies are significantly lower than in unvegetated areas and that this temperature differential varies across neighborhoods within the same city (Redalyc, n.d.).

The lack of urban trees in low income neighborhoods does not occur in isolation: it compounds other conditions of environmental vulnerability. According to a report by Techo Argentina cited by CISUR the majority of the country's informal settlements are exposed to flood risk (48%) and open air dumpsites (34%) (CISUR, 2025). This means that beyond the deficit of trees and shade residents face poorly located land housing made of materials with poor thermal insulation and limited access to cooling systems. The intersection of these factors creates what specialized literature defines as climate injustice. Consequently those with the least responsibility for urban warming (because they are not the ones building high) rises paving avenues or generating large carbon footprints end up suffering its worst consequences facing higher preventable mortality rates and increased pressure on healthcare services during heatwaves (INFOMED, 2026).

Why does this inequality occur? Studies on urban environmental justice in Latin America point to several structural causes:

  • On one hand historical urban planning prioritized trees and green spaces in central areas and wealthier neighborhoods whereas the growth of low income neighborhoods often occurred informally without prior planning for public spaces or green infrastructure (Tristán Rodríguez, n.d.).

  • On the other hand real estate pressure and urban densification (gentrification) often sacrifice green spaces first in neighborhoods with less political organizing and lobbying capacity deepening an already unequal distribution (Urbanalab, 2025). Added to this is the fact that maintaining existing urban forestry (pruning, irrigation, replanting) requires sustained public investment, which tends to concentrate in areas with higher institutional or media visibility.


Treating the lack of trees in low income neighborhoods solely as a technical problem (such as calculating specimen counts or selecting species) obscures its political dimension: shade much like drinking water or healthcare access is distributed according to power dynamics and public investment priorities.

Ultimately asking who has the right to shade means asking what kind of city is being built and for whom. Urban trees are not an aesthetic luxury reserved for neighborhoods that "can afford it" but an environmental good whose unequal distribution deepens existing disparities in health, thermal comfort and quality of life. Reversing this situation requires framing urban forestry as a redistributive policy (Barrameda, 2026). Planting trees in already consolidated parks is not enough; public policy must prioritize low-income neighborhoods which simultaneously have the fewest trees and suffer the most from extreme heat.

Only then can the right to shade cease to be a privilege of select neighborhoods and become an environmental guarantee for the entire city #ForABetterWorld.


Bibliography:

Comments

Commenting on this post isn't available anymore. Contact the site owner for more info.

Thank you! :)

"Música por un mundo mejor"Miguel Lorena Group
00:00 / 04:18
  • Whatsapp
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook

"Let us not tire of doing good"

© 2021 Created by Environmental & + - Copyright - Copyright A&+ - Martina Goldsztein.

bottom of page